Debate Analysis

[FloydGondolli]

In alphabetical order, here is my take on each candidate's performance in tonight's very dull debate:

CLARK - I'm not positive who won tonight's debate but it is clear that Clark lost. You lie down dogs (Michael Moore) and you wake up with fleas. Missed a golden opportunity to look decisive but failed.

DEAN - Looked like a lunatic on prozac trying to be on his best behavior. He is done, stick a fork in him.

EDWARDS - Missed an opportunity to make a move in the NH polls. Looked inexperienced and really stumbled on a few questions. Didn't seem to know the issues as well as he should at this point. No help for him from tonight.

KERRY - No help nor harm tonight. Played it cautious as the frontrunner and did nothing to hurt his chances.

KUCINICH - Clearly belonged in the audience and not on the stage. So far out of the mainstream it is almost sad.

LIEBERMAN - Did very well and got the most laughs from the audience but his consistent Iraq position has doomed him within his own party. Should see a small positve bounce from his performance.

SHARPTON - See Kucinich.

After watching this, all I know for sure now is that Kerry will win comfortably on Tuesday night. The race for 2nd, 3rd and 4th is wide open. Right now I would say it goes Dean-Clark Edwards but that could flip flop over the weekend. I could be wrong, but unless he get arrested fro child molestation over the weekend, I don't see Kerry losing.

 

[D2bets]

You watch too much Faux news spin. Yours is a Republican's take on a Democratic primary so you can pretty much turn evrything opposite of what you said and that's what happened.

IMO nothing much appened that would have any effect. The moderators did a lousy job IMO. I'd like to hear each candidates take on the same issue so voters can differentiate rather than jumping around.

I'd like to know why the Dems allowed Faux to put this on. Clark's performance was limited as 5 out of his 6 questions were non-policy questions about credentials, past statements or associations while most other candidates, except Dean, primarily got policy questions. Clark got exactly one policy question about the Patriot Act which he knocked out of the park and gave the specifics you wanted. Had a great line about how he'd bring in EX-attorney general Ashcroft to testify about how it was used. Hard to get much message out though when you're forced to respond to attack questions all night long.

As for Moore's deserter statement, it's much ado about nothing and all the fuss is Republican spin. Moore's entitled to voice his opinion and why should Clark have to repudiate it? He doesn't know whether it's true or not and doesn't much care. Period. Big whoop. Believe me, this will not bother dem voters, it's the tightass Republicans that are offended. Good.

 

[Jointpleasure]

Whouldn't the flag of the old Russia be an appropriate dropset fot these characters?

Putan and Gorbochav must feel in the mainstream watching these robots.

 

[bunyon]

I wished Sharpton, Kucinich & Lieberman would hurry and get out of the race. That way the top 4 could have at it.

 

[D2bets]

If Clark should have to repudiate a supprter's statements (which in fact have some support in fact if you back and read the reports), then John Edwards should have to repudiate Hugh Shelton's (who works for Edwards) wholly unsubstaniated and unexplained remarks about General Clark's character and integrity. Shouldn't he? Of course, Fox was never going to ask Edwards that and mention that Shelton works for him.

 

[Jointpleasure]

Lieberman is the only half sane one up there!

I'm watching it right now, my God. These guys want to destroy what we have left of capitalism. Their blantant communists. If one of these jokers where to gets elected - the civil war will begin to take root.

 

[jimbutorac]

D2, I missed it. what's the deal with Moore's statements? didn't see 'em on the few news sites i checked.

 

[D2bets]

Mud, Michael Moore has enorsed Clark. At a rally he said the race would be 'the General vs. the Deserter', in reference to the 13 months of National Guard service for which no records can be found and for which the commanding officer said he never recalled Bush serving.

The Faux spinners seem to think Clark had some duty to repudiate Moore's statement.

Here is the exchange frm the debate:

PJ: General Clark, a lot of people say they don't know you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here and one of the men who stood up to endorse you was the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him. At one point Mr. Moore, said in front of you that President Bush, he was saying he'd like to see a debate between you the General and President Bush who he called a deserter. Now that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts so I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

WC: Well I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot but to me it wasn't material, this election is going to be about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together, and I'm delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton. We've got support from ac**** the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united in wanting to change the leadership in Washington. We're going to run an election campaign that's about the future. We're going to hold the president accountable for what he did in office and failed to do, and we're going to compare who's got the best vision for America.

PJ: Let me ask you something you mentioned then because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved, you've had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your president, in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

WC: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts Peter. That's Michael Moore's opinion; he's entitled to say that, I've seen, he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts, and frankly it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

 

[jimbutorac]

Thanks, D2.

Hell, I echo what Moore says. Never seen it repudiated, only ignored. Bush deserted period. If me or any of my buddies pulled that when I was in the service we would've done time in military prison.

Sounds like Fox was up to its typical partisan bs.

 

[D2bets]

Mudbone, you're not the only veteran with those thoughts. Several veteran senators raised the issue:

WASHINGTON - Democratic military veterans in the US Senate lashed out yesterday at Governor George W. Bush of Texas for failing to explain his apparent extended absence during his tenure in the Texas Air National Guard.

"The question is, where were you, Governor Bush?" said Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and a World War II veteran. "What would you do as commander-in-chief if someone in the National Guard did the same thing?" Inouye asked during a telephone address to supporters of Vice President Al Gore in Nashville yesterday.

Inouye joined several colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, and Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, in raising harsh questions about Bush's role during the Vietnam War.

The remarks were in response to a Globe article this week showing that Bush stopped flying after 22 months within his unit of the Texas Air National Guard. Further, the article reported, Bush failed to show up for required Guard drills during a six-month stay in Alabama, and he was lax even after returning to Houston.

"At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Inouye said. Bush "made a commitment to the Texas Air National Guard, and God bless him for doing so," said Kerrey. But "if you're going to make a commitment to join the Guard, especially at that time, you've got to keep that commitment," Kerrey added.

Bush has refused to be interviewed by the Globe on the topic of his military service. His spokesman, Dan Bartlett, yesterday called the questions about the governor a "scurrilous charge" of a "desperate" Gore campaign.

 

[Jointpleasure]

Peter Jennings said it was not supported by the facts. not FOX news. Jennings is a liberal.

You buddy Clinton who did desert, didn't do time.

 

[D2bets]

Oh well, if Peter Jennings says so then it must be true. Obviously he know more than the unit commander that was supposed to report to. From a Boston Globe article...

"Finally, on Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report to Turnipseed, the unit's commander.

In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting.

''Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,'' Turnipseed said. ''I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.''

Lloyd, the retired Texas Air Guard official, said he does not know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. ''If he did, his drill attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he fulfilled the requirements in Alabama,'' he said.

Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, ''there should have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973.''

Said Lloyd, ''It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost interest, since he knew he was getting out.''

In an effort last year to solve the puzzle, Lloyd said he scoured Guard records, where he found two ''special orders'' commanding Bush to appear for active duty on nine days in May 1973. That is the same month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty.

In Bush's annual efficiency report, dated May 2, 1973, the two supervising pilots did not rate Bush for the prior year, writing, ''Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.''

 

[jimbutorac]

JP,

How in the fvck could Clinton desert if he was never in the service in the first place?

Go read the Universal Code of Military Justice before you make such a ridiculous claim. Nice diversionary tactic, but that dog don't hunt.

Bush deserted period. If he didn't don't you think he'd have all kinds of people rushing to prove it instead of failing to adress it? c'mon, man, use a little common sense.

 

[Jointpleasure]

If your going to go out on a limb and speculate let me as well please.

First of all are these records required to be kept for over 7 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years... I don;t know maybe you do. More importantly we had a president from 1992 to the year 2000 who had access to a lot of files if you recall. Things like that concern me more than the Patriot act. If Bill wanted a file from the FBI - it was delivered. If he wanted a file from Arkansas it was delivered... if he had a file on Foster or whitewater, it was destroyed. Speculation I know.

 

[Jointpleasure]

Your right Mudbone, dodged.

 

[jimbutorac]

JP,

Apologize for harsh tone. Clinton did dodge draft as did Bush, Quayle, Dean and countless others. Bush and Quayle had strings pulled to get them in National Guard, Dean had medical, and Clinton manipulated ROTC to avoid draft. They all avoided the draft.

Bush was AWOL aka deserter in accordance with UCMJ. If he could refute that, IMO he would, but he has never even attempted to. frankly, if he wasn't a deserter, it would be relatively easy to prove so why wouldn't he refute it?

so to me, michael moore was correct in his assessment.