I personally should find this very interesting. I’ve never seen an American style presidential campaign debate before.

Its common place in everyday british politics and I’m amazed at how the president is generally fed his lines and refrains from speaking of the cuff most of the time.

This is my main gripe with Bush.

Hopefully it will confirm or deny the suspicions that Bush is a bumbling idiot when asking to construct a cogent arguement with someone who looks ike he’s a natural in the debating arena.

Will Cheney be allowed to be present, i so they should make him drink a glass of water for the duration.

Posted by: symptomless at September 20, 2004 11:08 AM

How is tWirp going to get away with his Baghdad Bob imitation when he’s being pounded on all sides (including those turncoat cornholer Republican Senators from Nebraska and Indiana) for his daffy representation of the situation in Iraq?

One example…Just exactly how many Iraqi security forces have been trained? Rumsfeld-over 200,000 (2/2004) or 95,000 (9/2004)? Or “None of the 32,000 (9/2004) Iraqi police put on the beat since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has gone through a full training program, Bowab acknowledged.” (Joseph Bowab, deputy assistant secretary for foreign assistance programs and budget)

As Colon Bowel said, “You break it and it’s yours.”

As Weakling says, “It’s going just fine. Except for the unpatriotic naysayers that are really the only problem we’ve got.”

As the Bush-toady press asks, “What is Kerry’s plan for fixing the disaster in Iraq?” Huh? Between now and Jan 2005 when Kerry takes over, we could have a major disaster instead of the current quagmire fiasco. Ari lied about the damage to the White House when Bush took over. Wonder what damage Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney will leave in Iraq to get even? Does any reasonably intelligent person really think that Kerry should have a plan for all possible mindless Chickenhawk decisions/indecisions that are made?

The real question about Iraq is…What is Wimp’s plan for fixing his screw-up? Even his daddy told him this was a bad idea. Regarding Iraq, this doofus doesn’t have the opportunity to say something like, “Poppy, I cracked up (the car, the company, my classes, my marriage). What are you going to do about it?” Unlike Wimp, his father was a war hero, but he’s not pulling us out of this unmitigated failure. Don’t look now, Boy George, but all those people who were pushing you to do this are looking for the exits. They’re not running for elections; they’re running for the doors. You’re it, tough guy…no do-overs.

Chimp-In-Chief is going to be looking a little pale come debate time. But he’ll have his scripted talking points on the foreign policy one. The really good debate will be when he’ll be taking non-patsy questions from despicable, ordinary, undecided (where’s your manhood?) US citizens on 10/8. There should be some delish sound bites from that one.

Posted by: dubyus at September 20, 2004 11:27 AM

I personally should find this very interesting. I’ve never seen an American style presidential campaign debate before.
Its common place in everyday british politics and I’m amazed at how the president is generally fed his lines and refrains from speaking of the cuff most of the time.

This is my main gripe with Bush.

After watching (thanks C-span!) the grilling Blair gets every week, I do wish the U.S. system had some additional bulit-ins for a president (any president) to stand before his peers (or at the very least a capable press) and be accountable.

I think you’ll find though that Bush is fairly capable within the debate framework. Both parties work hard to make the debates as toothless as possible to minimize any potential damage to their candidates. I doubt you’ll see many curve-balls thrown at either contender.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 20, 2004 12:51 PM

Speaking of c-span here’s an interesting forum, hosted by “opendebates.org” regarding the (toothless) framework of current presidential debates.
realplayer linkage

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 20, 2004 12:59 PM

Prime Minister’s Question Time is great. It makes him earn his money.

Its also available of Radio Five Live on Wednesday at 12:00 GMT. http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/ you can usually hear the previous weeks PQT on this site too.

Some in American see weekly debates such as this as unneccesary cynicism on the behalf of the opposition, and a time consuming barrier to progress, but it really means that the process of parliament ia open to public scrutiny, ensures that those in power are worthy of that position.

Apart from that they can be bloody entertaining. There’s some great speakers in the Commons.

I can’t believe that America is in a position where the Commander in Chief is as dumb as he is. With a debating system it could never happen.

I’m not beng insulting, I’m just amazed.

Posted by: symptomless at September 20, 2004 01:14 PM

I can’t believe that America is in a position where the Commander in Chief is as dumb as he is. With a debating system it could never happen.

I think you’re mistaking stupidty for an emabarrassing inability to think on his feet. The modern president functions mostly in a mouth-piece role, taking his positions and talking points from a team of strategists and word-smiths. Perhaps Bush has other priorities and just relies on this team more than previous presidents (after all, there are NFL games to watch.) :)

When thoroughly briefed and focusing hard on a specific topic though, Bush can rise, at least minimally, to an acceptable level of mediocrity. Of course, my expectations are low.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 20, 2004 01:46 PM

I’m finding some interesting connections in the IP address that dubyus is using to post from. More later as I run some of my more interesting tools.

Posted by: Hungry Valley at September 20, 2004 01:51 PM

Question time or whatever you quaint folks from the UK call that unruly shouting match is an interesting excersize in extemporaneous speaking.

Let me stipulate right now that this is not Our president’s strong suit. He delivers a good set speech but he’s not exactly glib al a Clinton or Blair.

I’ve watched the questioning several times and it is interesting. Our system doesn’t work that way. I’m not as sanguine as the Bush haters who have posted here thus far that such an addition to the workings of our government would be a net improvement.

And S’less you may have intended no insult but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your words are an insult. Elvis is hardly less insulting but in both cases it is clear that the strong emotions engendered by hatred have clouded your rational minds.

Or am I giving you two too much credit? Huh?

Posted by: skip at September 20, 2004 01:55 PM

“With a debating system it could never happen.”

Boy, how true, symptomless. I mean, look how it was able to eliminate someone as stupid as John Major before he was made Prime Min—

Woops.

Realistically, however, Bush is a terrible orator. I think that can be agreed upon. I don’t think that translates to being stupid, as the left would like us to believe. Quite the contrary, in fact. The last six paragraphs of his speench at the RNC showed that he was able to convey simple understandable truths to the average voter. If he tried to do that normally instead of trying to have other people’s words in his mouth, he’d be a lot better off, as ep points out.

The left in this country’s (and others’) problem is that they believe their own rhetoric, which is why you are going to see the same lack of understanding when someone as “stupid” as Bush beats them in Nov, the same way that “hateful, racist” Republican that are “out of touch with America” clobbered them in the 2002 elections.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at September 20, 2004 02:01 PM

Is everyone here THIS forgetful? A major factor credited to Bush in the 200 elections was that he clobbered Al Gore in the debates. Al came off as a stiff, uninspiring book of data. The American people correctly perceived that the President is a decision-maker, not a data storage device. The people around the President are supposed to be experts and information collectors. The President needs to make decisions (choosing from good options given by his staff), stick to a plan in face of opposition, know when to delegate, rather than micro-manage.

The debates showed that Bush was better suited to be President, while Gore was better suited to a life in academia.

Posted by: Krioni at September 20, 2004 02:03 PM

Err, that would be the 2000 elections - both sides agreed at the time that Bush gained a lot of ground from the debates.

Posted by: Krioni at September 20, 2004 02:04 PM

skip, I have no problem with anything you have said, for once.

An ‘extemporaneous shouting match’ is quite the adequate oxymoron to describe the proceedings. But the strict rules and traditions that occasionally help keep order long enought for parliamentary democracy to function works well and keeps us entertained and outraged in equal measure. And as quaint as it may be (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3661578.stm - the last line of defence was a man in tights with a sword) I would prefer to be able to witness great minds debate complex issues rather than be fed the popularity contests and rumour machines maskerading as a political process that I’ve witnessed recently in the US.

I make no qualms about my hatred of GWB either.

My dislike for Bush started from well before this office. Most people here believed that someone like him becoming president was an unfortunate joke! Unfortunately no-one’s laughing now, his profiteering policies demonstrated from day one (Kyoto, etc ) that they were designed to regress America, its people and eventually the international community. No-one here can believe that ANYONE apart from the far, far right cronies that profited from his policies would support him - at least Thatcher appealled to the general PUBLIC’s greed rather than the elite few.

Its one of the reasons that I first came to TCP, to find out why, I’m still not sure, though it seems to be about alot of macho posturing, fear-mongering and insults than ANYTHING to do with politics. The Tories (under Thatcher, Major and Hague) used simliar tactics for years and it finally caught up with them, let’s hope that the same happens there.

One thing is for sure,when you dumb down the proceedings and keep the public ill-informed and distracted - FOX News there, The Sun newspaper here, if you’re not carefull you don’t get the politicians that you need, you get politicians that you deserve.

Posted by: symptomless at September 20, 2004 03:04 PM

Here’s was an interesting introduction to George Bush for many in the UK from a few years back:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?realgbush

Its by the BBC so its not along the lines of one of Michael Moore’s ‘tributes’.

Also in the series are ‘The Real Osama’, ‘Blair’ and ‘Saddam Hussein’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/listen/audioarchive.shtml

All a couple of years old but all little bit o knowledge can go a long way.

Posted by: symptomless at September 20, 2004 03:19 PM

“Its by the BBC so its not along the lines of one of Michael Moore’s ‘tributes’”

Actually yes…….yes it is, as your own military would agree, I’m sure.

Come on, I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, symptomles, but for God’s sake “designed to regress America?”

Yup, you know baby, that I’m sure George Bush and his “cronies” just sat down one day and said “What policy can we put in place and regress America and the world?” (Not to mention, of course, that the scientific paper behind Kyoto doesn’t take the Sun into account in its weather pattern predictions) Come on, you can do better, my man. Do you really want to debate policy, or do you want us just to pretend that we agree with your by any standard deranged and unrealistic portrait of our President.

“FOX News there, Sun Newspaper, …CBS NEWS with DAN RATHER there…..”

All bias should be exposed and examined, I agree, and we should not just go to sites that reinforce what we believe, but neither should we go to sites just to help confirm what our preconceptions here. I assure you, no one on the right has cornered that market, as Danny-boy demonstrates. At least no one on FOX has had to resort to using forged documents.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at September 20, 2004 03:45 PM

C’mon Skip, I don’t “hate” Bush. I don’t hate anybody. Let’s dispense with the conversation stifling witch-hunts.

I do disagree with/and hate with some (okay most) of his administration’s policies. Actually, the couple people I know who have met and spoke with him (both unabashed liberals) were impressed with his wit, accessiblity and ability to relate on a person-to-person level.

I really don’t think he’s that much a dim-bulb either, just bad when unscripted and the cameras are rolling. I know plenty of bright people like this. And if I was privy to the depths of Rove’s strategic thinking, I might just be able to confirm my suspicions that the Dumb-Bush thing is played-up to make him seem more human, everyday and likeable.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 20, 2004 04:00 PM

I don’t remember the Bush-Gore debates word for word, but I just remember how absolutely whinny Gore seemed, and how it was so unpresidential. I have a feeling I’m going to see the same “whine” factor with Kerry.

Posted by: Mona B. at September 20, 2004 05:10 PM

Ebonic,

I’ll expand my generalisations on the Bush policies, though they’re off topic, so I’ll be brief.

As far as regressive policies go, for starters - Kyoto. For the Bush Administration to be alone in denying that global warming is not a serious life threatening issue, and that a global anti-pollution treaty signed by the previous administration to cut said pollution should dropped is bad enough, coming from the nation that produces 25% off the world’s pollution is another, coming from a corporate driven jugernaut, slow turn, economy driven with the total disregard its environmental costs is another.

For that decision to be made by an administration whose cronies emerge, and profit, from a petrochemical industry is, well, another. And I don’t go in for conspiracy theories!

I’m generalising again but visit Greenpeace or even the British Government website to give you more details and facts about global warming and pollution.

BTW, the hydrogen cars that Bush raved about in the State of the Union produce that hydrogen energy through petrochemical sources, not renewable, nor sustainable sources.

As far as the Administration’s other far right, regressive policies which put the American people, economy, reputation and security at risk, well, hopefully Kerry can show some initiative to highlight those.

——

QUOTE : “Its by the BBC so its not along the lines of one of Michael Moore’s ‘tributes’”
Actually yes…….yes it is, as your own military would agree, I’m sure.

So, why is it? And why do the British military not agree? Please explain your misconception.

(P.S. You forgot to add, “I know it is. And I haven’t even listened to it.”)

Posted by: symptomless at September 20, 2004 07:05 PM

regressive policies which put the American people, economy, reputation and security at risk, well, hopefully Kerry can show some initiative to highlight those.

Ahh c’mon symptomless!

You don’t give a RAT’S A$$ about the American people, economy, reputation or security. You have demonstrated your disregard in ever word you speak.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 20, 2004 09:24 PM

I don’t know about you POOR POOR people, but my town is prosperous. Lots of construction, low unemployment, little crime, great streets, and generally happy productive people. Libs can live in their hell holes and complain all they want…they made their own shit to live in by promoting liberalism in everything from killing babies to education……the scum can go 80% lib…we’ll be 90% Bush and actually voting!! ha ha ha And as far as the Brits are concerned, there is only one good one left….we should make him an American.

Posted by: dickmr at September 20, 2004 10:01 PM

Texas, you’re quite right, I don’t give a ‘RATS A$$’ about domestic US policy, except where it has a global impact.

But why don’t you or your fellow Republicans? That’s my point.

You can all choke and eat yourselves out of existence as far as I’m concerned if that’s what you choose. But this asministration is having such a widespread negative affect on the outside world that we should be given the cating vote should it be deadheat as it were last time.

Global warming, break-down in international relations, increase in global terrorism, Guantanemo, disregard of the Geneva convention… The list can go on and on, Bush Asministration policies ARE regressive.

Posted by: symptomless at September 21, 2004 04:12 AM

Symptomless, good morning. I’ll not blast your fuckin’ head off since you don’t seem to be a troll :)

So, I’ll take a risk here with my valuable time actually responding with answers to your question, hoping you are in fact interested in actually hearing answers to your questions, instead of hurling insults of what your perception is of people’s TV viewing habits or Republicans, or Americans, or whatever. I hope you do not prove me wrong.

First of all, I found your Michael Moore comment pretty hilarious is all, considering your OWN military TURNED IT OFF on the basis of it being so biased. There are, I believe, members of the British military that come to this very site. Maybe you should ask them. In addition, as I recall, the BBCs irresponsible reporting helped contribute to an unstable man’s suicide. While your network may not have risen to the level of lunacy and complete fabrication of Michael Moore and Dan Rather, but I assure you, it is definitely “along the lines” of Michael Moore. Do you really defend the Beeb as unbiased? Really? And as for whether or not I’ve seen it, stick to what you know, rather than making assumptions. The funny thing about some of the digital cable packages is that they give you viewing from all over the world, including Britain, with, yes, the occasional news report from the BBC. More than enough to determine if, LIKE MICHAEL MOORE, important, critical need-to-know information, which might cause you to form a different opinion, is conveniently left out of the broadcast.

Secondly, since you missed it above, The KYOTO PROTOCOL, adopted in December 1997 as a follow-on to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Climate Treaty, was based on a climate model which DOES…NOT….INCLUDE…THE…SUN. Let me repeat that, since you seemed to have missed it the first time: the climate model of global warming does NOT include the sun and its effect on our environment. No solar patterns, no sunspots. Nothing. How reliable can a climate model be that doesn’t include the solar body which is the greatest weather influence on Planet Earth?

I’m not trying to be a jerk about this, symptomless, but the argument you are making is somewhat one-dimensional. Republicans don’t reject Kyoto because we are mean-spirited, greedy, or “don’t care about global impact”. We reject it because of its shoddy science and poor institution. And we certainly aren’t going to disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans based on significantly questionable scholarship.

And we aren’t alone, as Russia has recently demonstrated by withdrawing. 130 nations, including developing nations such as India, China, and Brazil, are even exempt from this treaty’s requirements.

I know its easier to minimize this argument by demonizing the opposition into a bunch of fatcats who just want to rape the environment at the expense of the world, but the reality, symptomless, is simply that the US is not about to make changes that could have significant impact on millions of its citizens and its economy based on questionable data. And it IS questionable data. It simply does not hold up to scrutiny, as I told you before. I know the “Day after Tomorrow” was a great movie and everything, but its level of science, at this moment, is still conjectural. If you would like to explain how a climate model which doesn’t include Sol can possibly be reliable with any degree of certainty; I would be interested in hearing that explanation.

This is sufficient for now. Nice talking with you.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at September 21, 2004 01:06 PM

You’ve miss understood what the Kyoto Protocol is. Its an acknowledgement that CO2 gasses are a major cause of Global Warming, not the only cause, but since they’re manmade it neither needs to deny or confirm the effect of the sun. The protocol itself is an treaty for setting targets for cuts in industrialised countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. A good thing? You decide.

Its purely about the reduction of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuel burning is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.

The US withdrew due to effects on the economy, correct, though EU countries are now extremely advanced in developing newer, cleaner, renewable and sustainable sources of energy and reducing their emissions voluntarily. The US, thanks to Bush, is now still stuck with a cumbersome economy solely reliant on fossil fuels.

That’s regressive.

- And he’s now taking extreme measures to secure those fossil fuel assets as we’ve seen.

Third World countries were initially exempt because they contribute least to climate change, but potentially suffer the most and India have actually chosen to voluntarily ratify the protocol.

Other nations understandably questioned whether they should take part when the US pulled out, why should they handicap their economies when the US won’t since the US produces 25% of the worlds greenhouse emissions.

Now, if you say that Bush administration rejects the science behind the protocol what alternative suggestion have they made to combat global warming or reduce pollution?

NONE.

That’s regressive and also irresponsible.

—-

As for the BBC, you are WAY, WAY off the mark. And the case of David Kelly was as big a government scandal as the lies that Blair told about the reasons for going to war. If there were an organisation such as the BBC in the US people would not be as mislead as they are.

-ex Blair supporter.

P.S. thanks for not “blasting my fuckin’ head off”, you truly are a gentleman!

Posted by: symptomless at September 21, 2004 09:13 PM

Symptomless, sorry it took me so long to respond. I don’t know whether you were serious about your last comment, but I was hoping you weren’t a troll. (You aren’t) I don’t mind being disagreed with, but idiot trolls who can’t concede points to get common ground deserve no mercy.

Your response, symptomless, reveals that it is you, not I, who needs to review the Kyoto Protocol. While what you are saying is correct, it IS about CO2 emissions, the climate models that they use to predict the impact of those emissions are based on models that do not include as a variable the greatest impact on weather and climate that there is. That is, the sun. That scholarly lack makes their findings likely inaccurate at best, and completely irrelevant at worst. It doesn’t matter what its measuring, and whether or not that it is manmade. Because what they are concerned about it affecting is not manmade. The point is that the means they use to quantify it is FLAWED, which will make the resultant data flawed. Simple. I’m not saying that this reducing CO2 emissions is a bad idea, but if you are going to suggest changes that will impact millions, then your data better be solid. Their’s isn’t.

And again, I think you are oversimplifying and overgeneralizing. There is not universal consensus on the data that they got. S. Fred Singer, a climatologist from the University of Virginia who used to be the direct of the national Weather Service, has disagreed with the conclusions of this group. In addition, many other climatologists from all over the world disagree with this. There was even a recent study on this from MIT in Sciencedaily. And your comments on the Bush energy policy is woefully mistaken. Hydrogen fuel cells, you are correct, are still non-renewable; and although it may not be as progressive as you like, but I would hardly classify it as regressive.

“Third World countries were initially exempt because they contribute least to climate change, but potentially suffer the most and India have actually chosen to voluntarily ratify the protocol”

Of course they chose to ratify it!! They had nothing to lose!!! Why wouldn’t they?!? Also, do you know who the current biggest world consumer of coal is? (Hint: it ain’t the US)

And you cannot blame sovereign nations for what the US does. Russia’s reason for withdrawal were for economic reasons; it had nothing to do with us.

And as for the BBC: you’re going to have to do better than just repeating that I’m wrong to win this argument. I’ve observed the bias, not only from my own observations of omitted important information in news coverage, but also the fact that your own military thought it was so biased that it was hurting troop morale that they shut if off. Whether Tony Blair is a liar was not the issue. You’re going to have to do better than simply saying that I’m “way off the mark” to inspire me with confidence in the objectability of the Beeb. Anything else to offer?

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at September 24, 2004 05:23 PM

In reagrds the Kyoto protocol in order to dismiss a worldwide agreement, understandably critised by governments and environmentalists equally, is one thing, though not to find a suitable replacement os the regresive elemnet.

I will be more than happy to put the record straight on the BBC on the weekend, no time now. I’m away for three days in Milan, maybe see some Italian TV to put things in perspective for myself.

Initially all I can say is that you may have seen BBC America or BBC Worldwide which isn’t the real BBC in that they’re a commercial wing of the BBC which doesn’t aspire to the same rigid charter of the BBC that the British public hold accountable. And anyway they have a much narrower viewer base and a much wider editorial remit, therefore less in depth coverage. We have the same thing on cable here with CNN International.

Like I said earlier, try BBC Radio 4 or Five Live on the internet (in the morning GMT) for the best of the BBC in terms of news (not convenient US time understandably).

I’ve heard other Americans slag the Beeb before without fully understanding the purpose of the organisation, though that’s understandable when you consider that there isn’t a similar organisation of equal size anywhere else in the world.

I’ll gladly put the case for the BBC on the weekend when I have more time - not even packed yet! Its an organisation that is often misunderstood outside the UK, fully appreciated inside, and is really a model for fair broadcasting anywhere.

Posted by: symptomless at September 27, 2004 06:21 PM