[snarky]
If I had a dollar for each time Bush brought up “education” during the debate, I could pay for the unfunded portion of his “Leave no child behind” policy. OK, so not all of it (there’s quite a gap there), but something’s gotta be done about the rampant stupidity among the have nots in this country:
As Kos noted, according to the President, “everyone is stupid except the well-off.”
[I]f you are unemployed, it’s because you’re uneducated. If you’ve been discriminated against, you’re uneducated. You have no healthy insurance? You’re uneducated.
Interesting how A LOT OF PEOPLE GOT STUPID during Bush’s presidency, huh?
There’s an underlying assumption here that neither candidate is acknowledging. I can understand the reality of saying we’re not getting those well-paying manufacturing jobs back, but there’s an implication here that those who got educations that no longer pay here in the US somehow are dumb…they chose poorly…didn’t do their homework before getting their degrees…or something.
Bush talked about 21st century jobs, but I have no idea what those are. There’s a suggestion that they’ll pay better than the jobs being created now…but even high-tech jobs are being outsourced, so what are they?
I watched a program on PBS where some Wall Street analyst touted the “ownership society,” and he basically argued that we’re not getting working class jobs back in this country…that the future source of income for the majority of Americans will be from their own creativity AND their shrewd investments…we have the ideas here, let other people make the products we dream up, and we’ll just collect the revenues.
What does this mean? What happens to everyone else? Those of us without a trust fund to invest?
Oh, never mind…I know…we need to get educated…but even then…if there are no good entry level jobs, how does one save up to invest? Combine the servitude this promises non-trust-fund workers with the administration’s reluctance to increase the minimum wage, and well, it gets pretty damn nasty…
[/snarky]
Piggybacking off of Edward, I am still wondering how exactly the Washington Establishment arrived at the conclusion of “There must remain no factory standing on American soil.” Weirder still is how such policies were sold to the American people almost without a peep.
What’s going to kill Bush has nothing to do with policy; it’s that he lied about Osama bin Laden. Despite Kerry’s less-than-stellar responses, he doesn’t have anything quite so amenable to attack punditry.
CNN Instant Poll: “CNN’s instant poll of viewers who watched the debate gives a clear victory to Sen. John Kerry, according to respondents.
In the poll of 511 people, 52 percent said Kerry did a “better job” in Wednesday’s debate, while 39 percent said President Bush did a better job.”
This was the kind of debate in which I don’t feel confident calling a winner. In the first two, I did: there were, in both cases, things Bush did that I thought were clearly odd, and that made Kerry the winner. This time, it will be substance, not gaffes, that decides it. I thought Kerry was the clear winner, but that’s because I thought what he said was both more accurate and more persuasive, and that in turn is because I’m on his side. I thought it was clear that whenever he didn’t know what to say, he’d start talking about education (and I know of no one in education who doesn’t think No Child Left Behind is a disaster); that his efforts to paint Kerry as fiscally irresponsible were ludicrous given his record, and so on, but I have no idea whether undecided voters would feel the same. I hope so.
That said, I completely agree with Edward. I got a good education because my parents both cared enough and had the means to give me one. I was consistently the problem child in school (at 5: “Hilary may do well in spite of her independence” — actual quote from my report card), but lucky me attended schools where there were teachers who really tried, however unsuccessfully, to help, and moreover I had parents who were independently interested in books and so forth, so it all worked out eventually. But it was really no thanks to me; I could easily have fallen off the rails given just a little less support. Now, thanks to all that, I’m doing fine and have tenure and so on. But while I worked hard and all that, I would never say that it was all my doing — I was spectacularly lucky. So was Bush, but I’ve never sensed that he realizes that.
So here I am, in a position to take advantage of the ownership society, and I think: but what about all the alternate versions of me who fell off the rails at some point and have been trying to climb back on ever since without success? Or who had a catastrophic illness and did not have good doctors to catch it? (I had, and still have, a chronic illness that no one knew what to make of at first; but again, I was lucky and had access to more or less the best medical care in the world, and also parents who did not accept the initial diagnosis, which was ‘who knows what the problem is; let’s see if it happens again.’) Or who were just as desperately shy and insecure as I was as a teenager, but who got pregnant as a result, whereas I just read a lot of books because I was so unpopular that I never got the chance to completely mess my life up in that way? And so on, and so forth.
And lest anyone misunderstand me, let me make it clear: the route out of catastrophe for my various alternate selves would have been hard work. And what really bothers me about this President, aside from, oh, Abu Ghraib and all that, is that he rewards people with trust funds who already own stuff, and not people who work hard and try to improve their lives, but who don’t start out owning anything. The alternate versions of me who screw up and try to get their lives on track deserve to have their work rewarded. The alternate versions of me who live off their inherited advantages already have enough going for them; the idea that we should drive this country into debt to give them more is grotesque to me.
I do think improving our educational system will help the job picture. I just don’t think it’s a good short-term strategy.
Kinda disappointed by Kerry’s answer on SS – generally I thought he seemed a bit worn. Mostly though I agree with the liberal consensus, big surprise (and there was something odd about Bush’s tone at the end, a bit “he’s my daddy” perhaps). I’m thinking Yanks in 5 (but a let-down vs StL like last time) and Kerry by a clear margin.
I’m a Kerry supporter who thought that Bush did pretty well tonight. He was looser and in better spirits than previously. Sure, he had his factual lapses, but there were enough Kerry non-answer answers for me to call that a draw.
The main difference between this debate and the others is the sudden appearence of pre-spin. My local paper (Sacramento Bee) had several articles this morning placing the debate in the context of “Here’s the way the candidates are stretching the truth. Check it out.” Front page article was more critical Kerry than Bush, but then the OpEd ran Krugman. Perhaps the eventual result will be a triumph of fact-checking over initial impressions. Viva Blogostan?
hilzoy, our guy apparently nearly went mano-a-mano (picking up from the l_j thread) with S. Hannity.
Agree upthread with Anarch–the lie about OBL is going to be lethal to Bush. All the DNC has to do is juxtapose Bush’s denial during the debate with the footage of him saying he’s not concerned about OBL. Instant ad.
Most of my commentary wad got spent over at Tacitus, but as a general summary, I think this goes to Kerry less on substance–of which there was a considerable sum–than on the simple fact that Bush failed to win decisively. He needed to do that in order to arrest or even reverse Kerry’s momentum and his slide in the polls, and he didn’t.
Has anyone noticed that the left side of Bush’s face seems less responsive than his right, especially around the mouth? I noted it last night, and a number of bloggers have independently noted the same thing this morning.
Has his mouth always been like that? Or is this recenht?
[snarky]
If I had a dollar for each time Bush brought up “education” during the debate, I could pay for the unfunded portion of his “Leave no child behind” policy. OK, so not all of it (there’s quite a gap there), but something’s gotta be done about the rampant stupidity among the have nots in this country:
As Kos noted, according to the President, “everyone is stupid except the well-off.”
There’s an underlying assumption here that neither candidate is acknowledging. I can understand the reality of saying we’re not getting those well-paying manufacturing jobs back, but there’s an implication here that those who got educations that no longer pay here in the US somehow are dumb…they chose poorly…didn’t do their homework before getting their degrees…or something.
Bush talked about 21st century jobs, but I have no idea what those are. There’s a suggestion that they’ll pay better than the jobs being created now…but even high-tech jobs are being outsourced, so what are they?
I watched a program on PBS where some Wall Street analyst touted the “ownership society,” and he basically argued that we’re not getting working class jobs back in this country…that the future source of income for the majority of Americans will be from their own creativity AND their shrewd investments…we have the ideas here, let other people make the products we dream up, and we’ll just collect the revenues.
What does this mean? What happens to everyone else? Those of us without a trust fund to invest?
Oh, never mind…I know…we need to get educated…but even then…if there are no good entry level jobs, how does one save up to invest? Combine the servitude this promises non-trust-fund workers with the administration’s reluctance to increase the minimum wage, and well, it gets pretty damn nasty…
[/snarky]
Piggybacking off of Edward, I am still wondering how exactly the Washington Establishment arrived at the conclusion of “There must remain no factory standing on American soil.” Weirder still is how such policies were sold to the American people almost without a peep.
What’s going to kill Bush has nothing to do with policy; it’s that he lied about Osama bin Laden. Despite Kerry’s less-than-stellar responses, he doesn’t have anything quite so amenable to attack punditry.
CNN Instant Poll: “CNN’s instant poll of viewers who watched the debate gives a clear victory to Sen. John Kerry, according to respondents.
In the poll of 511 people, 52 percent said Kerry did a “better job” in Wednesday’s debate, while 39 percent said President Bush did a better job.”
This was the kind of debate in which I don’t feel confident calling a winner. In the first two, I did: there were, in both cases, things Bush did that I thought were clearly odd, and that made Kerry the winner. This time, it will be substance, not gaffes, that decides it. I thought Kerry was the clear winner, but that’s because I thought what he said was both more accurate and more persuasive, and that in turn is because I’m on his side. I thought it was clear that whenever he didn’t know what to say, he’d start talking about education (and I know of no one in education who doesn’t think No Child Left Behind is a disaster); that his efforts to paint Kerry as fiscally irresponsible were ludicrous given his record, and so on, but I have no idea whether undecided voters would feel the same. I hope so.
That said, I completely agree with Edward. I got a good education because my parents both cared enough and had the means to give me one. I was consistently the problem child in school (at 5: “Hilary may do well in spite of her independence” — actual quote from my report card), but lucky me attended schools where there were teachers who really tried, however unsuccessfully, to help, and moreover I had parents who were independently interested in books and so forth, so it all worked out eventually. But it was really no thanks to me; I could easily have fallen off the rails given just a little less support. Now, thanks to all that, I’m doing fine and have tenure and so on. But while I worked hard and all that, I would never say that it was all my doing — I was spectacularly lucky. So was Bush, but I’ve never sensed that he realizes that.
So here I am, in a position to take advantage of the ownership society, and I think: but what about all the alternate versions of me who fell off the rails at some point and have been trying to climb back on ever since without success? Or who had a catastrophic illness and did not have good doctors to catch it? (I had, and still have, a chronic illness that no one knew what to make of at first; but again, I was lucky and had access to more or less the best medical care in the world, and also parents who did not accept the initial diagnosis, which was ‘who knows what the problem is; let’s see if it happens again.’) Or who were just as desperately shy and insecure as I was as a teenager, but who got pregnant as a result, whereas I just read a lot of books because I was so unpopular that I never got the chance to completely mess my life up in that way? And so on, and so forth.
And lest anyone misunderstand me, let me make it clear: the route out of catastrophe for my various alternate selves would have been hard work. And what really bothers me about this President, aside from, oh, Abu Ghraib and all that, is that he rewards people with trust funds who already own stuff, and not people who work hard and try to improve their lives, but who don’t start out owning anything. The alternate versions of me who screw up and try to get their lives on track deserve to have their work rewarded. The alternate versions of me who live off their inherited advantages already have enough going for them; the idea that we should drive this country into debt to give them more is grotesque to me.
I do think improving our educational system will help the job picture. I just don’t think it’s a good short-term strategy.
Kinda disappointed by Kerry’s answer on SS – generally I thought he seemed a bit worn. Mostly though I agree with the liberal consensus, big surprise (and there was something odd about Bush’s tone at the end, a bit “he’s my daddy” perhaps). I’m thinking Yanks in 5 (but a let-down vs StL like last time) and Kerry by a clear margin.
I’m a Kerry supporter who thought that Bush did pretty well tonight. He was looser and in better spirits than previously. Sure, he had his factual lapses, but there were enough Kerry non-answer answers for me to call that a draw.
The main difference between this debate and the others is the sudden appearence of pre-spin. My local paper (Sacramento Bee) had several articles this morning placing the debate in the context of “Here’s the way the candidates are stretching the truth. Check it out.” Front page article was more critical Kerry than Bush, but then the OpEd ran Krugman. Perhaps the eventual result will be a triumph of fact-checking over initial impressions. Viva Blogostan?
hilzoy, our guy apparently nearly went mano-a-mano (picking up from the l_j thread) with S. Hannity.
Agree upthread with Anarch–the lie about OBL is going to be lethal to Bush. All the DNC has to do is juxtapose Bush’s denial during the debate with the footage of him saying he’s not concerned about OBL. Instant ad.
Most of my commentary wad got spent over at Tacitus, but as a general summary, I think this goes to Kerry less on substance–of which there was a considerable sum–than on the simple fact that Bush failed to win decisively. He needed to do that in order to arrest or even reverse Kerry’s momentum and his slide in the polls, and he didn’t.
Has anyone noticed that the left side of Bush’s face seems less responsive than his right, especially around the mouth? I noted it last night, and a number of bloggers have independently noted the same thing this morning.
Has his mouth always been like that? Or is this recenht?
The fourth Kerry-Bush debate (never televised)