Dr. Frank's What's-it

what are you talking about, frank? you're being very partisan here. kerry's message was perfectly clear. all of the republicans are trying to play stupid, acting as if they can't comprehend a simple, basic opinion, and oping that the rest of the country says, "gee, if even these smart republicans are confused by kerry, he must not be making any sense! FOUR MORE YEARS!"

it's simple - kerry voted to give bush the authority to unilaterally invade iraq AS A LAST RESORT. his bone of contention is the it was NOT THE LAST RESORT. he clearly states that he agrees with the goals of the war, but that it wasn't handled properly.

can anyone, knowing what is happening today in iraq, say things were handled properly? that there was a sane exit strategy?

he also takes issue with the timing of the war - we hadn't completed the objective in afghanistan, but we suddenly shifted the war to iraq. it was a bonehead move.

please stop acting like kerry's message is confusing. you come off like sean hannity.

No, Christ, I think the confusion lies in what he proposes to do now, not what he imagines he might have done in the past. Besides the summit thing, I mean. My guess is, it won't differ substantially. But neither of these guys seem willing to address how to salvage the disintegrating reconstruction effort with any specificity. Bush just pretends it's not disintegrating. Kerry's coulda-shoulda-woulda refrain is indeed understandable, but it's kind of beside the point. Republican partisans who try to paint Kerry as a McGovern/Dean anti-war type don't convince me either. As near as I can figure, he's campaigning as a more internationally-palatable version of the status quo. To my way of thinking, that's just not good enough.

Sean Hannity? That's a low blow. Anyway, if I am a partisan, I'm a lousy one. See, I'm a (dissenting) Democrat.

Yeah, Sean Hannity is a bag of shit. I always took you for a republican, sorry. I think you say in a song you are a former young republican. I thought that means you are now an old one, not that you switched allegiances as well.
You may have even said "young american" now that I think about it.
Anyway, I agree with most of you say. But my question is - if that isn't good enough, what *do* you want? If you say Kerry and Bush offer basically the same thing, why are you confused by Kerry and not Bush?

My favorite part, I think, was when Kerry was asked if he thought the war was right and his response was, "It depends on who wins." I don't know whether to give him some points for being bold enough to actually say what I'm sure is on the tip of a lotta peoples tounges, or dock him some points for just saying it.

I can't believe Dr. Frank would be partisan in his weblog. *shakes head sadly*

Christ:"But my question is - if that isn't good enough, "what *do* you want? "
Unfortunately, Christ, Dr. Frank is parotting the GOP talking points, wheteher he actual is one or not.
Bush not only got us into this mness by screwing up the war planning, he also has no plan to win the war and get out; but, only Kerry should be criticized for not having a line-by-line, date-by-date plan for winning the war.
It doesn't make any kind of sense, but the Bush supporters are buying it. Sad.

that's what im saying.

what sickens me is that so many people seem to be siding against kerry just because it's "too easy" to go against bush. like there is a backlash against the backlash. people like ben weasel all but endorse george bush just because kerry isn't the answer to all of our problems.

Sorry to sicken you, Christ. I hate to say it, but I'm not sure you have read Ben's post with full comprehension. And Trig, I don't know how you got the impression that I think GWB is above criticism. My point is simply that Kerry will probably have to formulate a more effective critique if he hopes to win. Just being taller and more well-spoken isn't going to do it. I could be wrong about that, though.

i didnt say you sicken me, mr sensitive pants. i clicked over and read his post, and what struck me was that he seemed to gloss over the fact that our president is "a supposed idiot savant, a dimbulb, Bizarro King Midas" and "everything he touches turns to shit"

instead he focuses on that fact that kerry supposed doesn't "get it" as bush "gets it" - whatever the hell "it" is. He praises Bush and credits him with a victory in the debate because he "stuck to his guns". what does he get? what is so great about these "guns" he seems to stick to?

frank, please dont take my political disagreements as personal attacks or even harshly. i apologize for the sean hannity comparison. but there are much more important things and characteristics in people i place much more emphasis on than political leanings.

Bush "gets it" more because he's haphazardly opening up cans of worms in Iraq while people are still able to get explosives onto passenger planes flying over New York?How on earth does this demonstrate a concern for increased national security?

I think Kerry demonstrated that he "got it" when he pointed out that Iraq was a dangerous distraction and that we need to stay focused on immediate threats.

The explosives story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/15/explosives.onboard.ap/index.html

I think what Frank is getting at is what I've said before: Kerry is talking the talk but has no walk to back it up. It's great to say "I have a plan" or "A better plan...." That's great, so what is it Einstein???? Kerry has not yet told what his plan is, so that bring's a lack of credibility to if he even has a plan to begin with. If he holds true to the democratic model then his plan will be to throw more money at the problem (not just Iraq, but EVERY problem) and make the middle class pay for it with tax hikes.

Bush on the other hand has shown his plan and although it may not be working to everybody's satisfaction (lack of speed of resolution) we know that the plan will NOT include tax hikes. I harp on the middle class so much because it's the middle class that drives the economy. It's the middle class that works the jobs that earn the money that pays for the goods that drives the economy that creates more jobs. It's simple, but so many just don't get it. It's not Bush's fault that the economy is slow to recover, it's the underlying fear that has been implanted in the minds of Wall Street by the terrorists after 9/11 attacks and the continued raping of America by OPEC. Well....enough of my campaigning, feel free to agree or disagree.

Maybe you weren't listening: Kerry outlined his plan as much as he could in the debate. He's going to get other nations to help to secure and rebuild Iraq (as they wanted to do before Cheney pushed them away so that Halliburton could score all the contracts). Then, he's going to go after actual threats to the nation and secure Afghanistan while ensuring that loose nuclear materials in Russia don't get into the wrong hands.

Bush's plan is extremely vague. He basically said in the debate that the plan for defense is to attack everyone. Attacking actual enemies is helpful, but if they're going to be as haphazard as the attack on Iraq, it's just going to cause further security problems. So far, the manifestation of the "plan" is to take Iraq's oil resources. Of course it's not going work - as the 9/11 commission found out, there's no real link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We wasted a huge amount of resources by going there.

As for "throwing money at the problem" that's what Bush does. He's fiscally the most irresponsible president of the last quarter century. We had a surplus when he got into office, now we have largest deficit ever, and it will take at least 20 years to pay down.

Kerry isn't going to burden the middle class. He's been very clear about that. He's just going to roll back the unnecessary tax cuts for the richest 1% of the country. And frankly, the Republicans are well-known for raising taxes on the middle class, despite all their talk.

Well, Jim, you just saved me from fifteen minutes of bitching. I would have been a little crueler. Zaphod, like Ben Weasel, insists Bush "gets it" - while Kerry supposedly doesn't have a plan, Bush's brilliant strategem of "We are gonna hunt down the terrorists and bring 'em to justice" seems to satisfy his desire for a concrete solution to the problem in Iraq.

And what is funny about this whole "it's not Bush's fault the economy sucks" is that the deficit has increased everytime a republican was in the white house and has decreased with every democrat dating back to eisenhower's term. It most certainly is Bush's fault.

And these tax hikes, as you pointed out, are only going to effect people making over 200,000 dollars a year. hardly the middle class. it's bush's base that will be affected, and they've got all you duped into thinking Kerry is aftyer *you're* money.

like flavor flav says, don't believe the hype.

Kerry's plan is to spend less money in Iraq while somehow better equipping the military, and promising that other countries' troops will save the day. He plans to speed-train Iraqis while complaining that our own troops were ill-prepared to fight terrorists. He's all over the place.

No hard feelings, Christ. (And I suddenly realise I've always wanted to say that...)

What I find interesting about all this is that even at the small-time, casual level (i.e., me and random people commenting on this blog rather than official commentators employed by the parties) everybody tends to characterize the debate the way they believe it ought to have been, rather than the way it really was. If you like Kerry (or dislike Bush) you insist that Kerry's presentation was brilliant, perfect, sufficient and effective. And in the process, all of the partisans start making arguments and supplying data and scoring points that their guy didn't actually manage to bring up.

The way I look at it: even if Kerry "did better" by coming off more relaxed and in command of himself, he blew it by failing to attack Bush where it really matters. In fact, I'm not pleased by this. I wanted a more pertinent critique and discussion of the failings of the current, post-Baghdad situation, about which the president has the most explaining to do. I don't think that's what happened, and it's a shame. And it does raise more general doubts about whether Kerry really understands the situation or takes it seriously enough. I'm not thrilled about that, because there's a fifty-fifty chance that he'll end up as president, and a 100% chance that it'll be either him or his opponent. If you guys really think that Kerry will be able to handle Iraq all that much better than Bush, I congratulate you on your optimism and the sense of satisfaction you must derive from it; and I hope you're right, especially if he wins. But you'll have to forgive me for remaining just a bit dubious.

well, you know, i like to wait until i see the current episode of "real time with bill maher" before i subscribe to any specific poltical views. he's much better at thinking for me than i am.

and he brought up a good point about the debate - like you mentioned, kerry fell short. he should have been tougher, he should have gone in for the kill and made bush look really dumb, etc.

i never said kerry did a superb job, but i think he didn't have much to compete against. i mean, bush basically repeated the words "hard work" and "he said, 'wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'" over and over again. plus, kerry avoided making any really stupid comments like Bush: I met a war widow, and it was hard work trying to love her the best i could knowing i had (killed her husband). when it comes to language arts, this guy is a fingerpainter at best. it scares me that someone like that is the leader of our country. he is a buffoon. i really dont even think his stupidity is exagerated when people call him an idiot. i mean, he really really is a moron.

lastly, this election isnt all about iraq. not for me anyway. i dont agree that it all boils down to whether or not you support the war or who you think will clean up the mess better. the mistake was made, its all fucked up. you can undo what we did.

what is important is that bush is held accountable for going in there and fucking shit up without any idea how to stop the bleeding. its important that companies like halliburton stop dictating foreign policy. its important that we join the rest of the civilized world in saving the envioronment by adhering to things like the keyoto treaty. its important that our civil liberties aren't stripped away by opportunists who see the war on terror as a convenient way to cut down on the effectiveness of activist groups.

and, as sad as it is, kerry is our best bet for right now.

by the way, i once saw a copy of your first album in the children's section of a record store. i think they thought it was a Mr. T read-along record or something.

" when it comes to language arts, this guy is a fingerpainter at best. it scares me that someone like that is the leader of our country. he is a buffoon. i really dont even think his stupidity is exagerated when people call him an idiot. i mean, he really really is a moron."

Well then, Einstein, I guess the majority of America is juat as stupid or even more so, because they elected him. Yeah, he's got degrees from Harvard and Yale, so he must be a retard.

It's comments like that which proves who the "real" stupid people are. Don't buy into the SNL/Mad TV hype. The Democrats are the ones who result to the name calling and try to portray somebody in an image that they're not worthy of having. Just because somebody is not a good public speaker, doesn't mean that they're stupid. If you want to say that he's brash or headstrong or wuick to pull the trigger then that's a more fair assessment of his character. Don't dumb yourself down by making dumb generalizations. Even though I don't know you, I have to believe that you're smarter than that.

well zaphod, i appreciate the confidence you have in my intelligence. personally, i don't believe you to any smarter than you sound. and that's not very smart.

okay, so bush graduated from yale and harvard. im sure the donations his family made were considerable. and he isnt just stupid because he is a poor speaker. he is stupid because he says things like "come and get us" when asked what he says to the insurgents targeting troops. he is stupid because he makes bad decisions and has no foresight.

please, next time you have the urge to tell someone the degree to which you will tolerate an attack on the president, take a few seconds and ask yourself what the point is.

and, quite frankly, you have a silly name.

"and, quite frankly, you have a silly name."

That's the point. Read any good books lately?

yes. the mole people, finnegan's wake and travels with charley are all good choices for an adventerous young mind like yourself.

If you want a good long read and knowledge as to where my name comes from, give a try to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", it's a sci-fi comedy. Most people who've read it, enjoyed it.

i read three or four pages of that book and decided not to read it. someone was laying in front of a bulldozer or something... i don't read fangoria, either. is there any soft core erotica in that book? that stuff makes me all boners and toenails.

The problem with hour long nationally televised debates is that nobody reveals the specifics of any plans for anything. Even if they did, nobody would want to hear them. Remember Ross Perot and his pie charts? Still, aside from the afformentioned "summit thing", I doubt Kerry's plan is any different from Bush's; train Iraqi's to catch the proverbail fish. However, the fact is that Bush, if asked point blank, would support a constitutional ammendment to "protect the sanctity of marriage", and also supports protecting America from boobies via FCC crusading. For me, it just seems that there is a fundamental flaw in the way this man thinks about the role of government in affecting "American values", which leads to him making poor decisions. It's not the governement's role to protect the sanctity of anything. I supported the regime-change in Iraq from the beginning, but agreeing with the decision is not as important as agreeing with the reasoning involved when it comes to deciding who should be making future decisions. I'm not sure a man who has such an organic view of government should be making those decisions.

Frank, very good point about how bitterly partisan people become even in the most informal of settings when it comes to the current political situation. I haven't read Ben's post yet (I'm at work -- so sue me), but I'd be very interested to read a convincing argument as to why Bush won this debate. Kerry missed a lot of opportunities to clearly make the points that I believe he wanted to make, but some of it was in there. Kerry and congress may have voted to authorize war in Iraq, but it remained a war of choice. We hadn't been invaded or attacked. Thus, with congress' authorization, it was up to Bush to decide when and how to initiate war. Given that it was a war of choice, for the invasion to be so poorly thought through and badly managed is pretty indefensible. With the current instability in Iraq, it's tough to say what state this quagmire will be in when the next president is inaugurated in January, but the question of each man's judgement is vital, and Bush clearly dropped the ball, if indeed he ever had it. Secondly, Kerry mentioned the immediate seizure of the Oil Ministry in Iraq. He didn't adequately address the point on Thursday, but I've heard him speak before about energy independence. It's pretty clear from their actions how interested the Bush administration is in Iraqi oil, which goes a long way to painting the picture of an occupation rather than the liberation effort he tries to depict. While neither of these points were made as effectively as they should have been at the debate, they were touched upon. I'm not imagining the debate I wish I'd seen (actually, I am, but I'll leave you out of it). Kerry came across as the candidate with superior judgement and the one who will take steps more likely to secure the peace in Iraq. I don't know whether or not it will work, or even what state the country will be in by the time Kerry has a chance to act (if he wins), but from where I sit, Bush doesn't even "get" the findings of the 9-11 commission.

it makes perfect sense to me that bush supporters think bush won and kerry supporters think kerry won. it's not a baseball game where you have runs to count up and compare. it's very arbitrary. if you agree with bush, you heard his "points" and thought he scored. if you agree with kerry's views, you are gonna think he did a good job by clarifying them. im far more excited to see the vp debate... dick cheney is SCUUURRY!

"Well then, Einstein, I guess the majority of America is juat as stupid or even more so, because they elected him"

BINGO!

I can't believe the word "quagmire" was just used in a non-sarcastic way.

...

Well, one man's "quagmire" is another man's "everything is going much better than we here at home are told by the media." It all depends on who you ask, and where you get your information. And unfortunately, the popular practice of mixing a little from Column A with a little from Column B and calling it "the truth" does not actually yield any truth. Listening to an hour of Rush Limbaugh and then an hour of Al Franken doesn't somehow produce a single distilled hour of cold hard facts. It produces two hours of crap.

In spite of the one actual reality that we're all inhabiting together, enough people are still living in individual realities constructed of their own wishes. "How could you POSSIBLY think the situation in Iraq is anything less than 100% across-the-board AWFUL-- It's so OBVIOUS!"

And then on the other hand, there are honest, truth-seeking people out there to whom such statements are not so "obvious."

so, what does an honest, truth-speaking like yourself think is happening in iraq? do you think the associated press is lying to us when they say dozens of people die each day from car bombs, or a couple people a day are getting kidnapped and beheaded? this is all the liberal media slanting things, right? and george bush, rush limbaugh and john ashcroft have no reason to lie to you and say things are going good over there, right?

i suppose you will insist that "NONE OF THE GOOD NEWS" in iraq is being reported. we dont hear about those roads they are rebuilding (that we destroyed) or that lady in bagdhad who has learned to bake a pie. all the damn liberal media wants us to hear about are the explosions, beheadings and political upheavel. sheesh.