Ammo For Sale

« « Chain of events | Home | Fact Checking the Debate » »

300,000,000 in this country and these are the two best candidates?

50 minutes into the debate and I am done with it. Same thing, over and over.

Bush: Kerry is inconsistent.

Kerry: Bush guarded oil wells and I have a plan (one I can’t talk about, apparently).

The first thirty minutes I would call a Kerry victory, which is not good for Bush since he’s viewed as the stronger wartime candidate and this is the war debate. The last twenty minutes, both droned and repeated their talking points. The droning will be good for Kerry because as long as he refrains from saying anything stupid, I think he can win this one.

Update: Meanwhile, the Boston Globe called the debate for Kerry 7 hours before the debate actually started.

And, by the way, this is probably the most animated and charismatic I have seen Kerry.

9 Responses to “300,000,000 in this country and these are the two best candidates?”

  1. homebru Says:

    The problem seems to be that Kerry can spout more falsehoods in two minutes than can be refuted in 90 seconds.

  2. AlphaPatriot Says:

    Finally, Bush Hits his Stride
    Almost an hour into the debate and Bush if finally settling down and kicking some ass.Say Uncle disagrees….

  3. tgirsch Says:


    More falsehoods, eh? Such as? 100,000 Iraqi peacekeepers already trained, when there are actually only 53,000? Oh wait, that one was Bush. 75% of Al-Qaeda gone? Oh wait, that was Bush, too… Crap! That Kerry claimed the troops would be out in six months? Oops, that lie was Bush’s, too. From what I can tell, Kerry exaggerated a few things, whereas Bush said things that were patently false.

    But don’t listen to me. Check Fox News.

  4. Brian A. Says:

    300,000,000 in this country and these are the two best candidates?

    That’s what I was thinking early on. Fortunately, Kerry got better as the event moved on. Bush, meanwhile, seemed to get worse.

  5. tgirsch Says:


    Kerry: Bush guarded oil wells and I have a plan (one I cant talk about, apparently).

    I thought he spoke quite clearly about his plans. About as much detail as I could ever want or expect in a two minute answer. In any case, he was much more specific than Bush was.

    Kerry: [High-level details of plan for proceeding.]
    Bush: He’s a flip-flopper! He sends mixed messages! He lacks my resolve! What will I do? Uhh, let me ask Dick and Karl…


  6. mike hollihan Says:

    tgirsch: “That Kerry claimed the troops would be out in six months?”

    I saw Kerry say that on MTP with Russert a couple of months ago and remember being struck by it. “He’ll pay for that,” I thought. “That’s clear cut’n’run.”

  7. tgirsch Says:


    Then you misheard him. He never said the troops would be out in six months. He said he would be able to start bringing them home in six months. That’s a huge difference.

  8. mike hollihan Says:

    Tim, we were both wrong! But I had it more right:

    Kerry Pledged To “Significantly” Reduce Troops In Iraq Within Six Months Of Taking Office. “Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to ‘significantly’ reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration.” (Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald, “Kerry Defends Position On Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/8/04)”

  9. tgirsch Says:

    I don’t know why you insist on calling me “Tim,” because I’m “Tom.” Anyway, I’m not sure you were “more right.” I guess it depends on how you define “significant.” Is it 20%? 50%? 80%? The larger point is how Bush is tried to spin it. Bush was trying to paint Kerry’s statement as an intent to cut and run if he’s elected, and that’s simply not what Kerry advocates. Particularly if you consider how Kerry plans on pulling those troops — by replacing them with UN (or at least international) forces.

    Kerry has been very consistent on the need to internationalize the presence on the ground in Iraq, to dispel the perception that this is a US occupation, rather than just benign peacekeeping.