Sunday, October 03, 2004

A non-vociferous debate

(I was going to title this post "Hooray for split screen!" But that seemed too obvious.)

Voters on Thursday night saw an articulate, thoughtful, forceful man debate a petulant teenager. If that isn't enough for the electorate to decide upon, we're in deep doo-doo, as G. Bush Père would say.

Best Kerry line, when Bush tried to needle him about his comment on the $87 billion: "I made a mistake in how I talked about the war. President Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

Best Bush line: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us! I know that!"

Best shouting-at-the-TV moment: When Bush said "Saddam refused to disarm," I exclaimed, "What did he have to disarm?"

Best word-geek moment: When Bush said the terrorists in Iraq were fighting "vociferously." Completely the wrong word, unless he meant they shouted a lot.

Best "Did I just see that?" moment: Bush looking blankly into the camera for five long seconds. (And right after he asked for a 30-second rebuttal!) If that doesn't sound like very long, count it out for yourself while staring into a mirror.

Good stuff, Maynard.


Ken said...

Vociferous can also mean insistent as to compel attention. As much as you dislike President Bush, he used the term correctly.

I would encourage you to practice charity in your criticisms, as Sir Thomas More did with even those who wanted to kill him (and did). Both candidates are seeking to make the United States (and the world) a safer place, but seek different means in accomplishing it. It is unfair to assume immoral motives or impute unfavorable characteristics otherwise.

Thomas More said...

Sorry, Ken, but I actually don't believe the President cares all that much about making us safer. If he did, he wouldn't have gone into Iraq. He would be improving plant and container security. He would actually care what's become of Osama bin Laden. And I feel I have every right and standing to make judgements about his conduct as Leader of the Free World.