From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Kerry takes the lead...

October 2, 2004 8:09 PM

Newsweek, post-RNC poll: 41% Kerry, 52% Bush
Newsweek, post-debate poll: 49% Kerry, 46% Bush

Celebrate and see "Going Upriver" this weekend.

More from the archive in Politics.

Kerry takes the lead... (10.02.2004)

Next Entry: Friedman's back (10.03.2004)
Previous Entry: is totally out of control! (10.02.2004)

Read the 18 comments.


What did Kerry pull out of his pocket before the debate began. He wasnt supposed to bring anything at all. The rules were clear.

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."

Did Kerry bring a cheat sheet?

Judge for yourself.

Sun Oct 3 2004 1:47 PM


Can you say sore losers? They've got their very own Zapruder film now...

Sun Oct 3 2004 5:07 PM

Jim Gilliam:

rebuttal... bush did the same thing.

Sun Oct 3 2004 5:19 PM


I dont see Bush take anything out of his pocket. Its clear Kerry Cheated.

Sun Oct 3 2004 5:29 PM

raging red:

Oh please. And Bush had an earpiece in, as shown by the fact that he said "let me finish" when nobody had said anything to interrupt him. What a bunch of baloney.

(By the way, at least have the balls to give your name when you launch completely ludicrous accusations.)

Sun Oct 3 2004 6:48 PM

raging red:

And since when does anyone have to cheat to make more cogent arguments than our inept President?

Sun Oct 3 2004 6:49 PM

raging red:

And while I'm at it, how does one "cheat" in a debate anyway?

Sun Oct 3 2004 7:17 PM


Simple, he didnt follow the rules. I know you can see him take the cards out of his pocket. Its clearly on the video. You Bush accusation is conjecture, there is nothing on the video that proves that.

Why didnt Kerry follow the rules?

Sun Oct 3 2004 7:44 PM


Why did Bush invade Iraq?

Sun Oct 3 2004 8:11 PM

raging red:

Oh my god, anonymous coward, did you check to make sure the temperature was set to conform with industry standards? You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

Sun Oct 3 2004 8:17 PM

Tom from Madison:

I saw Kerry take notes on what Bush was saying. He then proceeded to nail his sorry ass to the wall--repeatedly. That's not cheating, it's justice and damned entertaining as well!!

Sun Oct 3 2004 8:44 PM


Why did Kerry Vote to invade Iraq and vote against the money that would protect the soldiers?

Mon Oct 4 2004 8:41 AM


Kerry, along with the rest of Congress, America and the world, got SNOWED by highly selective, cherry-picked Iraqi intell.
Kerry's been digging himself out of that hole for awhile, but so would have virtually any challenger to the Pres. without the name Kucinich.

But lets not buy into this ri-donk-ulous notion that Bush was himself misled. Bush and company took a GUESS figuring Iraq was a "slam-dunk". Oops. They sent Americans off to die to fulfill hardline ideology tenets with the flimsiest of intell support. This is what was meant by Kerry's "global test" comment (I shuddered after he mentioned this because it's blood in the water for the Bushies).

Incidentally, anyone who's ever studied international law (some say an oxymoron) knows this test is simply 1)imminent threat, 2)clear and present danger, and 3)proportionate, not excessive, response to threat. NSA Rice is blowing some serious political smoke with quotes like "I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means" (CNN, oct. 4). If our flippin NSA advisor doesn't understand something that is part of any undergrad Int'l Law curriculum, pray for us in whatever faith you subscribe to.

Anyway, three entire years later and there is still no intell reform, either reform of its culture or structure, to prevent further attacks. This should have been priority numero uno. Instead, Bush initially resisted any bi-partisan Congresssional review of this subject. Then, well, he endorsed it after the 9/11 victims families incredulously began raising holy hell at his opposition, and rightly so. Finally, next up was justly Afghanistan, where our full attention should still be focused to this day.

I mean, c'mon...there's just so much hard information out there for anyone to gather. Look at it objectively and dispassionately, and let reason speak for itself. The two party system sucks, and Kerry and Bush are the manifestation of how broke it is.

Hey, I'm sceptic of any concentration of power...conversely to the current Republican status quo, I would be just as weary of a Democratic monopoly on both houses in Congress, 2/3rds of state governorships, and an executive branch full of liberal idealogues.

Either way, bad news for reasoned, moderate and rational people. Giving up the Supreme Court in the next four years to Bush nominees, subject to a Republican Congress' approval, gets me plum scared. Diffusion of power is good. That goes bye-bye if Bush fools the US on November 2.

Oh...small digression. As I understand it, Kerry did not vote for it in protest riders and no-bid awards to certain companies that have, uh, minor "conflict of interest" issues with current administration, um, Vice Presidents. It was war profiteering under the auspices of it being "for the troops." Typical hobsons choice, but totally sheistery in how it manipulated sympathy for the troops to land major $$. Robber barons, corporate style baby. That was gonna happen regardless. Kerry should've voted for it. I agree the guy vacillates, but I can admire the idealism and see the reasoning in the "no" vote there.

Done. Hope that helps, junior.

Mon Oct 4 2004 7:36 PM


By the way...anybody remember the Aug. 6th, 2001 CIA Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB)? The one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?

Kinda hard to blame the "previous administrations" appeasement for 9/11 after that minor detail surfaced. Non-actionable, my foot. Maybe the intell community did its job after all. Kinda hard to blame the CIA if they just get IGNORED. Doh!

Here's a humorous link to a copy of that PDB:

Mon Oct 4 2004 7:56 PM


We were attacked many times under the Clinton Administration. In response he took out some camels and a few tents. We got attacked under the Bush administration and he took down the evil government that harbored the terrorists and set them all scattering and hiding under rocks.

Funny, there havent been any terrorist attacks against the US since then. Thats the difference between weakness and strength.

Tue Oct 5 2004 6:45 AM

Independent Jones:

I would say that the attacks of 9/11 took boatloads of logistics and was likely in the planning stages for years. This is my hope, because if they were able to pull the attacks off on a relative whim, I'd be very concerned about our defenses.

That said, I am not surprised that we have yet to have another attack on US soil. Undoubtedly things are more difficult, due to increased scrutiny. Plus the sort of planning, especially now, takes time. So, it is true that we have not been attacked at home again, but is that because of Bush specifically or because of the nature of the beast. I don't think there has been any comparable situation to draw reasonable parallels from to get an idea of how another president would have reacted.

I don't think any reasonable person, as president, would have hesitated in blazing a trail through Afghanistan. What makes me uncomfortable about the Bush administration is their lack of forthought and adequate planning. I think it's easy to argue that Iraq is far more unstable now, than before we invaded. I wish my president and his staff would think things through better. There is nothing wrong with being passionate in your convictions, but make sure the decision you make is sound and solid.

Tue Oct 5 2004 7:53 AM


"We were attacked many times under the Clinton Administration. In response he took out some camels and a few tents."

It wasn't until Bush took office that we knew that Osama was involved in the Cole bombing. What did Bush do? Absolutely nothing.

Tue Oct 5 2004 4:02 PM

Right Wing Robby:


Tue Oct 5 2004 4:29 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart