How Bush is going to win the Final U.S Presidential Debate

TomF

Thanks to P.J. O'Rourke, we have an idea of how the third U.S. Presidential Debate might go--that is, if Bush accepts O'Rourke's suggestions. You can read it all for yourself at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/770chlec.asp

Victor

(a) I think Gandalf may want to have words with you.

(b) Bush taking a strong partisan view, attacking his opponent and not offering anything himself alienates the middle ground.

(c) It is the middle ground that needs to be one in an election. You don't need to convince your own rabid (at whatever end of the scale) voters - you need to convince those that might vote for your opponent to vote for you.

(d) PJ O'Rourke comes across as a one-sided, biased and rabid (although passionate) and while one must hear (or even listen to) what such people say, one shouldn't necessarily follow them.

Hobbes

Either the person who wrote it is a loon, or it is written as a humour piece. Ad Hominem attacks rarely help in debates.

Some of the attacks mentioned have already been brought up in debates so far and have been dealt with. For example the trial lawyer comment.

vorbis

ok ... personally I'd support Bush but that piece is drivel. I kinda hop that it was taking the piss.

RE*AC*TOR

wow, what a load of bollóx.

Redleslie2

Bush hasn't a hope of winning the last debate unless Karl Rove drugs Kerry with a blowpipe or something during it. Anyone that wigs out and loses the head as much as Bush does in debates can't be trusted to make rational decisions under pressure as president. Not that he actually makes any of the decisions of course.

Instead of debates, I think they should have a couple of simulated crises like the ones used in star trek to test officers. It'd be better tv.

When did PJ O'Rourke stop being funny? I distinctly remember enjoying Holidays in Hell at some point.

GuanYin

Redleslie2 wrote:

Instead of debates, I think they should have a couple of simulated crises like the ones used in star trek to test officers. It'd be better tv.

I can't see bush faring to well in the Kobayashi Maru!

Sleipnir

Jaysus that article looks like it was written by a teenager.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Thanks to P.J. O'Rourke, we have an idea of how the third U.S. Presidential Debate might go--that is, if Bush accepts O'Rourke's suggestions.

I'd love Bush to do that, because I can guarantee that it would have the exact opposite effect to what you suggest. Kerry would run rings around Bush were he to engage in that type of attack, because the Republican party (and supporters) don't seem to have realised that such stupid spin doesn't really work well when the other person has a chance to reply to it. Its great stuff for winding up the troops at rallys, or for media-distribution, but when the other guy can answer on the spot, it falls flat on its face.

So while it might sell more copy for Mr. O'Rourke...and give him some ammo to criticise Bush with if (when?) Bush doesn't win the third debate ("he woulda won if he did what I said...honest guv")...it sure as sh1t won't be used. Hell, it probably isn't even intended to be used...its just a handy medium for O'Rourke to engage in more sniping with.

<edit> Some of it is genuinely funny though....like suggesting that "blowing teh place to bits" was a good strategy.</edit>

jc

Still...its refreshing to see you post something explaining how Bush is going to recover from the damage he's taken, as opposed to just insisting that he can't lose regardless....

Illkillya

That is the worst article that I have ever read.

dahamsta

vorbis wrote:

ok ... personally I'd support Bush

God love you. Why?

I've never been able to fathom why anyone would support Bush given the evidence against him. The only person I ever discussed it with directly hammered away at his points until it just wasn't worth arguing with him any more. For example, we got into Florida and he simply wouldn't accept that votes had been removed incorrectly, even though there's gallons of evidence to back it up. No no, he says, Michael Moore made all that up, and I don't need to check the facts, because I know. You're wrong and I'm right.

It was ridiculous debating with him, he was more interested in "winning" against me (as if that mattered) than, you know, the actual facts of the matter. Is this how all Bush voters decided how to support him? On principle, without the actual principles?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Kerry supporter in the true meaning of the word by any stretch of the imagination. But Kerry or Bush? It's a gimme.

adam

pickarooney

I suppose Bush is picking up a good number of the ABK (anything but Kerry) brigade as the latter repeatedly fails to demonstate what he's all about.

"The hair, look at the hair, my beautiful enormous hair!"

RE*AC*TOR

Now in fairness if they were looking for the hair vote, Bill Paxton.. err I mean John Edwards would have been running for the top spot. What a handsome man! If I were a woman I'd vote for Edwards, just imagine him on tv all the time! Shlick shlick shlick! Fap fap fap!

RichieC

Does it really matter though? I think everyone can agree that no matter how bad bush does, the spinsters will make it a victory.

SkepticOne

Bush isn't going to say "senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration "lost" 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?"

I imagine TomF is having a laugh at everyone taking this article seriously.

The Corinthian

P.J. O’Rourke is a political satirist. He has been for a long time. No one, with the possible exception of TomF, is insane enough to suggest that such satire should be taken as fact. Some people here are waaaay too easily trolled.

Given this, it’s not O’Rourke’s best material ever. The Ted Kennedy jibe was funny though.