brilliant

total and complete brilliance from al gore, which i have completely plagiarized from the new york times.

September 29, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How to Debate George Bush
By AL GORE

This year, as usual, the dominance of attack advertisements on television has made it hard to get a clear picture of where the candidates stand. But the same media revolution that brought us the 30-second commercial also brought us televised presidential debates - and ever since the first of them 44 years ago, they have played a crucial role in shaping voters' opinions of the candidates.

America has long been devoted to the clash between opposing advocates as the best way to evaluate information. In this era of media clutter, it is all the more important for voters to have this moment of simple clarity when the candidates appear before them stripped of advisers, sound bites and media spin.

My advice to John Kerry is simple: be prepared for the toughest debates of your career. While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

But more important than his record as a debater is Mr. Bush's record as a president. And therein lies the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure. And the debates represent a time to hold him to account. For the voters, these debates represent an opportunity to explore four relevant questions: Is America on the right course today, or are we off track? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what happened and who is responsible? How do we get back on the right path to a safer, more secure, more prosperous America? And, finally, who is best able to lead us to that path?

A clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. The reasons are obvious. The situation in Iraq is getting worse. Osama bin Laden is alive and plotting against us. About 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. Forty-five million Americans are living without health insurance. Medicare premiums are the highest they've ever been. Environmental protections have been eviscerated.

In the coming debates, Senator Kerry has an opportunity to show voters that today American troops and American taxpayers are shouldering a huge burden with no end in sight because Mr. Bush took us to war on false premises and with no plan to win the peace. Mr. Kerry has an opportunity to demonstrate the connection between job losses and Mr. Bush's colossal tax break for the wealthy. And he can remind voters that Mr. Bush has broken his pledge to expand access to health care.

Senator Kerry can also use these debates to speak directly to voters and lay out a hopeful vision for our future. If voters walk away from the debates with a better understanding of where our country is, how we got here and where each candidate will lead us if elected, then America will be the better for it. The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show'' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver.''

The debates aren't a time for rhetorical tricks. It's a time for an honest contest of ideas. Mr. Bush's unwillingness to admit any mistakes may score him style points. But it makes hiring him for four more years too dangerous a risk. Stubbornness is not strength; and Mr. Kerry must show voters that there is a distinction between the two.

If Mr. Bush is not willing to concede that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, can he be trusted to make the decisions necessary to change the situation? If he insists on continuing to pretend it is "mission accomplished," can he accomplish the mission? And if the Bush administration has been so thoroughly wrong on absolutely everything it predicted about Iraq, with the horrible consequences that have followed, should it be trusted with another four years?

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

wow! an entry

yes, i've been a very bad blogger.  no, i haven't abandoned this site (at least, not intentionally).  things have been busy these past few weeks between work, my sister's wedding, going up to old saybrook, sushi and cupcakes with old co-workers, and a 50th birthday dinner for a good friend.  today was my day to go shopping, until tropical storm ivan decided to flood all the train lines.  on the bright side of this incredibly rainy day, i did get a chance to post pictures from my sister's wedding in the photos section — quite a feat, considering i still haven't posted the ones from her graduation or my 30th birthday bash.

still, for all of that, i have nothing of major interest to post today, so i will leave you with this trinket:

i went through an old magazine and found an ad for the latest trade paperback for new x-men.  first of all, i have to ask, why is this group merely "new," as opposed to "ultimate," "astonishing," or just plain "uncanny"?  secondly, why does marc silvestri insist on making wolverine appear to be the world's foremost mutant metrosexual? 

wolverine is supposed to be the manly, beer-drinking, cigar-smoking, tough-as-nails brawler, so, in my mind i have always pictured him to be a loose white tee, baggy cargo pants kinda guy.  in all my years of reading the x-men, i never had a thing for logan because he was so über- butch.  come to think of it, back the 90's, marc silverstri was drawing the uncanny x-men, and i clearly recall his wolverine being straighter-than-straight.

now, he's suddenly wearing a bright yellow, skin-tight sleeveless stretch and hip-hugger jeans.  am i missing something?  is this some kind of fashion statement?  has wolverine gotten a makeover from the fab five?  okay, sure, hugh jackman, who plays wolverine in the movies, just finished a year-long run as peter allen on broadway, but come on.  even if the creative geniuses at marvel are trying to make wolverine incredibly fashion-conscious, i would think that he's a bit behind the times considering the storyline for "here comes tomorrow" takes place 150 years in the future.

anachronisms aside, i think the clothing choice in conjunction with his pose is highly suspect.  his claws are unsheathed and ready for a fight, yet he stands there in cruising attire with his arms leisurely at his side and his left hip jutting out ever so slightly.  i don't remember silvestri's run on the x-books in the 90's being this suggestive, but now i'm tempted to go back and look.

(then again, i was so totally naïve back then, nothing short of an issue by tom of finland would have registered as out of the ordinary.)

mind you, i have no problem with wolverine being gay.  (duh.)  i would just ask that a). the big-wigs over at marvel make an affirmative statement to that effect and b). someone please tell jean grey.  i know she's supposed to be dead (again) but she may change her mind...

jennifer bayla

my sister got married yesterday.  omfg.

more pictures soon...