The sound of the debate.

[Halx]

I didn't watch the debate. I listened to it. I had it on the TV while I worked on my computer hardware earlier tonight. Without looking up for facial cues, I decided I would pay close attention to the voices of the candidates, as well as their words.

My observations: Kerry was respectful, but pissed off. After starting slowly, he began to drive home points that directly conflicted with Bush's words, creating a stark contrast between his and his opponent's campaign. If people were undecided before this, I think we saw the real platform in which Kerry can differentiate himself from Bush. W, on the other hand sounded, frankly, pathetic. I think I remarked to myself once that he was whining; as if he didn't expect Kerry to be so harsh. His tone of voice was as if to say, "Why is he being so mean? Why won't you just listen to what I'm saying?" George got his confidence up near the end of the debate, making a few strong, decisive stabs at Kerry's platform, but it's up to the voters to decide whose reasoning is more sound.

The general feel from the media analysts was that Bush got creamed. While Kerry appeared to stay fast on a few issues, hammering down his points, his opponents still maintain that he flip-flopped still during the debate.

I'll leave the rest of the analyzation for you guys, I've decided to vote for neither, so it's of no consequence to me. However, if I were to name a winner based on what I heard, it would be Kerry.

[bermuDa]

I listened to the last half hour or so in the car; I didn't see it at all except for random snippets on CNN when I got to work. Kerry sounded much more confident in his words and his message than bush.

Bush staggered and struggled every time he spoke from what I could tell. He's still just... not presidential material. Every time bush opens his mouth he convinces me further that he's just another guy who just happens to be a politician. Kerry on the other hand, actually projected himself as much more... well... presidential. Bush sounded like a rookie.

Tonight was the first time I actually considered voting for kerry for any reason other than "he's not bush"

[mr sticky]

As a firm Bush supporter, I was disappointed in his performance last night. Kerry was eloquent, stately, and stayed on issue. Bush was frustrated, tongue-tied, and defensive.
As for scoring points, I think Kerry scored as many as possible, whereas Bush allowed a few slam dunks just roll on by without so much as a notice.
One thing I was appreciative of during the debate, was that both candidates stayed out of the gutter. No mud was slung, no names were called, it was quite civil.
I just hope in the next round that "W" prepares a bit better and looks to be a little more in the "know."

[Stompy]

Bush's weakness is in his repetition and lack of details.

He just kept saying, "We fight those who hate freedom" or "A free Iraq will make the world a safer place." Ok, how? Why?

He never explained himself on anything, really. He never explained how Kerry's position wouldn't benefit us or the world.

You can also tell how baseless a lot of accusations from Bush's camp are against Kerry. Bush had MANY opportunities to elaborate on his "flip-flop" accusations (and more), but never even TOUCHED it. He did say that Kerry supported AND said Saddam was a threat (but we all knew that already), but never elaborated on HOW exactly he flip-flopped while Kerry gave details on why he voted yes and his "right/wrong" way. I mean, whether or not you agree with Kerry, he still explained and elaborated in a much better fashion than Bush, who just pretty much shot blanks.

What it boils down to is lots of talk but not enough action. They can smear each other all they want, but at showdown, they show up with no ammo and nothing to back-up their claims. To me, that shows weakness.

What's also funny is when people claim that Kerry isn't a leader... but look at how Bush responded to this debate. He's very used to blurting out scripted lines whenever he speaks in public, but when he's on his own, he's lost! People write something and he reads it... but when it comes to debates, you can't get help from your buds - it's all you.

Bush even said many times about how a leader needs to make proper judgement and decisions by himself, but this shows that Bush can't do even that. If he can't properly handle questions and responses, how are we supposed to listen to him when he says Kerry is indecisive?

And that's where he fails. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they say Kerry won't make a good leader while we all witness how GW collapses under this pressure. Now, the questions presented weren't really that hard, so there's no need for all the tongue-tied responses.

Without his buds, Bush is just as "weak" as any other possible candidate, however... seeing him decide and answer things ON HIS OWN hasn't proven much, so far.

I'm waiting for the next debates to see if he'll recover. If he can get his act together, that'll be one thing, but if he fumbles again, I think that just about sums up this leader of ours.

[Y2KDREAD]

You could also analyze the debate through how the candidates acted physically. Kerry was respectful, standing with good posture, and just keeping an even face and being respectful while W was talking. W on the other hand was hunched over taking notes, drinking his water often, and making faces when Kerry said something to piss him off. Also, towards the end W was getting quite red, knowing he was not doing well. Again, Kerry seemed more presidential and poised while W just seemed like some sort of angry old man.

I know I am too young to have lived it, but this reminds me of hearing about the debates between JFK and Nixon. Nixon was sweating bullets and looking really shady, while JFK was poised and proper looking. From what i hear this helped JFK win.

While some may not think this is a big deal, people need to realize that the majority of America could care less about what they had to say, and worry more about how they look. After all, isn't that what reality TV is all about?

[wml]

I agree with all the posts on the debate thus far -- Kerry won on substance and style. However, my local paper said that Bush won and quoted some un-named local politicos (supposedly both Democratic and Republican) saying that Kerry failed to make his position on Iraq clear and that Bush won on the strength of his accusation that Kerry's past remarks on the war dishonor our soldiers and allies and send the wrong message to the rest of the world. I do not accept this analysis and cannot believe that anyone who say or heard the debate really believes that Bush won. What makes this even stranger is that I live in a VERY liberal community. I am curious how the debate has been portrayed in your local papers.

[iccky]

Originally Posted by Y2KDREAD

I know I am too young to have lived it, but this reminds me of hearing about the debates between JFK and Nixon. Nixon was sweating bullets and looking really shady, while JFK was poised and proper looking. From what i hear this helped JFK win.

And actually, polls of people who heard the debate on the radio found that Nixion won, while polls of people who watched the debate found that Kennedy won.

[maypo]

I avoid my local paper (Asbury Park Press) so I watched Fox News to see how they would portray the total failure of Bush in this debate. Apparently, he's just a regular guy and while Kerry sequestered himself and had a manicure Bush visited hurricane victims in Florida. Welcome to the all-spin zone. Bush bombed out in the debate. The fact is Bush is clearly not qualified to be President. The hijacking of the republican party by special interests is a tragedy, instead of a contrast among equals, John McCain and Kerry for instance we get what can only qualify as farce, a President ill-equipped intellectualy for the challenges of the position who's cabinet and advisors actually set the agenda.

[pan6467]

I think it truly depended on who you liked. If you liked Bush before, you'll find reasons that Bush won. If you liked Kerry (or disliked Bush), you'll think Kerry won.

Basically, Kerry won in my eyes by being more head on, organized, prepared and knowing what to say. Bush threw some good jabs such as "how will troops follow a CinC that says wrong war at wrong time?" and I think if you believe the war is a great idea, he cemented that whole subject.

Hopefully, this is the beginning of sticking to issues and ending mudslinging. I found the way Kerry complimented Bush's wife tremendously sportsman, just as when Bush had said some nice things about Kerry's family.

The debates to me showed civility and that whether for show or perhaps, in truth, these 2 do have respect for each other.

I hope the next 2 are as civil. Partisan politics are destroying this country, last night I saw 2 men that said they could believe in different things and ways to handle issues but that they respected each other. Perhaps, ground was broken and maybe, just maybe if the next 2 debates are as civil some of the animosity between parties can end and no matter who wins, the nation will benefit.

However, I think the next 2 will progressively get meaner, (especially if one takes a big lead in the polls), more competitive and more partisan.

In the end, it's all in who you liked. Last night, I don't think either could claim a knockout blow nor should either be ashamed.

[irateplatypus]

naww... even though i'd say it was closer than what many would love to believe, kerry certainly had the edge on Bush.

the difference wasn't superiority on the issues. in fact, kerry mispoke many times. treblinka square? lol. that's just the sort of thing that if said by bush... all the liberals on TFP would come out of the woodwork to claim that bush isn't intellectually capable. since it was said by kerry, you could hear a pin drop. quite honestly, this was the first time that the democrat didn't look like a weakling (and props to him for turning the corner, seriously).

what kerry did do better than bush in was his delivery. when he mispoke (or said outright false things) he didn't even stop to pause. just coasted on through with confidence. i've always believed a debate says little about the integrity of a candidates plan and much about his ability to convince others of its value. they swapped roles for the evening. kerry set the agenda for the debate with superior rhetoric, bush had to stumble to respond to the senator. up till now it has always been the reverse.

[dy156]

As a Bush supporter, I hate watching debates. Last night, I was on the road, and listened to it on the radio. Without seeing the candidates, you really did get a chance to concentrate on the words themselves.
I haven't read the other debate thread, and did not listen to the post debate commentary, mainly because I was waiting to pull into a gas station and pee until the debate was over, and about that time I could start picking up the ESPN FM radio station. All that to say this is pretty much my virgin, unplaigarized analysis.

Kerry won, but he didn't deliver a knock out punch. A good debater would have done well against Kerry, and Bush is not a good debater.

Bush ouches:
"I've most certainly gone after Sadda..uh, I mean Osama Bin Laden.."
"transhipment of weapons" (transportation + shipment = transhipment? )

BUsh missed opportunities:
Kerry talks about the troops without armor and how their family sends them armor from the internet, and says help is on the way-- Bush should have said something very pithy about how Kerry voted against the increased funding for the troops.

Asked about Russia, he could have talked about how freedom is the first step in a difficult road toward democracy. The US defeated the British, but it was years before our Constitution was put in place. Similarly, even though Russia is free from the former communist regime, it's experiencing growing pains, and has for more than a decade, and we hope it is on the right path toward becoming a responsible nation. That's also why even though the Iraqi people are free, it is very difficult work and will take some time before it is a productive, peaceful, and well run nation and member of the international community.

asked about whether he would be more or less likely to use force in a second term because of the experience in Iraq, instead of stumbling around, he should have said something like-- I think it will be less likely, because we did what we said we would do and followed through in Iraq. A perfect example of this is Libya, which voluntarily surrendered 50,000 pounds of chemical weapons. I have no doubt that had we not been strong in Iraq, we might have had to deal with that threat in the coming years.

"he said Saddam is a great threat" come on, Kerry said alot more powerful things than that in support of the war, Bush, you just couldn't remember them in the heat of the moment, and it would have been helpful if you could!

Rather than repeat the same tired phrases over and over, Bush should have used more real examples, and I bet there were plenty available.

Kerry-"Bush is spending lots of money for firefighters in Iraq while our firefighters are having to close stations in America and shut down the COPS program"
Bush should have offered a valid criticism of the COPS program and said that


well, you get the picture, I could go on and on. Just listening to the debate, Kerry sounded very polished, but his substance was ripe for a good picking apart by Bush.
Bush just is not a great communicator, and never has been. He has a hard time verbalizing a connection of ideas. He did better when he deviated from his pre-rehearsed phrases. Did well in questioning "the Global test" and on the matter of questioning our allies. Kerry still is a much better speaker and clearly "won" the dabate, in my opinion. I bet the media has a feild day with Bush's "ouch" moments.

However, none of this changes whose ideas I think are more correct and better for the country.

[Rekna]

I think the biggest slam dunk for Kerry is when Bush said "The enemy attacked us" trying to link 9/11 and Saddam. Kerry came back hard with Saddam Hussian did not attack us.

[dy156]

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think the biggest slam dunk for Kerry is when Bush said "The enemy attacked us" trying to link 9/11 and Saddam. Kerry came back hard with Saddam Hussian did not attack us.

Okay, this was another one where I wish I could have been a Bush campaign advisor, just didn't include it in the post above, because I got tired of it, and the post was getting too long.

Quick, pithy, gotcha response should have been:

"And Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor, either."

After 9/11, we are a nation at war, and to protect our homeland, we must view and treat threats in a different manner. then repeat line about how important Irag is to the region and the war on terror.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by dy156

Quick, pithy, gotcha response should have been:

"And Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor, either.

Nah. If he had said that, he would have been slammed for it because it's such a poor analogy as to be borderline intentionally ignorant.

Japan + Germany were allies. Saddam and Al Qaeda were not.
Germany declared war on the U.S. And although Iraq was no ally, they assuredly did not make any significant and aggressive movements towards the U.S. in the previous decade.

[bermuDa]

only thing I'm curious about is that both candidates kept saying that Saddam was a threat to us... how exactly? other than hating us, what has saddam done in the past decade to threaten us, and has either candidate given an example of anything he's done? He was a threat to his OWN PEOPLE more than anyone else. deposing him was good for iraq, but using this preemptive defensive action bullshit is just sad. Too bad Kerry already chose the same horse as Bush for his position on Saddam, he'd have a chance to strengthen his platform that deposing saddam wasn't the wrong thing to do, but that Bush went about it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

[Stompy]

Bush just is not a great communicator, and never has been. He has a hard time verbalizing a connection of ideas. He did better when he deviated from his pre-rehearsed phrases

It's statements like this that make me question how people think the way they do (not a personal slam against you, just people in general).

He's the leader of our country. If he's unable to communicate and convey ideas ON THE SPOT in something as SIMPLE as a debate (simple compared to the plethora of other public events they attend and take part in) and gets incredibly flustered trying to explain things that HE (or I guess his adminstration) came up with and decided on, then how is HE fit to lead us?

How could one POSSIBLY think that someone like that is fit to lead?

I mean, let's face it, the man himself cannot stand on his own. He NEEDS his adminstration to decide and guide things along for him (and it's not just him, other pres do it to, just him more than others).

Those are not qualities of a leader, IMO, and I don't understand how people just say and think it's ok. It's pretty scary when someone like THAT leads us!

[Orpheus]

GWB's performance was not poor by mere political standards or in terms of this election; it was just poor television. It was painful television, it should have been edited and left to collect dust on the cutting room floor. Instead, it was aired and will now become a defining moment, not only in terms of this election, but how his legacy will be remembered from this point forward- as a bumbling and inarticulate failure, unable to comprehend or transcend his own message. It was that bad.

[Y2KDREAD]

Originally Posted by iccky

And actually, polls of people who heard the debate on the radio found that Nixion won, while polls of people who watched the debate found that Kennedy won.

Damn kids like me screwing things up! Lucky i am not a poly sci major!

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Stompy

He's the leader of our country. If he's unable to communicate and convey ideas ON THE SPOT in something as SIMPLE as a debate (simple compared to the plethora of other public events they attend and take part in) and gets incredibly flustered trying to explain things that HE (or I guess his adminstration) came up with and decided on, then how is HE fit to lead us?

How could one POSSIBLY think that someone like that is fit to lead?

Simple. Action is more important than words. And although he's subpar at words, he's good enough to fulfill his job requirements. Which do not include correct pronounciation of foreign leaders and countries on demand (as preferable as that is).

I plan on voting for Bush because I consider him superior to Kerry in terms of action (based on how Kerry acts and how he would likely act as president), and because I consider that superiority more important than Kerry's superiority over Bush in terms of verbal skills. Of course, this is a broad, non-specific way of describing my reasons for voting Bush.

[cthulu23]

If we have another "why I'm voting for x" thread, I think that I'll commit ritual suicide.

[Stompy]

That's exactly my point though... he's not even qualified to make those actions if he can't even explain why he made them.

You're good at your job, right? So if you make a choice that people will question later on, could you explain why you made that choice? You should be able to. Even if you aren't good with words or aren't a good debater, you should be able to SOMEWHAT back up and explain why you made the choice you made. You should be able to somewhat convey a coherent response to the thing being asked of you.

These were fundamental questions to the biggest topics that have been front page material for the past year, so how was he not prepared? People ALWAYS question his position on the Iraq war and WHY they went there. It's not a surprise that people are questioning, "Why Iraq, they didn't attack us." Unless he lives under a rock, these are things he should be on top of and should've been on top of since day 1.

Not one single "surprise" question was asked.

He's had plenty of time to explain himself in a manner that would actually back up his position, and he didn't do that.

I watched these debates to actually get a view on the issues that wasn't some sort of media spin, but I was actually very disappointed when it came to Bush. I at least expected him to be able to hold himself up, have confidence, and defend his positions. He didn't do that.

So how you present yourself in debates is actually a good reflection of character when it comes to those topics in reality... and in the topic of the Iraq war, Bush was uncomfortable, non-confident, and flustered.

That doesn't sound like being good enough to fufill the job reqs to me.

[host]

Last night's debate could be regarded as the 15th press conference of the
Bush administration. Bush's performance reinforced why he avoids answering
journalists' questions on live TV. Bush is a man with an undegraduate degree
from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. About half the country thinks positively
about Bush, even when they have the opportunity to compare his attempt to
answer similar foreign policy questions, alongside a graduate of the same Ivy
League college that he attended. IMO, Bush had no command of details, only
repeating his stump speach talking points over and over. Shades of Kerry's
experience as a prosecutor were evident. The most misleading statement I saw was that Bush repeated several times that 100,000 Iraqis have been trained
to assume security duties in Iraq, and Kerry did not challenge him.

The Pentagon also said on Monday that only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training.

The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration’s new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met.

The White House stood by the 100,000 figure cited by Bush, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.]
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/</a>

Bush stated last week that 100,000 Iraqis had been trained. Bush misled
deliberately by intending to give the impression that there is now an
effective Iraqi security force of about 100,000. Even Iraqi Prime Minister
Allawi said last week that the number was actually 50,000.

Bush is bankrupt in the category of willingness to conduct an open and
straightforward dialogue with citizens. He is presented by his handlers, except
for rare occasions like last night, as a carefully scripted performer, protected
from unanticipated or uncontrolled exchanges by the pre-screening of all
members of the public who could potentially occupy the same TV camera
shot that he is in. Last night, Kerry got into that camera shot, and exposed
Bush for the record, in a way that Bush's handlers, secret service detail,
and the local police agencies that Bush's advance team order around, take
great pains, at great expense, to prevent from happening.

Bush, at best, intentionally misleads on important issues like the status of
the Iraqi security force that is the practical measure of the length and scope
of our troops' future deployment and the chances of the sucessfull democratization of Iraq. At worse, he shows compelling evidence of being a
chronic liar about important facts related to national security. Bush's popularity belies the intelligence, or at least the issues orientation of half
of the American electorate. His demonstrated abilities, compared to his
education, are a glowing example of affirmative action via entitlement, and
an indictment of his administration's hypocritical attempts to limit affirmative
action policies in universities in government. How dare my fellow citizens
demean our country and the office of the presidency by sponsoring this
clearly unqualified and, compared, at the very least, to recent past presidents demonstrably intellectually and speach challenged man for a
second term as our president !

[jb2000]

FTA, I agree that actions trump words, and that is, in a nutshell, why I am voting for John Kerry. Simply put, I don't give a damn about the President's poor oration at times. Everybody mis-steps when speaking in public. Bush may do it more than most anyone at his level, but so what if he's getting the job done. Likewise, I don't care about old military records. I don't care what Bush did during 'Nam. So what if he didn't go? I have a special respect for those who did, but that doesn't make me vote for them, even against those who didn't.

The problem is that the Bush camp has given nothing of substance to those of us who want to cut through the controversies that the media of course spins out of proportion. This isn't the campaign of a President comfortable to run on the strength of what he has done and plans to do. Historically, it's challengers who run more negative campaigns, but this year it is the President who has had the significantly more negative campaign. He wouldn't need to attack John Kerry if he were comfortable in his own record.

John Kerry does have a strong plan of action. True, it is only a plan (he's not the incumbent, no two ways around it), but it is comprehensive and rational. He has been consistent. Yes, you have to tune out the buzz machines for a bit and concentrate on what he actually has said. John Kerry has offered as much substance as I would reasonably expect from a challenger. I don't agree with him on all counts, but I am confident in what I can expect from four years of his presidency.

The President has made a lot of mistakes in the last four years. They have been trying years, to be sure, but my real problem is with his limited ability to recognize and more importantly correct for those mistakes. His campaign has done nothing to convince me I can expect any improvements in a second term.

Because I have confidence in what Kerry will do, I will be voting for him this November.

[Redgirl]

The only thing I kept thinking during the debate, besides how much Dubya looks like a chimp wearing a suit, is if he says "it's hard work!" one more time I'm going to reach thru the TV and put tape on his mouth. Like we're all too dumb to know that being president is hard work with hard decisions to be made. We understand that, we just require our president to do that "hard work" and make those "hard decisions" using diplomacy, logic, and plain old common sense! I don't see those particular characteristics in Bush.

I was impressed with Kerry and felt he did a much better job articulating his points and sticking to the questions asked. He used his time down to the last second, he never jumped in and tried to respond before the moderator told him he could (unlke Bush who did that several times). He didn't repeat himself over and over, like Bush did. He kept a poker face pretty much the whole time (although that could be the botox, huh?).

I did think Kerry's wife looked really, really uncomfortable though. Did you see her at the end when she came on stage? She looked like she had something stuck up her ass. Did she just have surgery or something? It was strange.

[jb2000]

Originally Posted by host

The most misleading statement I saw was that Bush repeated several times that 100,000 Iraqis have been trained
to assume security duties in Iraq, and Kerry did not challenge him.

Bush stated last week that 100,000 Iraqis had been trained. Bush misled
deliberately by intending to give the impression that there is now an
effective Iraqi security force of about 100,000. Even Iraqi Prime Minister
Allawi said last week that the number was actually 50,000.

There were many things like this, but remember that the last thing Kerry wanted to do last night was get drawn into a nuanced discussion about the vagaries of what constitutes 'trained' or not, which would be the perfect forum for Bush to display an 'aw, shucks' and make Kerry look foolish for trying to explain such a detailed issue.

The truth is that putting people in uniform, giving them a gun, and teaching them formation drill, does not make them trained. We have done this before countless times, and with the same result far too often: ill-trained glorified militias who are worthless in a truly trying situation (see: ARVN). The strategy is to identify the few 'true warriors' from teh mob and promote them to special units usually focused on protecting the regime. Failed strategies of the past that I have no faith in succeeding today are truly something worthy of highlighting, but I am afraid that last night was not the right forum for it.

[FoolThemAll]

Apologies for the "why I'm voting for Bush" tangent.

Originally Posted by Stompy

That's exactly my point though... he's not even qualified to make those actions if he can't even explain why he made them.

You're good at your job, right? So if you make a choice that people will question later on, could you explain why you made that choice? You should be able to. Even if you aren't good with words or aren't a good debater, you should be able to SOMEWHAT back up and explain why you made the choice you made. You should be able to somewhat convey a coherent response to the thing being asked of you.

*snip*

Not one single "surprise" question was asked.

He's had plenty of time to explain himself in a manner that would actually back up his position, and he didn't do that.

First, I'm afraid I didn't see enough of the debate to comment on just how convincing Bush was. But if there were no on-the-spot questions (weren't the rebuttals on-the-spot?), then that'd be odd that Bush wouldn't have decent arguments at the least. I'd say that either Bush needs to hire some new advisors immediately (perhaps onetime2), or that I'd disagree with your claim that Bush could not back up his position to some degree. I find the latter more likely.

Second, I disagree either way. I'm more interested in having a president that does the right thing but can't quite explain his basis for doing so, than a president who does the wrong thing yet has a great-sounding argument for it.

[Halx]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Second, I disagree either way. I'm more interested in having a president that does the right thing but can't quite explain his basis for doing so, than a president who does the wrong thing yet has a great-sounding argument for it.

This is what it means to be religious. Having faith that something is true and just when no satisfactory explanation is given. I firmly disagree with this way of thinking. I view it as rushed, stubborn and without consideration.

[Zubon]

One of the better points that I have heard in President Bush's defense is that most of the questions targeted him. Granted, Iraq and the war on terror are the dominant issue for a foreign policy debate, but Senator Kerry has been in the Senate for two decades. Surely there was one thing in that whole time worth asking about, or at least ask why there is not anything worth asking about? Senator Kerry is on the intelligence committee, so he should have some experience relevant to this that they could discuss, rather than just the President's record. That could be part of why President Bush sounded so defensive.

But yeah, advantage: Kerry. Most Republicans are saying it was a tie, and most Democrats are claiming a win. That usually means a narrow Democratic victory, which I think is accurate. Not a slam dunk, but we know how badly things went the last time we had a foreign policy slam dunk...

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Halx

This is what it means to be religious. Having faith that something is true and just when no satisfactory explanation is given. I firmly disagree with this way of thinking. I view it as rushed, stubborn and without consideration.

You misunderstand. It's not that I don't need an explanation, it's that I don't need an explanation from Bush. If I see good reasons for an action, then it matters not to me if Bush can express those reasons. And it also wouldn't matter to me if Bush gave reasons for those actions that I disagreed with.

[host]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

You misunderstand. It's not that I don't need an explanation, it's that I don't need an explanation from Bush. If I see good reasons for an action, then it matters not to me if Bush can express those reasons. And it also wouldn't matter to me if Bush gave reasons for those actions that I disagreed with.

How do you arrive at a conclusion that you "see good reasons for an action"?
How does what you are saying differ from the historically un-American
method of problem solving where the end always justifies the means?

[FoolThemAll]

Um. I evaluate the possible justifications for an action and determine if there is enough justification. The same way everyone else arrives at their conclusions.

I don't believe the ends always justify the means. I'm really not getting how you consider the two positions similar. I'm saying that if, for instance, a politician wanted to ban the death penalty because Zorkon the Space God decreed it be removed, I would still support such a ban because I think there is good reason to ban the death penalty. The politician's motivation makes little difference, if any at all.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Um. I evaluate the possible justifications for an action and determine if there is enough justification. The same way everyone else arrives at their conclusions.

I don't believe the ends always justify the means. I'm really not getting how you consider the two positions similar. I'm saying that if, for instance, a politician wanted to ban the death penalty because Zorkon the Space God decreed it be removed, I would still support such a ban because I think there is good reason to ban the death penalty. The politician's motivation makes little difference, if any at all.

I think you are right, up to a point... The motivation will also give you clues to help predict the person's future actions. To keep using your humorous hypothetical situation, if Kerry (only using him because he isn't the incumbent) said Zorkon wanted him to end the death penalty I'd be happy, but I'd also wonder what Zorkon would want him to do next. Maybe Kerry would get elected and then Zorkon would tell him to subsidize heroin for school kids that can't afford it. On the other hand, if Kerry said he wanted to end the death penalty because he thought it violated the constitutional strictures on cruel punishments I'd be more comfortable voting for him because this reasoning tells me more about what his future decisions might be. After all, you vote for one of these guys now and they get to make decisions on things that you never thought would come up, like a war on terror.

[DJ Happy]

If you don't understand the justification and thinking behind the decision, how can you agree with the decision? I may agree that the death penalty should be abolished, but I certainly don't agree that the reason for abolishing it should be because Zorkon the Space God decreed it. I would not be happy knowing that my president was acting on the counsel of Zorkon to begin with.

Regarding the debates, I was impressed with Kerry and unsurprised at Bush. Sometimes when I listen to Bush's speeches I can't believe that the guy pays a speech writer - the majority of his speeches are boringly repetitive and simplistic and seem to pander on the hope that the majority of the audience will believe anything he tells them, no matter how removed from reality it is. Kerry sounded like a leader while Bush sounded like a child (and looked more and more like a monkey the longer the debate wore on).

[docbungle]

I thought Kerry sounded informed, intelligent and professional. Watching the debate on tv, though, I thought Kerry was actually laughing at Bush's answers a few times.

I thought Bush sounded ignorant, hostile and immature. He kept making those little-kid sounds, like when you don't get your way you pout about it. And watching the debate on tv, his facial expressions and overall demeanor were quite ridiculous coming from the president.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

If you don't understand the justification and thinking behind the decision, how can you agree with the decision?

Because I understand another justification and thinking behind the decision that the decision-maker is not publically using or is using minimally.

[Rdr4evr]

Kerry was extremely confident and professional. Curious George on the other hand was his typical infantile self. It was quite an entertaining debate considering not only Bush made an ass out of himself; Kerry made an ass out of him as well. At some points I thought I was watching a replay because Bush actually repeated himself word for fucking word two or three times, it is incredible how horrible of a liar he is. He is like a malfunctioning robot that needs to be reprogrammed. All I hear him say is "Iraq, Saddam, terrorism.....Iraq, terrorism, Saddam......Saddam, Iraq, Terrorism....." Quite frankly, the same old arguments are getting old. Although I don’t care much for Kerry either, he came off rather genuine to me; either that or he is just a damn great liar, unlike Bush. I am amazed at the amount of people that still want to re-elect this guy, I seriously just don’t get it, and it is beyond comprehension at this point. Anyway, hopefully Kerry will slaughter him in the next debates as well and maybe sway some of the undecided his way. Although I doubt it because anyone for Bush will stick with Bush no matter what he does.

[Halx]

FoolThemAll, you're giving a carte blanche to a man who hasn't even proven to you that he has any idea what he's doing. You have no results, just the constant insistance that things are good and everything will work, while the sources of actual solid information, (reporters on the ground) who have nothing to gain by telling you information either way, are telling you the exact opposite of what is coming out of Bush's mouth.

Conservatives are going, "Hey, everything's going great. We won the debate and we're winning the war. Everything is A-OK." Liberals (who DO care a lot) are cringing, clenching their fists, shaking with anxiety, ready to just blurt out, "Oh my god! You people are acting like blind morons!! Quit lying your asses off and stop thinking we're all dumb as shit!"

It's really frustrating to see things that seem so obvious that NEED addressing, and the party in power appears to be completely ignoring them. It makes you want to look at the nearest 'little guy' who supports this flagrant wool-over-eyes strategy and actually buys into it and just scream your fucking head off at him.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Halx

FoolThemAll, you're giving a carte blanche to a man who hasn't even proven to you that he has any idea what he's doing. You have no results, just the constant insistance that things are good and everything will work, while the sources of actual solid information, (reporters on the ground) who have nothing to gain by telling you information either way, are telling you the exact opposite of what is coming out of Bush's mouth.

No results? I'll assume that's hyperbole. I'll grant you that results aren't ideal. Besides, this extends well beyond the issue of the Iraq war. That's not the only issue of importance.

I'm not giving "carte blanche" to him. I'm noting that he's doing a good number of the things that I'd like the president of the United States to do, that is all. And from all I've heard of Kerry's plan of action, I prefer Bush's. Even if Kerry does a better job of defending his plan of action. I couldn't care less if Bush stumbles in his explanations, except that he could lose swing voters by doing so. Again, I don't care if Bush acts with the wrong reasons in mind. What matters is whether he acts correctly.

Nice blanket statements of conservatives and liberals. Very useful for debate purposes.

[OpieCunningham]

It's an unquestionable mistake to support someone who is implementing one or a few things you believe should be implemented, if they are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with your reasons for supporting the actions. Particularly with actions of such grave importance and uncontrollability.

If you vote for Bush, who is arguably deciding things based on the Rapture (the Messiah will return once there is a great conflict in the Middle East and the Jews return to 'their' land), you are supporting his belief system - whether you share it or not. You may believe that it's nothing more than the correct course to achieve democracy in Iraq, but as long as Bush believes he is fulfilling some prophecy from the ancients (or Zorkon the Space God), his actions will be directed at a goal to which you do not share - fulfilling the prophecy or appeasing Zorkon. You have but one chance to make your voice heard - if you use it to support the person who follows Zorkon, Zorkon is what you will receive.

Intentions are extremely important in all things.

[FoolThemAll]

*edited out pointless quoting of above post*

Gah! Yeah, I guess you could argue that he's basing his policies on the Rapture. You wouldn't win, but you could argue that.

When he advocates something that causes his pros to be outweighed by his cons, like sacrificing every firstborn to the aforementioned Zorkon, then he'll lose my vote.

And it's not "one or a few things". If that were the case, I'd vote libertarian or for those constitution nazis.