Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Live debate thread (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/71046-live-debate-thread.html)

Down Goes Bush! DOWN GOES BUSH!!!
Lets Gititt ONNNN! Fight, Fight, Fight!
150 million people looking on...

At the end of Round One:
Kerry: 1
Bush: 0

Hack synopsis: Kerry dancin' like Sugar Ray Leonard. Bush confused, bloodied. Will he get up?

Since I listened to the dabate in the car on an AM radio station, I posted my thoughts on it in the other debate thread. Thought ya'll might be interested in some analysis here too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

when Kerry did well by pointing out that Saddam Hussein was not the one who attacked us, a 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.

So what what I can see just on our own board, no one really changed their mind.

If you were for Kerry, you're still for Kerry.

If you were for Bush, you're still for Bush.

Unfortunately, I was in a rehearsal, so I didn't get a chance to see the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

kerry just looks ridiculous when he spends the whole front half of the debate stressing his international diplomacy bona fides and the need for international effort in order for him to flush a toilet, yet advocates bilateral talks with NK. to say that you're going to reach a favorable and lasting outcome with NK while simultaneously cutting japan, china, s. korea etc from the table is just plain nuts.

I'm not clear why bilateral talks with NK is so suprising or untenable to you - or as you put it "nuts" - it had been used effectively by Clinton. It was not used by Bush. And where are we? NK has nukes now.

As for your claim that it is a Kerry weakness - I believe I addressed that: the weakness you point to, that Kerry otherwise advocates coalition approaches to diplomac is also the opposite of what Bush has otherwise proposed. The simple reality is that NK is a unique situation - you know it, Kerry knows and Bush knows it. You can't argue that Kerry is changing positions on this issue without also admitting that Bush changes position on this issue.

But the fact remains: China is not an ally of the U.S. So to hinge NK negotiations on China is simply ineffective. If China were a true ally, this would all be different - but that is not the world we live in.

Quote:

making sure china is at the table is not tantamount to leaving our security up to them. not sure why that would even be suggested...

I was simply referring to the conservative attack on Kerry where he is blamed for wanting to let France decide American policy - the same applies here for Bush. In both cases it is less-than weak. But it is exactly the same - except of course that China is not even an ally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

By entering into bilateral talks with NK it minimizes the role of multi lateral talks and gives those countries involved in the multi lateral talks the opportunity to walk away from them. China does not want to be in the position it's in. Bilateral talks are a move away from a "coalition" approach, plain and simple.

So our leaders can only have one approach to any problem or situation? What happened to nuance?

Like many other criticisms of Kerry this campaign, this latest outrage is a non-issue.

general disclaimer of non-patisanship: yes, Democrats also mislead or conflate issues beyond their natural size. Both do it. To not mention that would be dishonest.

edit: edited to remove foolish reference to a forum member.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

So our leaders can only have one approach to any problem or situation? What happened to nuance?

Like many other criticisms of Kerry this campaign, this latest outrage is a non-issue.

Onetime2 mandated disclaimer: yes, Democrats also mislead or conflate issues beyond their natural size. Both do it. To not mention that would be dishonest.

Yep way to assign irrelevant and spurious beliefs to my words. If you think the points I brought up about what will happen should Kerry win and attempt to make the talks bilateral and multilateral simultaneously are a non-issue then you are sorely mistaken. China will be more than happy to use it as an excuse to get out from between the US and NK.

Your disclaimer is yet another example of your need to make things personal instead of discussing facts. You've really got a neat little trend going there. In another thread you called me a partisan hack and in this one you throw in juvenile disclaimers to get in a dig that has no relevance. Good job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

To back archer's point about North Korea, I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote in another thread (with some changes).

To paraphrase....NK is a bigger threat than Saddam.

I don't think that North Korea is a bigger threat simply because of their military might or nuclear capability. They have more potential to do more damage, yes. No question. But are they more likely to use them?

I believe Iraq led by Saddam was seen as a terrorist country. In my mind a Communist country with a nuke is not as dangerous as a terrorist with a nuke. A terrorist is much more unpredictible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

If you think the points I brought up about what will happen should Kerry win and attempt to make the talks bilateral and multilateral simultaneously are a non-issue then you are sorely mistaken. China will be more than happy to use it as an excuse to get out from between the US and NK.

This is so much speculation.

Quote:

Your disclaimer is yet another example of your need to make things personal instead of discussing facts. You've really got a neat little trend going there. In another thread you called me a partisan hack and in this one you throw in juvenile disclaimers to get in a dig that has no relevance. Good job.

In the other thread, I rescinded the "partisan hack" statement of my own accord as it was not appropriate. The "disclaimer" was an attempt at some sort of humor in response to recent events in this forum...for example, in another thread you instantly accused others of partisanship because we didn't make such statements of Democratic culpability when we were discussing a Republican issue. I was only trying to avoid the same accusation in a "funny" way. Perhaps it came across badly, but it was not intended to offend.

It sounds to me like you Cthullu knew he was getting personal and rescinded his remarks.

So maybe you guys should just let it go and get back to the conversation :)

[QUOTE=edwhit]I don't think that North Korea is a bigger threat simply because of their military might or nuclear capability. They have more potential to do more damage, yes. No question. But are they more likely to use them?
[QUOTE]

The problem with NK is their willingness to export just about anything for hard currency. I'm pretty sure the worry is that they will export missile, chemical, and nuclear technology to anyone with cash, rogue nation or NGO/terrorist.

I'd also be a little worried about sabre rattling and extortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

How much do you want to bet that the "undecideds" aer still undecided today? Notice how many people in all polls said it was a tie.

IMO, it was a tie. Bush was very consistent and Kerry gave the perception of switching positions even in the debate.

"Help is on the way" Umm, except for the $87 billion to fund the war.

"We need to build coalitions." Umm, except when we're dealing with North Korea then we should do it on our own.

"Iraq was not a threat" Umm, yeah I agree with my opponent, I wasn't misleading when I said Iraq was a threat because it was.

Bush did stumble a fair amount but in almost every instance he made important points right as his time ran out.

The biggest win last night was probably Kerry getting his core group of voters reinvigorated. In the overall race I don't think that means much since that only puts him on similar footing to Bush since his base is already energized.

wow ur the first person to notice these things... to bad your boy Bush didn't. I'm Certain that the bush camp tell shim what they want him to say, and not to stray far from it. When it wasn't sumthing that he was abviously coached on did u see the delay, did u see him stop, then u hear the geears turning and birds chirping in his head, and sumthing came out.

I think kerry won that, he came off more consistant, and bush seemed to use the same things to his part the hole time. I was unimpressed by bushes peroformance, and very impressed by kerrys. And belive me my standards for Bush are set very low, so underacheiveing is hard

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacaveli

wow ur the first person to notice these things... to bad your boy Bush didn't. [. . .]I was unimpressed by bushes peroformance, and very impressed by kerrys. And belive me my standards for Bush are set very low, so underacheiveing is hard

First, this post was very, very hard to read.

Second, you didn't have any standards for Bush. You went into the debate with an opinion and left the debate with the same opinion. You stated your dislike of Bush in the beginning, there was no need for the last sentence except to make a crack about low standards. If you want to attack a person's credibility and intelligence, maybe proofreading would be in order.

Other then that, I didn't see a clear winner from either side. I think both sides missed some big opportunites to score a hit. I can think of several times where I cringed waiting for Kerry to take a hit on Bush, but didn't. I thought both sides got a couple of good jabs in, but all-in-all, I don't see a winner.

Side Note: Some may remember that I mentioned that my wife was seriously considering voting for Kerry. She changed her mind last night and is back in the Bush camp. (granted, her mind was changed by Kerry's responses, not by anything Bush did)