Live debate thread

[Esen]

Originally Posted by bobw

Bottom line, I think Bush performed better in the minds of the less-educated populace than the minds of the higher educated... To his credit a huge percentage of America fits into the less-educated category.

Hi,
I am curious where you came up with the above notion.

Bush may not have come off as educated as Kerry but if anything I think the statement above is actually reverse of what the reality of the situation may be.

Kerry spoke in a really defined educated manner and everyone even the less educated portion of America picked up on that. Leaving the impression that "oh Kerry spoke co clear and didn't stammer" leaving many to think that he clearly won the debate and is more adept to being a solid presidential candidate.

It is my experience that the less-educated usually root for the clear sounding winner.

With Bush his victory was not as clear you really had to understand where he was coming from and what he was doing.

He was speaking to the American people as an American. He came off modest and genuine where as Kerry came off as the hawk trying to obliviate his prey.

Bush was able to come off humble while addressing the people because he always deals with the world in a strong manner when leading.

over all my take on the debate is still neutral. I think they are both puppets in the long run.

Interesting..

[alienroc]

At the end of that debate, one thing seemed clear. If Bush is president, more of the same: war, terror, green, blue no red alert, and an endless bullet for bullet fight with a tactic. (which is an impossibility!!!).
Kerry seems a little more assured as to what needs to happen. Whether he can do it or not is impossible to say. However the fact that he has a reasonable idea
on changing the current status of world affairs is heartening.

As to the body language of both candidates, Kerry looked refined and composed. Bush looked like a stubborn brat with only one point to repeat on and on and on.

[Averett]

I loved the split screen aspect. Kerry looked composed pretty much the whole time, taking notes and doing the whole nodding head thing. Bush looked pretty much pissed off and confused. And as somebody else mentioned, there was a lot of dead air.

At the beginning, I got annoyed with both Kerry and Bush for wasting time with the whole "Lets thank Florida cause they've gotten their ass kicked by hurricanes recently" Yeah, that's all well and good and nice, but DEBATE! I'm not going to vote on you based on who was nicest to Florida during the debates. Then again, I don't live in Florida... Maybe Flordians would..

[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.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Also you can tell the Republicans were aiming to hit it out of the park with Bush's final speech. I was looking for it in Kerry's but he never delivered "that one line". Anyone else notice that?

[roachboy]

i watched the debates.
i thought bush was totally outclassed.

[gcbrowni]

Originally Posted by alienroc

At the end of that debate, one thing seemed clear. If Bush is president, more of the same: war, terror, green, blue no red alert, and an endless bullet for bullet fight with a tactic. (which is an impossibility!!!).
Kerry seems a little more assured as to what needs to happen. Whether he can do it or not is impossible to say. However the fact that he has a reasonable idea
on changing the current status of world affairs is heartening.

I guess you see what you want to see. I want a president who is willing to tell the world to piss off and unitlaterally start bombing if need be. I saw that in Kerry. I also want a president who works tirelessly at international diplomacy; I certainly heard more of that from Kerry than from Bush. More active divisions and double the special forces? Again, Kerry. I wanted to see a Kerry who would act unilaterally and present a strong front against terrorism, and that's what I saw.

[cthulu23]

Kerry was supposed to lose last night's debate, as Bush is running on foreign policy. I thought he did an excellent job. It's unfortunate that Bush chose to stick to the same 'ol misinformation about Kerry (eg - the $87 billion that Bush also threatened to veto, calling Kerry inconsistent on Iraq when his record is, in fact , consistent) rather than really challenge Kerry on the issues, but I suppose that Bush has a lot to gain from keeping the public misinformed on those issues.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Kerry was supposed to lose last night's debate, as Bush is running on foreign policy. I thought he did an excellent job. It's unfortunate that Bush chose to stick to the same 'ol misinformation about Kerry (eg - the $87 billion that Bush also threatened to veto, calling Kerry inconsistent on Iraq when his record is, in fact , consistent) rather than really challenge Kerry on the issues, but I suppose that Bush has a lot to gain from keeping the public misinformed on those issues.

Threatening to veto and voting against are two different things. I think Kerry erred by making the statement "Help is on the way" for the troops in Iraq. That will likely get a lot of play in Republican ads.

[roachboy]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204Z.shtml

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by onetime2

Threatening to veto and voting against are two different things.

They both equate to an attempt to alter the shape of the appropriations bill...at no time was funding for the troops threatened, which is the most important point. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise, but such fine points don't fit well into sound bites.

[Derwood]

Here's an analogy for you:

2000 is to "Fuzzy Math" as 2004 is to "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time"

Say it a couple 100 more times George! Ask for the 30 second extension just to say it a few more times! Clearly Bush's advisors told him to wait for any statement Kerry might say that makes him look like he isn't supporting the troops and then to hammer it to death. Truth is, Kerry kept saying that now that we're in the war, he has a plan to see it through, but Bush wasn't hearing it (or wanted the viewing public to ignore it). Trying to paint Kerry as unpatriotic or implying that he would in some way pull all the troops out of Iraq while spitting on the graves of those who have lost their lives was pretty low.

But all in all, I was disappointed in one major thing with Kerry (whom I support). I was really hoping that Kerry would talk more about his own stances on things than on Bush's shortcomings. It wasn't "mud-slinging" per se (no personal attacks), but a lot of undecided voters get turned off by what they may perceive as any kind of "bashing".

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by roachboy

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204Z.shtml

And your point is RB? I seem to recall you denouncing blatantly partisan sources of analysis in the past. Why is this now acceptable procedure? Additionally, how about commenting on the link rather than just posting it?

[roachboy]

i actually didnt have anything to say about it--the link simply provided a plot summary that accorded in general terms with how i saw the debates. i just posted it instead of saying the same in a less developed way.

but you are right, onetime: i should have qualified or said something about the link.
my apologies.

unrelated aside: i watched the debates in a tavern filled with west philly anarchist types. it was great.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by roachboy

unrelated aside: i watched the debates in a tavern filled with west philly anarchist types. it was great.

I probably would have enjoyed watching the audience of that one more than the debate itself. I'm sure it was quite a sight to see.

[roachboy]

the audience was much more fun than the debates themselves, yes.

events like the debate seem like things that should be taken in publically.
they are better public events than the alternative possibility available to me: when the eagles manage to get into the playoffs.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the audience was much more fun than the debates themselves, yes.

events like the debate seem like things that should be taken in publically.
they are better public events than the alternative possibility available to me: when the eagles manage to get into the playoffs.

I've watched debates in public before and can't say I enjoyed them as much. Certainly does give you a better sense of how certain things "worked" in the debate but more often than not the audience isn't anywhere near a representative sample to base any real analysis on.

Last night I watched the debate with my fiancee. She is undecided so it was interesting to me to hear her questions and reactions.

She was trying very hard to understand Kerry's positions on things but was confused by them. Of particular interest to her was when Kerry said that he wanted both bilateral discussions and multi lateral discussions with North Korea. She said it didn't make sense. Pick one or the other not both. This is of particular interest to her because her sister lives about fifteen minutes from the border in Korea.

Additionally, she thought Bush seemed cocky but not in a bad way. He was repetitive and that turned her off but she couldn't understand why Kerry was hung up on the fact that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. She said "Didn't Kerry watch Bush's state of the union address when he said he would go after all countries who support, harbor, or commit terrorist acts? It was pretty clear that Bush was going to target anyone that we thought had links to terrorists."

I even got a chuckly when she said "Why the hell is he talking about Vietnam? What's that got to do with anything?"

[vanblah]

Out of curiosity did anyone else hear Bush's comment to Lehrer as he shook his hand at the end of the debate? It's not really that big a deal; but I think it's funny.

It sounded like, "So I guess you're rootin' for the other team too."

The mics were cut after that. It sure sounded like Bush though it may have been someone else ... but it's interesting. If Bush thought the moderator was biased it may be an indication as to why he seemed defensive.

[Rekna]

Kerry did not say he wanted to go after NK alone. He said he wanted both Unilateral and Multilatteral talks. Which to me sounds like he wants to up the current diplomacy there because obviously just multilateral talks are not working.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by Rekna

Kerry did not say he wanted to go after NK alone. He said he wanted both Unilateral and Multilatteral talks. Which to me sounds like he wants to up the current diplomacy there because obviously just multilateral talks are not working.

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.

[powerclown]

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?

[dy156]

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.

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.

[Lebell]

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.

[OpieCunningham]

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.

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.

[cthulu23]

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.

[onetime2]

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.

[edwhit]

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.

[cthulu23]

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.

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.

[Lebell]

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

[gcbrowni]

[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.

[pacaveli]

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

[KMA-628]

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)