Presidential Debates

Anyone have thoughts?Personally, I think Bush's biggest problem was that he seemed unable to defend the war in Iraq... he chose instead to go on about how we shouldn't be pointing out that it was a mistake.That was the big one, at least... personally I feel Kerry won this one, because he managed to keep the debate on whether or not Bush has been a terrible president, not on whether or not Bush has been a good president. (If that makes any sense.)

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I find it interesting that on another board I frequent, one that is decidedly pro-Bush and Conservative (IMHO Very Conservative) Republican, the general opinion last night was that Kerry was far superior. Today the mood seems slightly different, sounding much like damage control. It's more "We lost the battle but not the War". Interestingly, the general concensus there seems to be that "Bush stands little chance in the debates but it won't matter because we will all vote for him anyway". Many are saying that the VP debates will be where the real action is.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The VP debates will be pretty interesting. Edwards is a charmer, and a great crowd-pleaser, but Cheney's got that diabolical Lex Luthor-style evil genius going for him. I honestly don't know who'll take who.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

WINNING a presidential debate is not like winning a foot race. In the foot race you have a line to cross first. There is no such definitive line with ideological debates. The presidential debate is somewhat like those ideological debates we engage in here. The winner, most often, is relative to the ideological eyes of the ones making the judgement. As usual, with the national media, the declared winner will be considered to be the one whose ideology most closely resembles that of the major networks, whose people traditionally vote highly Democrat and liberal. The same goes here, as to who wins. The ideological majority makes the call.

Okay, Buz. I'll bite. Given that your ideology is in line with Bush's, what would you say was defensible about Bush's performance in that debate? How, exactly, could one say with some validity that Bush won?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I viewed the debate last night and in my opinion Kerry did seem to win the debate. Even though it did not seem to be a debate.
Kerry kept saying " I can do better" and Bush kept saying I'm doing my best, its 'hard work.' It is easy with the aid of hindsight to pick apart the presidents decisions, Kerry has the advantage of NOT being the one on the chopping block. He kept saying he will bring NEW credibility. All of Kerry's ideas of how to improve the situation are things that Bush has already implimented. IE summits and training. America is a reactionary country, you fuck with America and our military is going to open up a can of whoop ass. I think disolving the Taliban and overturning Saddam has sent a very strong message that America will not be passive. I shudder to think what a weak president would of done given the same choices. Would he of had the balls to go into Afganistan in the first place? Would he have the fortitude to overturn Saddam?
Was it a mistake? Being that there were no WOMD? I think not,
because in my heart I know that if and when Saddam got his hands on one it would surely have the USA's name on it. Iran and N. Korea are waiting to see who we are going to elect. A man who will sway to the politics or a man who will draw a line a dare someone to cross it. This is merely my opinion and a bias one at that, since the 4th Inf Division and 1st Cav are in my back yard.

quote:

---

All of Kerry's ideas of how to improve the situation are things that Bush has already implimented.

---

Does Bush's plan call for the pull out of troops within 6 months if his criteria are met? No. Is Bush going to go back to European and Asian countries to win their support? No. Is Bush sending a message that America WANTS to pull out? No. The plans and mission statements are quite different.Secondly, last night the Republican pundits were claiming that they "still don't know where Kerry stands on the Iraq question". They follow this up with the statement that "Kerry says he will do the same things that Bush is doing right now". Talk about your flip flops. Either Kerry stated his plan or he didn't. Republicans slam him from both sides, saying out one side of their mouth that he doesn't have a plan and out of the other side saying his plan stinks even though they claim it is the same as Bush's plan. The Republican's seem to be on damage control for the moment.

quote:

---

I think disolving the Taliban and overturning Saddam has sent a very strong message that America will not be passive.

---

It also sends the message that America is reckless and will not heed advice from other countries. We have been given the title of "Bully" and rightly so.

quote:

---

I shudder to think what a weak president would of done given the same choices. Would he of had the balls to go into Afganistan in the first place? Would he have the fortitude to overturn Saddam?

---

Would he have the balls to go into bilateral talks with N Korea to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? Would he do more to stop genocide in the Sudan? Would he quite with diplomacy after a paltry two tries? Would he have the leadership to not pass the buck onto the intelligence services? Would he have the leadership not to pass the buck on the economy to the previous administration? Bush's slogan has become "it's not my fault". That shows weak leadership.

quote:

---

A man who will sway to the politics or a man who will draw a line a dare someone to cross it.

---

A man who will only use war as a last resort or a man who was planning to invade another country before diplomacy even starts. A man who says he wants to disarm a country but drops bombs while inspections are on going. I'll take the man who will sway politics for a safer world.

I thought Kerry was a clear winner in the debate. This is not to say that the debate was without flaws (not ONE question on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?), or that Kerry was without flaws.In the end I felt Kerry presented himself as more confident and structured in his thinking. He generally put out actual points of what he planned to do as well as what had gone wrong in the last term.Bush on the other hand seemed oddly out of focus. He did much better against Gore and that just seems weird to me. Maybe he over practiced? He kept faltering and halting and then skipping around points. He also clearly managed to skip answering some questions.Thus Kerry confident, clear, on the offensive. Bush unusually distracted and defensive.This can always change in the next debate, though this was SUPPOSED to be the one where Bush would come off the best. If that is so...YIKES!I have already seen some interesting spin on this. I find it incredible that anyone would try and make out like Kerry lost, much less did not pretty well win the debate, but some people even while kind of admitting Kerry won tried to play THAT as a negative.On CNN some Rep spokesperson (this was one CNN Europe) started into an argument that the Reps knew and expected Kerry would be very good. He is after all a "wordsmith" and excellent in the "wholly artificial environment of debate" (actual phrases used). But that apparently just goes to show why we can't trust him.The CNN anchor looked baffled and pointed out that it was the same environment that Bush CHOSE to work in. Yeah yeah yeah well nevermind that, again the guy repeated terms like "wordsmith" and "clever" to describe Kerry and that we should prefer Bush because in the real world Bush isn't either of those things (???).I guess this must be along the lines of that "Iraq war turned out so bad because we did so well" form of logic.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-01-2004 01:31 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Yeah yeah yeah well nevermind that, again the guy repeated terms like "wordsmith" and "clever" to describe Kerry and that we should prefer Bush because in the real world Bush isn't either of those things (???).

---

I know, this position also made me scratch my head. Joe Scarborough said something to the effect that people will like Bush because he sounds like their neighbor, or the mechanic down the street. The question I asked myself is "Do we really want Joe the Mechanic From Down the Street discussing our foreign policy with world powers?" I will take the clever wordsmith any day.

doubleThis message has been edited by JustinCy, 10-01-2004 01:46 PM

Can someone explain to me how the Republicans keep getting away with criticizing Kerry for voting against the 87 billion dollar supplemental?Here's my understanding of the situation. Kerry was not against funding the Iraq war with an additional 87 billion, he was against how it was being funded. Since we already have huge deficits, we would have to borrow money in order to give the money, which seemed like a bad idea in almost everyone's eyes. Kerry proposed rolling back the tax cuts for the top 4 percent in order to pay for it.And if it still such a crime to vote against a supplemental because of how it's getting funded, then why did Bush threaten to veto the bill if Congress added the stipulation that it would be a loan to Iraq to be paid off over the next 20 years.In conclusion, Kerry voted against the bill because of how it was getting funded and Bush would have vetoed the bill Congress was going to propose because of how it was getting funded. What's the moral difference?If I am not mistaken in my facts, why won't Kerry simply explain this?

I think the best way to sum it up is to state the following:"Didn't the fact that he voted twice on it clue you in that there were two bills? There was the Democratic version of the bill, and the Republican version of the bill. One could equally criticize the Republicans, in that most of them voted against the 87 billion before they voted for it."

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Illuminating exchange.

quote:

---

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said,

​

The enemy attacked us.

​

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.

​

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

​

That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

​

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.

​

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us? we'd be in a stronger place today.

---

Here, Kerry calls Bush out for equating Saudam and Osama.Bush's brilliant counterpoint...

quote:

---

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

​

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.

​

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.

---

This seemed, to me, to be the trend of the debate. Kerry would attack and then Bush would either not rebut or give a talking point (not to say Kerry didn't have his share of talking points).Somebody should of told Bush that Kerry didn't literally mean that he didn't know the difference between Osama and Saddam. He meant that he was equating the two with his rhetoric and actions against terrorism.Rei:That's the best way I've seen to sum it up. Why didn't the Kerry campaign explain this instead of letting everyone think that Kerry didn't want to fund our troops? Why don't they mention that Bush was going to veto the bill? Why do they keep letting the Republicans spout their misleading rhetoric about Kerry voting against body armor?Also, I don't quite understand the context in which this vote was being held. Why did the majority of Democrats vote with it? Was it the last bill that was going to be proposed for a period of time, and they just wanted to get the funding over to the troops?This message has been edited by JustinCy, 10-01-2004 02:20 PMThis message has been edited by JustinCy, 10-01-2004 02:49 PM

Hi Loudmouth, the points you make are good ones. I suppose if Kerry gets elected we will all have the opportunity to see how his leadership will steer us. I will be more than happy to eat my words if he turns out to be a great leader. Like I said though, tuesday morning quarterbacking is easy. Be well.

Kerry critized GWB for not signing American to be a member of the World Court in the debate, GWB replied, while he was president he would not have a World Court Judging Americans, truly if your an American, you can not vote for JFK, because out of Mr. Kerry's own lips, he said in essense, that he would make Global World Law to be soverign over US law.P.S. Our constitution protects your freedoms, World law threatens your freedoms, based only on this you can not be honest with ones self, say your an American and still vote for JFK, either were a soverign free nation(US law soveriegn), or were not(World Law soverign), etc...