The 2004 Presidential Debates

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

The 2004 Presidential Debates

Post by fnordboy » Oct 1st 2004, 12:53 am

Debate 1 finished.

Wow. Is it just me or did Bush get beaten bad in this one? Bush barely could put a coherent sentence together before getting to his talking points. Free this, freedom that, flip-flopper, mixed messages.... Every friggin answer. Kerry was clear and concise and made a lot of sense tonight. Things are looking up :) Kerry is the master debater!! ...errr.. :oops:

Thoughts?

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Re: The 2004 Presidential Debates

Post by TomSpeed » Oct 1st 2004, 9:48 am

fnordboy wrote:Debate 1 finished.

Wow. Is it just me or did Bush get beaten bad in this one? Bush barely could put a coherent sentence together before getting to his talking points. Free this, freedom that, flip-flopper, mixed messages.... Every friggin answer. Kerry was clear and concise and made a lot of sense tonight. Things are looking up :) Kerry is the master debater!! ...errr.. :oops:

Thoughts?
I'm surprised Bush didn't say, "Jim, did you know that my opponent served in Vietnam?" Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam about six times. Okay, you served in Vietnam, now what?

Bush repeated his message about Kerry because it's effective. We've seen Kerry's lead in the polls disappear despite the fact that things are going so poorly in Iraq. Kerry's response that he's had one view on Iraq is simply not factual or believable. Bush scored major points by pointing out that Kerry had access to the same intel reports that Bush did. Kerry said that Saddam was a threat and should have been removed. The fact is that if Kerry thought containment was working, he would have voted against the resolution giving the president the option to use force. Now, Kerry wants Americans to believe that other countries will lift the burden in Iraq from the US if he asks them nicely enough. If you were the leader of France, Germany, or Russia, or anywhere else, would you put troops into Iraq now?

I don't think that Kery got what he needed. He didn't knock Bush out.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Re: The 2004 Presidential Debates

Post by fnordboy » Oct 1st 2004, 10:41 am

TomSpeed wrote:
fnordboy wrote:Debate 1 finished.

Wow. Is it just me or did Bush get beaten bad in this one? Bush barely could put a coherent sentence together before getting to his talking points. Free this, freedom that, flip-flopper, mixed messages.... Every friggin answer. Kerry was clear and concise and made a lot of sense tonight. Things are looking up :) Kerry is the master debater!! ...errr.. :oops:

Thoughts?
I'm surprised Bush didn't say, "Jim, did you know that my opponent served in Vietnam?" Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam about six times. Okay, you served in Vietnam, now what?

Bush repeated his message about Kerry because it's effective. We've seen Kerry's lead in the polls disappear despite the fact that things are going so poorly in Iraq. Kerry's response that he's had one view on Iraq is simply not factual or believable. Bush scored major points by pointing out that Kerry had access to the same intel reports that Bush did. Kerry said that Saddam was a threat and should have been removed. The fact is that if Kerry thought containment was working, he would have voted against the resolution giving the president the option to use force. Now, Kerry wants Americans to believe that other countries will lift the burden in Iraq from the US if he asks them nicely enough. If you were the leader of France, Germany, or Russia, or anywhere else, would you put troops into Iraq now?

I don't think that Kery got what he needed. He didn't knock Bush out.
See I don't believe Bush's year+ long act of "repeating until its perceived as true" is working as much as it use to. I have seen and heard plenty of people say that last night especially it made him look weak and like he had no clue what he was talking about. IF Bush's only major issue against Kerry is that he is a "flip-flopper" the repubs have some major problems. It must be his major stance agianst Kerry since that is what he brought up the most. I wish Kerry would have called Bush out on this and point out his major flip-flops throughout his presidency... but I can also understand why he didn't.

Kerry's stance can be factual and believable. The issue up until now is he never really clearly stated his stance. What he brought up last night covers his ass on both being for the war and against the war. He said, yes Saddam Hussein was a threat. Yes he authorized the use of force if necessary and made a point of saying that the president promised to not invade until diplomatic relations were exhausted, he had a strong coalition (don't forget Poland! ;) ), and a clear plan. All of those things the president or his staff had. There was no plan in Iraq, we had 4 other countries helping us out, but we were and are taking 90% of the casualties and the cost (as Kerry stated last night).

It is not about asking the other countries nicely enough. It is about not ostracizing and ridiculing other countries who did not want to go into a misguided and irrelevant war. France and Germany both showed interest already in helping out in reconstruction but were quickly shot down. There is an interest there. We will probably have to bend over backwards now at this point to get certain people in there, but that should not reflect on Kerry whatsoever. We are in this mess because of Bush and his advisors. Iraq is a clusterF at this point, but it is also crucial that we stabilize it and finish what our idiot president started stupidly. We can not up and leave, and Kerry knows this. We also can not keep our military as stretched as we have, especially with the amount of deaths climbing every month.

I will agree, I cringe every time Kerry brings up 'nam. It is a dumb campaign move. He should focus on attacking Bush in the here and now. There is plenty of ammo out there.

Kerry clearly won last night's debate. He had Bush on the defensive the whole night. Even when Bush tried to go offensive it backfired IMO. Did Kerry get enough? I don't know. He has a lot to make up in the polls. There were a large amount of viewers last night which is good, some of the prelim numbers I have heard were 40-50 million. Hopefully a lot of those were undecideds.

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Oct 1st 2004, 1:55 pm

Thought this was funny....
Scenes From Spin Alley
Karl Rove, Mike McCurry, and other surrogates score the debate.

By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004, at 11:54 PM PT

MIAMI—Karl Rove must have known things didn't go well when the New York Post asked him whether this was the worst debate of President Bush's life. No, Rove insisted. This was one of the president's best debates, and one of John Kerry's worst. "Really?" asked the reporter, Vince Morris. "You can say that with a straight face?"
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107516&

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Re: The 2004 Presidential Debates

Post by Nothingman » Oct 1st 2004, 4:56 pm

fnordboy wrote: Kerry is the master debater!! ...errr.. :oops:
Yes, I to am a master debater, and a cunning linguist. :wink:

fnordboy wrote:Free this, freedom that, flip-flopper, mixed messages.... Every friggin answer.
The ideology of freedom does little without a valid plan. I found the repeated statement that Kerry is a flip flopper and and inconsistant in his messages to be very weak. Basic debating 101, do not repeat your material. State you arguement, back it up with your points, and restate, not repeat, your aguement in closing. Unfortunanly the sheep across the country will start believing it if you say it enough times, but the edjucated undecided voter will see through it.


Tomspeed wrote:I'm surprised Bush didn't say, "Jim, did you know that my opponent served in Vietnam?" Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam about six times. Okay, you served in Vietnam, now what?
I think there is a right way to play this card and a wrong way. Kerry had difficulty playing it correctly though I know what he was going for. As far his conviction for his country and his ability to relate to our troops I believe all he needs to do is point to his service record and say that it speaks for itself. Further attempts to justify it make him seem defense when he doesn't need to be.

The vietnam reference has the potential to be very potent to the president, but it's a fine line in using it. There are many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. For more on this I HIGHLY suggest you read the article in this months Playboy, it is an extremely well written article from a military writer who was in vietnam and is now covering iraq. The problem with referencing vietnam is it's very complicated and is difficult to explain fully to people in a short answer debate format. It's difficult no matter what the format. But we are repeating the same mistakes in Iraq that we did in Vietnam, the good news is we aren't too far in to shift strategy yet. What should bother people is the president resolute stance on the war and his inflexibility to shifting strategies. Everyone knows that things aren't going well and simply saying we must hold firm and stay till the job is done is ingnorance.

Bush states that his commanders have lots of flexibility, this may be true, but there's and underlying flaw he's not addressing. His generals are like minded tank commanders and air war technicians. This isn't a war of planes and tanks, this is a guerilla war. It is man on man, it's about propoganda and supply lines, not fire power. This is the war we are in because it's the war the enemy can fight us on on a level playing field. If you choose to call it level, I'd say it's even slopped in their direction.

Kerry's proposal to double the special forces is what we need. These are the minds that we need to win this war. Special forces commanders should be the ones running the show, not tank drivers. Anyone remember the last tank battle we had in Iraq? How about the last roadside bombing or ambush with AK-47's or RPG's? Think about it, were eating soup with a fork here.

edited for spelling
Last edited by Nothingman on Oct 4th 2004, 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 1st 2004, 10:58 pm

:shock:

Definate wow. The debate was great. Kerry was very impressive. Bush looked distracted, tired and rather bitter.

The stunning thing is this debate was supposed to be on foreign policy, George Bush's supposed turf. Bush and his cronies have screened all of his rallies so that all he hears is the cheers of supporters.

Remember the woman whose son was killed in Iraq, who stepped forward to ask Laura Bush a question and then was arrested?

I do think Bush has been living in his world of yes people and he finally met someone who said no. Bring on the next debates.

-LanceMan

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Oct 4th 2004, 4:14 am

I didn't see the debate but from the news coverage here, it certainly sounds like Bush came off worse.... my brother saw bits of it and he said that at one point Bush churned out his 'they attacked us, we need to retaliate' line, and Kerry pointed out that actually, Iraq never attacked the US, Osama did, and that no link between the two has ever been proven. Bush's response was an apparently petulant 'yeah, I knew that, that's what I meant... of course Iraq didn't attack us, I know that.'

I am hoping I can catch the next debate as it sounds great for just comedy value (while in no way belittling the seriousness of what is to be decided). I am to the point where I can't watch the TV if Bush is on it though, so I might have to find some protective goggle-wear first.

I agree with Fnordboy and Nothingman; the issues are so much deeper than Bush seems willing to acknowledge. But that said, I don't know a great deal about the economic situation in the USA, so I'm kind of a one-issue woman when it comes to Bush. I will, however, be interested to hear Bush's hypocrisy in motion when it comes to the environment. Obviously it's fine that acid rain falls in Scandinavia as a result of SUV's in the USA... where is Scandinavia anyway? Erm...

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 5th 2004, 12:20 am

starbug wrote:I didn't see the debate but from the news coverage here, it certainly sounds like Bush came off worse.... my brother saw bits of it and he said that at one point Bush churned out his 'they attacked us, we need to retaliate' line, and Kerry pointed out that actually, Iraq never attacked the US, Osama did, and that no link between the two has ever been proven. Bush's response was an apparently petulant 'yeah, I knew that, that's what I meant... of course Iraq didn't attack us, I know that.'
Yes, that was a classic moment. :D
I am hoping I can catch the next debate as it sounds great for just comedy value (while in no way belittling the seriousness of what is to be decided). I am to the point where I can't watch the TV if Bush is on it though, so I might have to find some protective goggle-wear first.
Know what precisely what you means. My temp assignment is over so no more Fox news for me. Yessssssss!

BTW- I heard a disgusting piece on NPR today reporting on the political views of born again Christians in Iowa. Among other tasty tidbits tossed out

-prayer for the conversion of Jews (Christ, the Jews have been picked on enough, sod off)

-Kerry is not Christian enough (Apparently practicing Catholics don't count)

-the continuing belief that Christians are a persecuted minority in the US (For a group that currently controls all THREE branches of government, they are an awfully insecure lot)

The tragedy in all this is that these people don't see that their beliefs deeply offend other Americans, yours truly included. And of course, they are Bush's base.
I agree with Fnordboy and Nothingman; the issues are so much deeper than Bush seems willing to acknowledge. But that said, I don't know a great deal about the economic situation in the USA, so I'm kind of a one-issue woman when it comes to Bush. I will, however, be interested to hear Bush's hypocrisy in motion when it comes to the environment. Obviously it's fine that acid rain falls in Scandinavia as a result of SUV's in the USA... where is Scandinavia anyway? Erm...
Economy is not doing that great. I have lost track of the number of people I personally know who have lost their job, lost their health care coverage or seen rise in health care costs. The defense industries are making a killing (no pun intended) but from the economic data I have heard many companies are holding off from hiring.

-LanceMan

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Oct 5th 2004, 4:40 am

lance wrote:The tragedy in all this is that these people don't see that their beliefs deeply offend other Americans, yours truly included. And of course, they are Bush's base.
In a related sense, what's been really upsetting for me through the whole time of Bush's administration is the notion that questioning this administration is somehow 'un-American'. On the contrary, you're exercising your rights as an American, and your confidence that you live in a nation that will take your opinion seriously, or at the very least not shut down your questions. Bush's administration seems willing to use this - I like to call it - emotional blackmail of playing to the electorate's desire to be 'American' in order to justify his own shutting down of any sensible debate. It is never wrong to question.

No more Fox News Lance! Phew. Well, I was never worried about you being sucked into that black hole anyway... :wink:

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

debates

Post by lance » Oct 10th 2004, 3:48 pm

So two more debates down, one to go. What did you think?

The veep debate. Both did very well. Goes without saying who is the intellectual on the Bush/Cheney ticket. :D

The 2nd Presidential debate. Bush did better, although I find it difficult to think of how he could have done worse thatn the 1st debate.

Kerry did very well. Another solid performance. I liked his comment about the Coalition of the Willing: they have lost 8 countries and Poland is making noises about pulling out. I also like how he addressed the Pro-Life supporter. He didn't demean her, he didn't say "Your wrong!" or "I'm moral and you are not." He said I respect your position but I disagree.

-LanceMan

User avatar
emmie
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 606
Joined: May 27th 1999, 10:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by emmie » Oct 10th 2004, 10:19 pm

this is coming from someone who doesn't know much about politics. I decided to watch the second presidential debate so that I could learn more about the candidates and where they stand. boy, was I surprised! they were acting like little boys, the both of them! for the first half, instead of answering questions, they only told us what their opponent did wrong. it got old really fast, especially since they just kept saying the same thing. he's wrong, no he's wrong, no he's wrong, don't listen to him. I mean, sheesh!! it was very frustrating, and I only found the second half to be informative.

I don't particularly like either one of them, but I thought that Kerry did a bit better than Bush. Kerry at least seemed more prepared and had a lot of facts and figures. Bush just kept saying the same thing over and over. like he could only remember 5 facts or something. plus, I didn't like his demeanor. the way he talked and carried himself, it just looked like he was acting or putting on a show. Kerry seemed like he was being himself, or close to it anyway. and I was really annoyed at how Bush answered the last question about 3 mistakes he's made. I mean, be a man, own up to your mistakes! I thought it made him look worse to not answer that question.

this is why I hate politics. I mean, is it too much to ask to have a question answering? ugh!

User avatar
Jody Barsch*
Lifehead
Posts: 1166
Joined: Jun 30th 2003, 1:30 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Jody Barsch* » Oct 10th 2004, 11:11 pm

Was it just me, or did it seem like that "pro-life" supporter was on the verge of tears? I liked Kerry's response that he couldn't legislate against reproduction freedomand represent the entire country. (Personally, Kerry is no where near socially liberal enough for me, but I'm glad he made the points he did about abortion and stem cell research.) I liked the town hall format, and thought people asked some great questions and covered a lot of content. I agree Emmie the Bush's response to that last question was irritating.
Kickstart The Riches movie!

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Oct 11th 2004, 3:07 pm

Oops I've been kinda MIA lately so I never followed up on this thread.

VP Debate:

I didn't watch the whole thing since I was over my grandmothers and wasn't fully payng attention. What I saw though surprised me. I really don't liek Cheney, but I found him a lot more personable than he usually is. I don't agree with his policies whatsoever, but I thought he "played the game" better than ever. Of course, I still say Edwards barely "won" just for the simple fact of Cheney's outright and obvious lies. If you are going to lie atleast make it a little bit harder to be proven a lie. You never met Edwards? Right... Edwards seems really fake though, moreso than the usual politician fakeness. Must be his trial lawyerness coming out.

2nd Pres. Debate:

While Bush handled himself better this time around I still think it was a clear Kerry win. Bush did nothing more than throw around some talking points and (sorta) smile and wink to the crowd. Kerry had some strong valid points, and the more he speaks about his plans and what he as a candidate stands for the better off he is. I didn't care for the way Kerry handled the abortion question. I really like his response and what he was trying to say, but he just didn't speak very well at that point. That was the only time I can remember him flubbing his "lines". Bush came off so arrogant it really bothered me. THe way he skirted around the 3 mistakes question irked the hell out of me. I don't understand why he can not admit that he has clearly made some mistakes.

I also didn't agree with Kerry promising into the camera about no tax increases. That is a bad idea. The way this war is going and the fact that no one is paying for it (except our grandkids) I wouldn't be surprised if a tax increase happens. It may become a necessity.

How anyone can still be for Bush at this point boggles my mind.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 11th 2004, 9:40 pm

emmie wrote: and I was really annoyed at how Bush answered the last question about 3 mistakes he's made. I mean, be a man, own up to your mistakes! I thought it made him look worse to not answer that question.

this is why I hate politics. I mean, is it too much to ask to have a question answering? ugh!
Word.

Bush totally evaded the question. Humility is not his forte.

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 11th 2004, 9:42 pm

Jody Barsch* wrote:Was it just me, or did it seem like that "pro-life" supporter was on the verge of tears? I liked Kerry's response that he couldn't legislate against reproduction freedomand represent the entire country. (Personally, Kerry is no where near socially liberal enough for me, but I'm glad he made the points he did about abortion and stem cell research.) I liked the town hall format, and thought people asked some great questions and covered a lot of content. I agree Emmie the Bush's response to that last question was irritating.
Jody I agree Kerry is no where progressive enough for me either. However, most of the progressives/liberals I know will gladly hold their noses and vote for Kerry given the alternatives.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests