So What Did You Think Of The Presidential Debate?

Personally i think both parties spoke very well (for a change).

They both had well thought out answers and rebuttals.

Anyone else have any comments?

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee
Personally i think both parties spoke very well (for a change).

They both had well thought out answers and rebuttals.

Anyone else have any comments?

Regards,

Lee

---

Couldn't agree with you less, Lee.

Bush came across as a confused mess. John Kerry was eloquent and actually answered the questions and more importantly, he had the right answers.

Jim,

I think they both had the right answers to the wrong questions personally although there were a few times when Bush mumbled on about nothing in particular the points he was making [when he did answer the questions asked of him] were sound ones.

I was particularly interested in the bipartisan talks stuff about N. Korea and, i have to side with Bush slightly on the subject, if that does happen all the work and progress (no matter how small) that has been made up to this point will have become worthless.

On the flip side of the coin overall though, i agree that Kerry is definately the better speaker of the two but, lets be honest about it, we knew that before the debates even took place.

I really do give the both of them 10 out of 10 for their effort, i certainly couldnt have done either of their jobs this evening.

I think overall though Kerry does appear to have come up trumps on this round however, im still of the opinion that the show isnt over until the fat lady sings (or the moron screws up).

Regards,

Lee

Oh and it is also the first time i have heard Bush use a word with 5 syllables in it ;)

Regards,

Lee

... and we know who that moron is, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xstr8guy
... and we know who that moron is, right?

---

Of course ;)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee
Oh and it is also the first time i have heard Bush use a word with 5 syllables in it ;)

Regards,

Lee

---

What word was that?

Did you notice that he never even tried to say nuclear? He just kept babbeling on about proliferation... lol

You know i actually cant remember the word now LOLOL

It was something like polymorphonical or something like that.

Ill try and remember it when i see the replay :)

Regards,

Lee

Bush kept beating a dead horse, and whereas I think this horse served them ok so far in the campaign, he beat it beyond reason tonight, didn't even do it effectively, and came across looking like he had nothing else to say but:

"Consistency! You can't say "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and be president! He's not consistent!"

That's all he had to say. When given the opportunity to give specifics, he just accused Kerry of being inconsistent. When given the opportunity to provide details on his plans with Iraq, he just accused Kerry of being inconsistent. When given the opportunity to discuss homeland security of North Korea or anything else, he just accused Kerry of being inconsistent.

Again, that may work at campaign rallies and it may have struck a chord in campaign commercials and speeches up until tonight, but it's as if he killed it tonight. He took what was a good argument for his campaign and beat it in to the ground and made it look not like a valid assessment of Kerry's inability to settle on a decision, but like the only thing his campaign has to fly on.

And that's not good for him.

He looked flustered. He looked annoyed. At times he sounded like a child.

Bush-
"I did too!"
"I knew that!"
"We had Poland!"
"I know that guy!"

Again, I can't say how bad it looked for him to beat that "consistency" horse tonight. Kerry eloquently gave specifics and laid out plans and policies and firm details and specifics. Bush kept going back to "consistency". It's all he had, and he just totally committed overkill on it.

People went in to the debate worried that Kerry was inconsistent.
They come out of the debate seeing that Bush has nothing better to do than accuse Kerry of inconsistency.

Bush - "The only consistency he's shown is being inconsistent!" I have expected Bush to hold up a big sign that said "PWNED!!!" there. What was that?

Now, whenever the Bush campaign tries to play the inconsistency card, it just makes it look like they have nothing better to say and no real argument to make because they just watched the President flounder with no other point to make than that.

Kerry - "I might have said the wrong thing. But invading Iraq was the wrong thing. Which is worse?" That scored points for him.

Really, Kerry's campaign could not have done a better job denouncing the "inconsistency" accusations from their opponents than Bush did himself tonight by making it seem not like that's a valid point, but instead like it's the only thing the Reps. can think of to say this year.

Kerry did what he had to do. He came across as decisive and Presidential, he came across and eloquent and informed, he came across and aggressive and confident and willing to speak the truth and give details.

Bush came across as annoyed and angry, flustered and frustrated, even childish and arrogant. And unable to offer up anything else than character attacks and an argument he turned from advantageous before the debate to overkill during it.

BDBionic - you're talking wishful thinking.

more than ever in my life, the republicans love character attacks. so do other people. look at reality shows and scandal sheets. the public really loves that stuff. they mistake it for entertainment.

and lots of people love aggressive.

i doubt it matters how kerry does in the debates - they're just good t.v. the only thing that matters is if bush ends up in a great big scandal that's more difficult to sweep aside.

I disagree, Basschick.

A hefty portion of Americans didn't watch tonight's debate. Their impression of the debate and who performed how will come from media coverage after it. From critics comments after it. From newscasters comments on it and the talking heads' assessments of it. And I really do think that most people will hear that it was Kerry that performed best in this debate and Bush that did poorly.

That'll contribute to a positive impression of Kerry and a negative one of Bush.

Further, tonight was Bush's chance to shine.

His debate negotiators fought hard to make foreign policy and national security the topics of the first debate. They knew more people would watch the first than any other. They knew most opinions would be swayed by this first debate than any other.

And they also knew that foreign policy and national security were Bush's strong points and where voters favored him most.

He had the advantage going in. He was positioned to really hurt Kerry here.

And he didn't.

Yes, the American public is extremely influenced by character attacks and rhetoric. But they can and will detect contrast when it's so plainly apparent before them, as it was in the case of this debate. This wasn't months and months of discrete inference, suggestion, stump speeches, media coverage and the like.

This was A and B. On a stage together. Up against one another. Contrast between the two as apparent as night and day.

And whether or not someone agrees that Kerry is a flip flopper is very different from whether or not it appears like Bush has nothing better to do than accuse Kerry of being a flip flopper. And it's the latter that came through tonight.

i tuned MSNBC for a jiffy and heard Joe Scarborough say that for him Kerry won the debate hands down, and he's a GOP guy.

FoxNews also mentione, even Brit Hume, Bush performed poor, looked angry etc

I think Bush didn't exactly get clobbered but did not shine at all. All these faces and looks and lip chewing and stuttering - not good. Oddly my bf's dad hasn't called but I'll be curious what they have to say tomorrow being one of these people that would vote for Bush because he's religious and we have to help God and blah blah....

hahaha - the debate is on - not that one this one -

I agree with Lee - N. Korea is a big issue and Bush was right and Kerry is wrong - I have followed the story and this fuck running N. Korea is an American freak, a nut bag, has nuclear weapons and we do not want to sit down with him - trust me Bin Laden needs to be taken care of but N. Korea and Iran have on going nuclear weapons programs and Bush was right on that topic - A way bigger issue for our future then Bin laden or Iraq -

Kerry says he agrees with Bush on the war with Iraq but that we need to get out and faster then Bush says - I disagree we should have not wasted our time in the first place - BUT right or wrong - we have to get out but not leave a ticking time bomb there - It's the same issue as the gulf war - right or wrong we MUST follow through to the end on this or the same shit will happen only this time WORSE

I think both did well tonight - Kerry did a good job - if not for 9/11 I think bush would be fucked - and trust me I DO NOT WANT 4 MORE YEARS OF ASSCROFT - but my life blood aside I am not sure I can justify in my mind voting for Kerry because of business - I want my kids to be safe 20 years from now and I think the redneck is the better man to do that then Kerry

There were many points made - some of Bush's points on the things that Kerry had said about our key allies are right on - also Kerry's point of building back the relationships we had pre 9/11 and the war ARE a big issue - but someone who has bad mouthed the friends we do have is not going to archive that - that like calling a girl a cunt and then asking her out later after she has heard what you said about her - (sorry for the straight analogy)

Kerry wants to cut the starwars program that Regan started - BAD IDEA - IE Iraq, Russia, China et al - anyone who thinks we don't want a ICBM defense program is just living in a dream world - Some crazy fuck is going to catch on to the technology and fuck us - If you don't think it can happen then you have forgotten 9/11 and what they did and you probably still leave your teeth under your pillow!

As for the debate reviews and Bush - I think he was frustrated with Kerry's political rhetoric and the actual facts of would events - Bush does have 4 years of on the job training that Kerry does not have. Bush took a hit for that and I think next time he'll do better at hiding his "you're a bumbass disdain" and not show as much emotion

Finally I heard they both agree on most topics but that Kerry feels he can do a better job - hummm - to vote or not to vote - that is the question!

My opinion on the whole thing was Bush looked and acted like he always does. Hes very childish and very defensive. All he did was try to fight with Kerry on everything he said, which is part of a debate but Bush could have at least said what he was going to do in the next 4 years instead of fighting. I think if you're the president and you know you have a better plan then be confident not defensive. When asked questions he repeated the same things over and over again. Not to mention I thought he was going to cry when he said "Its hard work being president, its hard". LOL. Maybe a little too hard for someone who can't even keep the names straight of the world leaders he deals with as he said "everyday". Funny how he had most of their names down pat at the debate but couldnt even pronounce them a week ago. I guess the wife sat down with him and played flash cards before going on stage.

Can I wade in on this issue?
Please.. these guys are exactly the same. Dubya is surely a putzvatik and Kerry is a schlamazel.
Does anybody out there really believe that someday Iraq will be "free and democratic"? Or that Dubya attacked Iraq to make them free? No, he did it to avenge daddy. He trumped up the entire WOMD charge.
Kerry, the schlamazel has yet to bring up the Bush connection to Saudi Arabia. Whats he waiting for???
Bush speaks to Gd and Gd tells him what to do....veddy scary. Only Gd knows who Kerry is talking to and who is telling him what to do...also scary.
Bush is no friend of ours and I'm not sure still where Kery stands on that issue....is anybody?
Ok, nuff venting for now........can I retain the right to re-visit the issue?? LOL

My thoughts; They both did well. Kerry answered some questions for me that until this point I had not clearly heard from him. I believe in my heart that they both have a deep love of this country and want the same goal, peace. They just have very different opinions on how to get us their.
Bush made a great point about the talks with N. Korea. A lot of work has been done to create multilateral negotiations. China is a huge advantage with the leverage they have over N. Korea and to go bipartisan at this point would be a bad maneuver. Kim Jong II is a very smart, very evil nut case and a bipartisan discussion with him will not work. He needs a force stronger then just the US. We need Japan, China, Russia and S. Korea in this effort to get Kim Jong II to stand down on his weapons program.
As far as us having and developing nuclear weapons, I'd have to say that is in our countries best interest as well. Because as long as there are people out there with Nuclear capability that wish great harm upon the US, the US needs to stand in a position of defense.
Furthermore, I don't see going into Iraq as a mistake (I did at first but it evolved) but as a developing strategy to target terrorist. Not to say they were an easier target but let's face it Hussein was a bad guy and his people suffered under his dictatorship. This being known, we used it to create a reason to go help these people be free. In turn, once Iraq is set up to defend itself we will have an ally in them. Slowly but progressively we should work our way into that sector of the world so as to negotiate more with Saudi Arabia. They are way heavy in the terror game. Right now the Saudis are too tough to tackle and yes it is about oil and money because we are not in a position to attack the terrorist networks their. Hopefully soon though after some networking in that area we can begin to build a solid and more effective relationship with Saudi. It's a tactical maneuver and I believe it can work. But you can't make stupid mistakes with them or they will "f" us up.
Bush repeatedly said, "you can not change your mind with these people, you can not admit your wrong and you can not waiver because of political pressure." I hope Kerry hears WHAT he is saying and adopts it in his thinking. It's okay if you know you made a bad decision and to change your mind but for the love of God spin it differently then saying, "I made the wrong choice". Just move forward but in a slightly different direction. Evolve with your thought and feelings. I don't think that Bush thinks he makes the right decisions all the time but he wont admit it because YOU CAN'T SHOW WEAKNESS OR MISCALCULATION WITH THESE OTHER COUNTRIES. They will find your weakness and hurt you with it. The leaders of other countries that operate under dictatorships do not think like you and I they think the same way as Stalin, Hitler, Moussalini etc.
I think Kerry has the potential to be one of the best Presidents we've seen. His mentors are those that most of us can agree on. But he needs to start seeing the enemy for what they are and stop trying to think you can simply reason with them because it's not possible. He also needs to recognize that pulling out of Iraq in 6 months is going to cause some really bad ramifications for us. We must finish the job Bush started. Shift focus from it was the wrong place at the wrong time, to ok were here, deal with it, finish it and move on. There is no time for looking back and criticising what should have or could have been done right now. There will be time later just not right now.
Personally, Bush is a good man and I respect his devotion to this country and the people. He's strong and yes comes off as arrogant but I don't believe he is arrogant. I believe he's following a philosophy of, "you can't and shouldn't admit to your enemy when your wrong you simply must correct your path and move steadily forward." And also be confident in yourself if for nothing else be confident in your core values and what chief objective is. He is a strategic thinker. I like that and if he tells us his strategy he tells our enemies. That's like telling the opposing team in a football game what play your going for next.

The debate was awesome. I was at a Democratic debate watching party last night, watching it live.

I never expected Kerry to be so good. Bush was on the defensive from the start. Very nice.

I can't wait until the next debate, I'll join in on the drinking games. People last night were drinking every time Bush said, "hard work."

If any one could watch that debate and still say they would vote for Bush then they are pathetic...period. I have always said that you need to get tested and have a license to drive and I think you should have to do the same thing to vote...only this test would be an IQ test...if you don't get a score of over 120 you can't vote...

The country would run a whole lot better if the morons who read the bible (those who I am sure would fail the IQ test mentioned above) would just stay in church and pray and let the rest of us vote...live our lives...and make the world a better place.

I think it is clear that GW would not qualify to vote and certainly not qualify to be President!!

I've heard a lot of comments, and just wanted to add my .02 :p

First, in terms of the debate, I have to agree with Brian that Bush continued to beat a very dead horse. It's ok to reiterate a message, to get it across, but it's one thing when you hear the message everyday, and it's another thing when it's said over a dozen times in 90 minutes. We get it, Kerry is supposed to be a flip-flopper, if anyone is unsure that they are trying to make him seem like a flip-flopper, they must be seriously stupid. Can the Republicans please find something else to beat into the ground?

Secondly, about Iraq. I think Kerry made the right decision. I think everytime he talks about it, Bush tries to flip it around. Kerry did support going into Iraq, he did support removing Saddam Hussein, but supported it on false pretenses from the Bush administration. He assumed they had a plan, from start to finish, and it turns out the only plan they had was to find Saddam Hussein. Now in the aftermath, where more people are dying, the cost of keeping troops there, the cost of rebuilding, and the lives lost since Saddam was captured, it's now obvious that going into Iraq was a bad idea. Sure, you can't blame the Bush administration for pursuing a good idea at the time, but you can blame them for poor foresight, bad execution, and not having a fail-proof plan. And Kerry isn't saying to just abandon Iraq, he's saying there is a mess, and we have to deal with it - but he's also saying that we created the mess, which Bush doesn't want to say. It's the equivalent of coming out of Vietnam and saying, "We still think it was a good idea." People are saying that Kerry needs to support the war in order to support the troops. That's ridiculous. You can have a love for this country, respect and honor for our nation's military, and still believe that the war in Iraq was a crock of shit. As far as bringing the military home, as Kerry reiterated in the debates, he doesn't want to bring them all home in six months, he wants to START bringing them home in six months. And that's what he needs to do. In six months, we will have been occupying Iraq for two years. A year and half already we've been there, and what have we accomplished? We've removed Saddam Hussein. And Bush wants four more years? He didn't accomplish shit in his first four, why give him four more?

And people have said they feel safer with Bush as president. I don't know about you, but since they captured Saddam Hussein it hasn't made ME feel safer. Saddam Hussein wasn't sending people on airplanes to blow up our buildings and kill our innocent people. Yeah, the one who is doing that is still FREE. And look at the wonders we've done in Afghanistan. We've been there for THREE years, we "freed" them, three years ago, and they haven't even had their elections yet (but Iraq is going to have elections pretty soon - right).

And all the talk about North Korea - North Korea is a threat, a real threat. Not a supposed WMD threat, because we know for a fact they have nuclear armaments. And Bush talks about how diplomacy wouldn't work with Iraq, so why does he think it'll work with North Korea. There's pretty much a consensus that Kim is a psycho, probably more so than even Saddam Hussein was, but we can't go to war with him, we just need to sit down and talk. Oh, maybe it's because North Korea has shit for natural resources that we can take, or perhaps because we've got our hands full with the BS war in Iraq and we can't actually afford the troops or the money to put pressure on North Korea.

Anyways, I've ranted on enough I suppose, but the bottom line is, I dislike Bush, and I'm not saying Kerry is the right man for the job, but he's better than the one we have.

Michael