OT: The Debate

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:46 pm

Well, it's certainly a race again. Kerry clearly won. By far the worst debate in Bush since he's re-election debate as Gov.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:51 pm

I was very pleased with how the debate went. Bush was on the defensive the whole time and when he didn't know what to say, went back to his 3 or 4 staple phrases that he keeps repeating over and over. Kerry, on the other hand, seemed to respond to the questions appropriately and made strong, solid, well thought out points. I was so glad when Kerry pointed out how Bush seems to think we were attacked by Iraq. He made Bush look like someone who just sticks to their narrow views of things, regardless of what's really going on. All I can say is if this country believes that Bush is better qualified to lead us, then we deserve whatever we get.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:52 pm

I saw a poll...I forgot whose..That said that

44% Kerry
36% Bush
17% Tie
( I know that aint 100%...undecided?)

I aint a mathematecian but how much of a bounce or if its a race again will depend on how much of that Kerry % was swing voters and how much was already voting Kerry.

The other thing kerry would worry about( I say this cause I think Kerry won) is a "who cares we all know Bush cant speak English" and "Kerry is a better speaker" attitude...

Im actually interested to see how this will come down.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:54 pm

Brando70 wrote:I don't think either candidate did much to change votes, although Kerry seemed smoother and more relaxed. Then again, he doesn't have a presidency to lose. But Leher asked a lot of good questions that, sadly, the media have really glossed over in the previous months.

Bush was on bad footing in this round because, frankly, Iraq specifically and foreign policy in general are the reason this race is even close. I expect him to look more solid on the domestic issues.

Yeah, I don't think it will do a lot to change votes. Everyone probably figured that Kerry would "win" the debates. However, most people realize that leaders don't have to necessarily be great debaters. I'm not saying Bush is a great leader though.

I'm an undecided voter and this debate didn't help me one bit. I already knew Bush f*cked up going to Iraq and I already knew Kerry pretty much supported the decision no matter how much spin he tries to put on it. It all comes down to if I don't like Bush enough to vote against him. I could never vote *for* Kerry.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:58 pm

Wow, McCain is spinning.

He just said Kerry didn't reconcile his "contradictions."

Ralph Reed had said earlier that Kerry didn't resolve his "internal contradictions."

You would think McCain would have torn up any talking points memo given to him. Or at least come up with a different word.

So much for the "Straight Talk Express" or whatever McCain used to call his chats on the bus with reporters during the 2000 primary campaign.

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:02 am

The MSNBC Focus Group of undecided voters in Massilon, Ohio *all* said they were leaning Kerry after this. (But none said the debate made their decision final) Now, that by itself means very little, but it's clear that it was not Bush's best performance, and Kerry now moves into debate territory where he has the advantage. I really think this race just got a whole lot tighter.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:06 am

JackB1 wrote:All I can say is if this country believes that Bush is better qualified to lead us, then we deserve whatever we get.

I really see nothing in John Kerry that makes me believe he is a good leader. I think a lot of people see this election as choosing between the lesser of two evils. If you are excited about Kerry then you are probably in the minority.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:10 am

Bill_Abner wrote:The MSNBC Focus Group of undecided voters in Massilon, Ohio *all* said they were leaning Kerry after this. (But none said the debate made their decision final) Now, that by itself means very little, but it's clear that it was not Bush's best performance, and Kerry now moves into debate territory where he has the advantage. I really think this race just got a whole lot tighter.

We will probably see all sorts of polls, but this one pretty much sums up my beliefs (Kerry wins debate, but really doesn't pick up any support).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics ... 40930.html

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:12 am

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is more the rule than the exception.

How much of the election is about choosing between these two guys versus determining whether Bush deserves to keep his job?

If a worker makes serious mistakes and doesn't have a good record of achievements, does he keep his job? Or does the employer say, well I'm not sure a replacement could be better so lets keep the underperforming guy?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:25 am

wco81 wrote:If a worker makes serious mistakes and doesn't have a good record of achievements, does he keep his job? Or does the employer say, well I'm not sure a replacement could be better so lets keep the underperforming guy?

It the employer really doesn't like the credentials or ideology of the only replacement candidate then I'm not sure what would happen.

If I am GM and I really feel that ball control and defense wins championships do I go out and hire a "fun and gun" guru after a few losing seasons just to make a change? I don't know? That's what we are struggling with.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:42 am

But it's two separate issues:

1) Does the incumbent stay?
2) Does the replacement candidate get in?

In polls of undecided voters, a high percentage thinks Bush doesn't deserve to keep his job but they are unconvinced Kerry is the right man for the job.

Historically, the answer to the first question was usually decisive. We'll see if that's true again.

Maybe even those who say Bush doesn't deserve to keep his job really don't think the problems in Iraq (not the decision to go to war in the first place but how the war has unraveled) or the economic problems are serious enough for Bush to lose his job.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:43 am

"By far the worst debate in Bush since he's re-election debate as Gov."

Important point there, Bill...he won his re-election bid as Governor...
This is a snap reaction, so I'll snap my reaction and then get the hell out of this thread. I find it funny that some in here who have been so vehement in their characterization of Bush as a dunce would now be "surprised" that Kerry would sound better in a debate, being a Yale debater and all. That just strikes me as humorous. What did I think? I think the president reacted the same way I was reacting to all this stupid blathering about Kerry being firm on the position of Iraq from day one. That is simply the dumbest, most incomprehensible thing I've ever heard, and to react incredulously to that assertion by Kerry would be perfectly natural, along with several others. His story about meeting two soldiers in an airport and one telling him, "We need you"? Hell, that was a lie. Gore and Clinton used those stupid fake stories all the time. No name, no specifics? Gimme a break.
Mission Accomplished...this is one I'm so damn tired of hearing about. These soldiers were tasked with taking Saddam out of power. They did that. Mission Accomplished. They performed the task they were given. In the speech on the carrier, Bush said that there was still long hard work to be done in Iraq. To the open mind, that ought to be the end of that. Of course, I know it won't be...
Bush never, never said that Saddam was an " Imminent threat." Not once. You know who said it? Twice? John Edwards, March 2003. Bush referred to it as a "growing threat". So Kerry is trying to take the words out of Edward's mouth and place them in Bush's. No surprise there...
"Knowing what we know now, I would have never authorized that war." Well, hell, Kerry, knowing what we know now, nobody in their right mind would have let you out of the primaries alive. You know what? Knowing what I know now, I would have made better grades. Gone straight through college instead of waiting. Waited for my wife. Treated my parents better. All we have to go on is what we knew THEN. And THEN, Kerry, you along with every other member of Congress, saw the EXACT same thing Bush saw, and voted to get rid of Saddam. THEN, in 1997, you lobbied for unilateral disarmament of Saddam's WMD, and to hell with the UN. THEN, Clinton was president, and you, Gore, Dashle, and all the other cronies were beating the drums of war. But it doesn't suit you know. Good Lord, you were beating that drum this time last year, til you saw the effect Dean was having with his nutty message...so you stole it. Since then, you've had not one, not two, but at least three different positions on the war...no, more. For the war: "anyone who doesn't believe that removing Saddam is the right thing to do doesn't deserve to be president." " Knowing everything we know now, I still would have voted for the use of force in Iraq." Against the war: " This was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." "Knowing everything we know now, I would never have authorized going to war." Not sure: " Well, Diane (Sawyer), it depends on the outcome(whether or not I think the war was worth it).
Kerry is a master debater (say it out loud real fast), I'll give him that. But he, not Bush, is the one who was all style, no substance, and the next one is town hall style, definitely NOT his forte.
Enjoy the moment, boys...it ain't gonna last...
and now, back to keeping my word...see some of you in Star Wars tomorrow night...

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:44 am

Paragraphs are your friend Teal.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:47 am

I know, db, but at 10 to midnight...sue me...

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:48 am

Usually polls after the debates are meaningless...

Its how the press and the media talk about the debate that's important. If its pro-Kerry that's bigger than Kerry having a good showing in the acutal debate. Right now it looks as if Kerry has gained some momentum and the press are now talking about a Kerry win in the debate. This is huge for Kerry because before it was all flip flop all the time. Now its Kerry answers the flip-flop charge and Bush doesn't provide a plan for the peace. I'm talking how the media is covering the debate.

I don't think Kerry sealed the election but he might have done enough to have the press now questioning Bush. That's huge for Kerry.

Personally, Kerry was quick with his answers and seemed like a Statesman. Bush seemed like his brain stopped working in the middle of a sentence.

Lastly, Jim Lehrer is the best. He was asking the tough questions from the first minute. I think he could have been harder on the candidate but he asked the questions that seem America wanted answers too.

Still I would have love in the candidates would have been able to directly question each other. I'm a little tired of the sterile debate format designed so no one can really win or lose.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:49 am

Bush has been awkward in press conferences and speeches before.

But he's been campaigning so much that he might have been expected to be more smooth, more in command.

So that may be why people are surprised by his performance.

BTW, Bush got a net 15% bump after the first debate against Gore in 2000. That's more than any other candidate in the past 20 years, including Reagan. May be the most ever.

So he was the champion in presidential debates.

ProvoAnC · Post by **ProvoAnC** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:56 am

I thought Kerry, as usual, didn't answer any of the questions. When aksed what his plan would be to make homeland security better all he said was how Bush hasn't done anything and he gave tax cuts instead of funding for police. Not sure where that came from cause we (LEO) just got 2mil for homeland security and we (SWAT) are getting a shitload of new gear. I thought Bush stuck to his guns and didn't waiver. I think that's a big reason why ppl don't like him. He makes decisions and acts. What does your wife like better when she asks you how something looks on her? The real answer or one fluffed up to make her feel better?

I also like how Kerry assumed that if we didn't f with Iraq we would have caught Bin Laden. Gimme a break. Coulple that with his awesome powers of monday morning qb'ing, he should be able to solve all the world's problems, without even telling you how he's going to do it. He should be a friggin super hero.

As teal said, this will be my one and only venture into DigitalKerryPage. Not to hijack, but I rented SW tonight and will also play manana

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:58 am

wco:
I've always thought that these kind of debates were never GW's strong suit. The fact that Gore was so piss poor helped him out in the first one, but Bush is not a highbrow really, and the highbrows are the ones who typically do better in this particular format. The town hall is where I expect Bush to shine, and Kerry to falter some. That's where I thought he was at his best in 2000.
I'm not disappointed in Bush's performance, because I knew what to expect. At this point, I don't think it matters either way...people who think have already made up their minds one way or the other anyway, so these will have little effect come November 2nd, and once the shine wears off of tonight and people have time to digest all that was said, and not just HOW it was said, initial opinions will start to change some, I think...

...

oops, I flipflopped...said I was done a minute ago..oh well...I'm done now...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:01 am

"but I rented SW tonight and will also play manana"

See you manana, provo...I can only assume you will be a sniper droid...

Post by **Jared** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:22 am

tealboy03 wrote: I think the president reacted the same way I was reacting to all this stupid blathering about Kerry being firm on the position of Iraq from day one. That is simply the dumbest, most incomprehensible thing I've ever heard, and to react incredulously to that assertion by Kerry would be perfectly natural, along with several others.

How has Kerry's position on Iraq not been consistent? Anyone can answer this (i.e. this isn't to single out teal). I disagree with Kerry's position on Iraq, but it has been consistent since day one. Read Kerry's statement on his vote on the day he made the vote explaining why he made it. It's basically what Kerry said during the debate.

His story about meeting two soldiers in an airport and one telling him, "We need you"? Hell, that was a lie. Gore and Clinton used those stupid fake stories all the time. No name, no specifics? Gimme a break.

That's patently unfair. If Bush told a story about this and someone said it was a fake story/lie, Bush supporters would be up in arms as to how biased this is. Come on...be fair to both sides on this.

Kerry won the debate. Bush seemed defensive and his tone wasn't that presidential. He needs to work on his tone and his delivery before the next debate. And content....he repeated the same points over and over again and didn't vary things enough.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:37 am

Kerry did a great job tonight, but the real challenge is for his campaign to seize the opportunity and run with it before the Republican media echo chamber gets to work on turning events around. Gore came out of the first debate as the winner, but by three days later the popular perception had changed completely so that Bush was considered the winner, and that was how it held. Even for that third debate of 2000, when Gore absolutely tore Bush a new one, the storyline had already been formed with the result that most analysts reported it a Bush win or, at the very least a draw (it wasn't).

The other thing is Bush's fundamental unpleasantness was kind of on display. I still haven't figured out who it is exactly that he appeals to, as he comes across as smug, mean and willfully ignorant.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:52 am

seanmac31 wrote: and willfully ignorant.

If that is supposed to mean he is dumb on purpose....you are way off...he is naturally that way.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:08 am

Oh he's naturally dumb, but he also happens to be proud of it, which is where the willful part comes in. What's scary is that I suspect it's that very quality that is admired by a good number of his supporters. America is a frightfully anti-intellectual country when you get right down to it. It really resonates in the sort of ambiguity we view England with. A real Rome to Greece redux.

paytonsplace · Post by **paytonsplace** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:45 am

tealboy03 wrote:wco:
I'm not disappointed in Bush's performance, because I knew what to expect. At this point, I don't think it matters either way...people who think have already made up their minds one way or the other anyway, so these will have little effect come November 2nd, and once the shine wears off of tonight and people have time to digest all that was said, and not just HOW it was said, initial opinions will start to change some, I think...

... oops, I flipflopped...said I was done a minute ago..oh well...I'm done now...

I'm disappointed in Bush. I will not lower my standards for the president. His performance tonight was almost embarassing. For the sake of the office, I hope he does better next time.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:07 am

paytonsplace wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:wco:
I'm not disappointed in Bush's performance, because I knew what to expect. At this point, I don't think it matters either way...people who think have already made up their minds one way or the other anyway, so these will have little effect come November 2nd, and once the shine wears off of tonight and people have time to digest all that was said, and not just HOW it was said, initial opinions will start to change some, I think...

... oops, I flipflopped...said I was done a minute ago..oh well...I'm done now...
I'm disappointed in Bush. I will not lower my standards for the president. His performance tonight was almost embarassing. For the sake of the office, I hope he does better next time.

For the sake of the office, it would be best if Bush turns out the lights and closes the door on his way out.