OT: The Debate

[Leebo33]

I still haven't figured out who it is exactly that he appeals to, as he comes across as smug, mean and willfully ignorant.

Change that last word from ignorant to arrogant and you would be describing a lot of Kerry supporters I know.

[mobiggins]

To say that Kerry didn't answer the questions is absurd, provo. It was Bush who kept dodging them because either a. he didn't understand and follow the points that Kerry had made before his time was up, or b. he couldn't fit one of his pat, pre-set sentences as the answer. He had about three things he said all night, and the more he said them, the more you realised that he couldn't think beyond those boundaries. In fact, a very telling moment in the debate was the final N. Korea exchange in which Kerry took him to task on the danger of Kim Jong Il, and I watched our Great Leader stumble, bumble, then suddenly, when none of his ready-mades worked, freeze for a second and insert one of them anyway: that Kerry looked at the intelligence and saw a threat. Here we are, talking about N. Korea, Bush knows he has no real policy there, and so he does the only thing he knows: say one of his pat lines on Iraq. It was as if his circuits got crossed.
Some of Bush's stumbles and misunderstandings were surreal. There was that one moment where he had nothing in his head and stared at the camera with his mouth agape for about five very uncomfortable seconds. There were his many moments in which he OBVIOUSLY had very little grasp of the facts of the issue at hand and returned to the safety of coached answers. Neither did he have the intellectual acumen to follow the Kerry train of thought, as evidenced by his bungled, incoherent responses on several occasions, notable among them being the "Osama Bin Laden controlling this country" response.

Watching Bush pitifully try to insert the 'flip-flop,' mixed-message party line against Kerry into his rhetoric was downright painful. He misused it so many times that by the end of the debate it rang hollow.

Give me solid examples where Kerry dodged the questions posed to him. There are none, and if you saw that debate and didn't see a weak, floundering, in-over-his-head man of average (or below) intelect in George W. Bush last night, then you really are not looking at things objectively and are jeopardising democracy with a very misinformed vote. Kerry won that debate hands down, and fortunately most people watching last night, as evidenced by the (nonscientific, yes, I know) CNN.com poll showing 78% thought Kerry had won, thought likewise.

[Badgun]

I wanted so desperately for Kerry to say something I wanted to hear. To say one good thing he would do to change the world. All I heard was constant criticism of Bush and nothing about what he would do to fix it.

His thoughts on Iraq are laughable, as are most of his foreign policy ideas. He was only saying what he thought the Michael Moore crowd wanted to hear.

After last night, I'm more certain than ever that Bush is a lock this year. I know there are people out there that would make a better president than Bush, unfortunately Kerry ain't one of them.

[kevinpars]

I think I won the debate just by not watching it. The more i see of Kerry, the more I wish I had been more supportive of Dean. The more of see of Kerry the more he reminds me of Michael Dukakis. The only difference is that Kerry looks better sitting in a tank.

One thing is clear to me. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the DNC MUST GO.

If you want to make some money, invest in tobacco and oil. The next 4 years won't be good for the economy, but I would bet my life that gas and cigarettes will be hot, hot hot.

[sportdan30]

CNN Poll

Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?

President George W. Bush 20% 64999 votes

Sen. John Kerry 74% 234672 votes

Evenly matched 6% 17985 votes

Total: 317656 votes

[pk500]

Since I'm voting for neither of these guys, I tried to put myself into the position of an opponent and supporter of each at various times last night. And my conclusion was that this debate was a classic "push" -- neither side "won."

Bush stayed on his simple, "It's hard work," "I'm commander in chief, I know how to act," "the world is safer without Saddam" message, which will cause his supporters to stand up and cheer, play Lee Greenwood and wave their Power of Pride Wal-Mart bumper stickers. No gain, no loss.

Kerry said he could do better, that the president has failed but offered no specifics other than constant references to "my plan," with one flimsy pointer to check out the specifics at johnkerry.com. That will cause Kerry's supporters to stand up and cheer, play the Dems' "Happy Days Are Here Again" and rail against the evils of Bush with no substance or nothing but slogans as evidence of a concrete plan.

I think Kerry appeared more composed, more statesmanlike. He didn't appear disinterested when Bush spoke while Bush was harshly dismissive of Kerry at times. But again, Bush knows that his core group sees Kerry as a waffling weakling, so he's not going to do anything to change that perception. Bush also knows he has the advantage of incumbency and used that power to the hilt last night. "I'm the commander in chief, and I know how to act ... "

It was a fun, interesting 90 minutes that accomplished very little. I doubt anyone was swayed from either camp, and I have a hard time believing that last night made up the minds of any undecided voters. The debate was a little less scripted than I expected, thanks to the excellent moderation of Jim Lehrer, but neither guy said anything that surprised me one bit, and there were no "home run swings" by either.

Entertaining, a good study in democracy, but that's about it.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

>>>After last night, I'm more certain than ever that Bush is a lock this year. I know there are people out there that would make a better president than Bush, unfortunately Kerry ain't one of them.<<<

Bad:

Best paragraph I've read in this whole thread. So true, so true.

I think Michael Badnarik IS one of the people who will be a better president than Bush, so I'm voting for him.

But you're right: Bush is a certifiable Master lock in six weeks. It's over, folks.

Take care,
PK

[webdanzer]

To paraphrase a friend of mine, the real winner was Kim Jong Il, who must have been busting nuts all night over the impact he was seemingly having on US presidential politics.

I personally think that Kerry came off much better than Bush in the debate.

[Leebo33]

then you really are not looking at things objectively and are jeopardising democracy with a very misinformed vote

Oh please...jeopardizing democracy? You have to be kidding. The Republicans could put the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate up there and liberals still wouldn't vote for the "evil Republican Nazi" even if he did look and talk better on TV. Why would you expect conservatives to do anything different?

I too think Bush is going to win. It is hard for Democrats to slam Bush for the war in Iraq when their best candidate voted for it. I don't care how they spin it. Most people don't like "Monday morning quarterbacks" and that is a personality trait that is just as scary to me as being a poor public speaker.

[wco81]

I think I won the debate just by not watching it. The more i see of Kerry, the more I wish I had been more supportive of Dean. The more of see of Kerry the more he reminds me of Michael Dukakis. The only difference is that Kerry looks better sitting in a tank.

Actually, one of the things the pundits are saying is that Kerry reassured a lot of Democrats, who were becoming discouraged by the events of the past month. "Re-energized" is the word they used, I believe.

They think this was another chance for Kerry to reintroduce himself to the nation at large, after the convention speech and 1-2 months of the Swift Boat and other smears.

So last night was an opportunity to present himself as being "presidential." He certainly came off better than Bush, who was fidgeting and couldn't express himself beyond the lines he memorized.

[wco81]

The Republicans could put the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate up there and liberals still wouldn't vote for the "evil Republican Nazi" even if he did look and talk better on TV. Why would you expect conservatives to do anything different?

One of the most popular politicians is McCain, whose reach goes well into the Democratic ranks. Last night he spun for Bush about the debate performance but most people will forget that.

But what will McCain do to win the GOP nomination? In 2000, he was called "liberal" in places like South Carolina. Will he pander to the religious conservatives as Bush Sr. did? Will he swallow his pride and embrace the supply-side tax cuts which he has criticized (once again, as Bush Sr. did with his "voodoo economics" comment followed by "no new taxes" pledge?)?

McCain is articulate and his current popularity is linked to his reputation for honesty and integrity. But if he compromises his former positions to become really hardcore conservative, will he be the same person?

Regarding Bush, actually both the Bushes, I remember Bush Sr. being considered a sharp guy when he was DCI and VP. But when he became a presidential candidate, he started tripping over his tongue. Similarly for Bush Jr., they say he was a smooth speaker in his younger days. Especially just 10 years ago when he ran for the governorship of Texas. It's strange that both father and son got worse over time.

Bush's best moment was at Ground Zero. But subsequently, he was just awkward in press conferences. He's been good on the stump during this campaign. Pat Buchanan theorized that all the applause lines which get big reactions at stump events, which are packed with supporters, fell flat at the debate, where the crowd is more evenly divided. And this lack of reaction may have discombobulated him.

[Jared]

The Republicans could put the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate up there and liberals still wouldn't vote for the "evil Republican Nazi" even if he did look and talk better on TV. Why would you expect conservatives to do anything different?

Umm...lots of Democrats voted for Reagan, the candidate that looked and talked better on TV. And very few Democrats think of Bush as the "evil Republican Nazi"...that's the almost Nader-esque fringes.

I too think Bush is going to win. It is hard for Democrats to slam Bush for the war in Iraq when their best candidate voted for it. I don't care how they spin it. Most people don't like "Monday morning quarterbacks" and that is a personality trait that is just as scary to me as being a poor public speaker.

Again...his vote has been completely consistent with what he's been saying all along. From his speech on the Senate floor in October 2002 regarding his vote for the resolution (and this would be good to actually read for everyone that says he flip-flopped on his Iraq position):

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upl ... -iraq.html

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

.....

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

[Parker]

I don't see how anyone can say the debate was a wash. Kerry took control of the debate from the start, Bush was on the defensive the entire time. Even if you don't agree with everything Kerry said, that makes a big difference. I'm not surprised, when you spend years learning how to debate, one of the skills if how to take control of a room.

I also don't see why it's so hard to believe Kerry would have taken the lead again from Bush anyway. This election has gone back and forth. Kerry was ahead for quite a long period of time. No one knows quite why Bush pulled ahead, so I don't think it's hard to imagine Kerry will take the lead again, whether or not the debate helps him.

[Brando70]

The most effective exchange of the night, from a Kerry standpoint, was Bush talking about Iraq and lumping them in with the enemy that attacked us (don't recall his exact words). Kerry pointed out that it was bin Laden, not Hussein, that attacked us.

That right there is the source of much of Bush's election headaches. A lot of people in this country just didn't get how Hussein became more important than bin Laden. Ironically, Bush nailed it perfectly when he first said he wanted bin Laden dead or alive. That's exactly what most Americans wanted (myself included). When Bush started deemphasizing bin Laden, that threw many for a loop. I understand that bin Laden, strategically speaking, may not be as important as he was before 9/11. But his death or capture appeals to our sense of justice and of giving some bit of closure to 9/11. That's something this administration either doesn't get or has chosen to ignore.

Last night, Kerry hammered on this point a few times, and Bush didn't really offer a good counter to it. He just returned to the "world is safer without Hussein." I don't know about the rest of the voters out there, but with the Iranians testing rockets, the North Koreans building nukes, and bin Laden still running around, I actually don't feel safer than I did in March 2003.

I would have liked to have heard more specifics from both sides, but the structure of these debates prevented that. You can't get into policy details in 2 minutes.

[pk500]

>>>He certainly came off better than Bush, who was fidgeting and couldn't express himself beyond the lines he memorized.<<<

And that won't make a damn bit of difference in six weeks.

WCO, what you and most highly educated people forget, is that most Americans DO talk and think like Bush. People like him because they feel a connection to him as a "regular guy," even though it's really not true. There's nothing "regular" about going to Yale, owning a baseball team, being a governor, etc., etc.

Still, people see Bush as regular with his fractured speech and folksy mannerisms. Some see Kerry as too "smooth," too "slick." That's the penalty someone pays for being articulate in the current United States of Dumbed-Down America.

Honestly, think of the blue-collar worker or agricultural worker out there. Who is he going to identify with, John Kerry or George Bush, based on patterns of speech, mannerisms, etc.?

Easy call. Bush, in a landslide.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

I don't see how anyone can say the debate was a wash. Kerry took control of the debate from the start, Bush was on the defensive the entire time. Even if you don't agree with everything Kerry said, that makes a big difference. I'm not surprised, when you spend years learning how to debate, one of the skills if how to take control of a room.

I also don't see why it's so hard to believe Kerry would have taken the lead again from Bush anyway. This election has gone back and forth. Kerry was ahead for quite a long period of time. No one knows quite why Bush pulled ahead, so I don't think it's hard to imagine Kerry will take the lead again, whether or not the debate helps him.

Again, you guys look at the debate as a contest of oratorial skills, because you guys are educated. The average American doesn't care how each guy talks unless one is completely fractured and f*cked-up, which Bush was not last night.

People look for traits in both men that they want to see in themselves. And I think more "regular" and "blue collar" Americans saw more of their personal traits in Bush than Kerry last night. Kerry did nothing to create an emotional attachment with the voter last night. He was well-versed in the issues, even more so than Bush it seemed, but his delivery was cold and clinical.

He made zero connections, which he needs to do to win.

Step out of your well-educated shoes for a second and look at the election from the standpoint of a blue-collar worker who flies the Stars and Stripes. Kerry did nothing to sway him last night. Kerry also did nothing to sway any wealthy, upper-class people, either. Granted, the debate was about foreign policy.

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, but I would like for some of the Democrats in here to try and persuade me who or what undecided group Kerry swayed last night. I saw none.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

Again...his vote has been completely consistent with what he's been saying all along. From his speech on the Senate floor in October 2002 regarding his vote for the resolution (and this would be good to actually read for everyone that says he flip-flopped on his Iraq position):

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upl ... -iraq.html

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

[pk500]

>>> I don't know about the rest of the voters out there, but with the Iranians testing rockets, the North Koreans building nukes, and bin Laden still running around, I actually don't feel safer than I did in March 2003.<<<

Nor do I.

And Kerry needs to hammer home on the Osama-Saddam distinction. It's about the only chance he has in foreign policy because it's the one area where he's clearly right and leaves Bush with no counter.

Bush really opened himself up by saying the U.S. went after those who attacked us, and Kerry bounced right back by saying accurately that Saddam Hussein didn't attack us, Osama bin Laden did.

Very effective point by Kerry and one of the few of the night in which he clearly an upper hand that only the most ardent of war hawk or Bush supporter would deny. It was one of the few true "sway points" of the night for Kerry.

Take care,
PK

[Bill_Abner]

Easy call. Bush, in a landslide.

Take care,
PK

How's that Kool Aid taste PK?

The race going IN to the debate was close. Very close. Each battleground state was a toss up going +/- 3 points either way. If last night's debate made the election a lock for Bush then the entire debate was a pointless exercise to begin with and they should have just went to Ft Lauderdale and partied with strippers.

[wco81]

I don't know if it's just the "highly educated" who cares about oratorical skills.

I remember in grade school, they taught you about Lincoln or Kennedy. You looked up to the president to articulate the dreams of a nation, to inspire the people.

When did the bar get set so low?

And really, the speaking skills may be indicative of muddled thought. Or worse, just not having command of facts and ideas. It seems Bush prepared by memorizing lines, which were intended to garner applause, rather than memorizing ideas.

Now if rural folk and other red state citizens feel more comfortable with a president more like them rather than being the best the country can produce, what does it say about them?

Should we feel like the president is like us or that the president is a bigger than life figure whom we could look up to? Maybe they don't teach the same things at grade schools in different parts of the country.

[spooky157]

Isn't homeland security supposed to be the strong suit for this administration? What's he hanging his hat on, the economy? Bush should've been a lock in this debate but it wasn't even close.

[pk500]

WCO:

Maybe Kerry would have more of a chance if grade school kids could vote.

How has the bar been set so low? Let's look at the last 44 years:

Kennedy: Had affairs in the White House. Totally botched Bay of Pigs.

Nixon: Committed criminal acts in office.

Reagan: Fell asleep at Cabinet meetings. Plenty of shady stuff with Iran-Contra.

Clinton: Lied to a grand jury. Got blown by an intern in the Oval Office.

And we're comparing these guys to Washington and Lincoln?

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

No Kool-Aid, Bill. I'm not voting for Bush or Kerry, but I just have the sense that unless Kerry really blows away Bush in the next two debates, which is possible, that people will settle for the status quo and Bush will win by 7 to 10 percent.

OK, not a landslide. But a bigger margin than many expect or see now. I'll be bummed, as I think Bush is a lousy president.

Take care,
PK

[Danimal]

and they should have just went to Ft Lauderdale and partied with strippers.

That's what I'm talking about Billy Boy, I knew I was rubbing off on you!

I try to stay out of political threads, I'll just say I am undecided on who to vote for and last night did nothing to sway me in either direction. Both canidates didn't awnser direct questions and both kept harping on one or two points it seemed to me.

[Blublub]

Unfortunately I have to agree with PK on this one. The election is over already despite what happens between now and November. Most of the electorate has already made up their mind one way or the other and heavily polarized, and the swing voters are a small and largely idiotic demographic who are likely to continue to be swayed by sloganeering rather than any carefully-considered examination of the positions. In this scenario, there's not much Kerry can do, particularly if he continues to take the high road.

This was only reinforced by their impressions after last night's debate. I'm sorry, but you'd have to have just crawled out from under a cabbage to think Bush performed on even the same planet. Yet, he apparently "connected" with a large percentage of the swing voters once again.

For me, this all hints at far more troubling problems with the country when decisions are made on the basis of continued branding of an opponent a "flip-flopper" and dismissing critics of the war over and over with "we're moving forward but war is hard work."

On the other hand, it's reassuring that we actually do have a choice this year rather than two guys constantly staking out the middle ground. I have no problem with those who are firmly in either camp, but it just bothers me to no end that we do finally have a clear choice and yet the election will be decided largely on the basis of "he talks in language I can understand" or "he looked directly into the camera."