Pres. Debate tonight

[Kjesse]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 30 2004, 09:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 30 2004, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You mean in Canada, correct?

I also thought George was getting buried early but he came back pretty strong. That bit about "I appreciate Senator Kerry's service and his kids yak yak yak" and then they shared a couple chuckles was something of a turning point in George's favor.

I agree. It settled him down a bit.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
He started off really good there, but then he was laying in on too thick, and then overcompensated the other way, by taking a jab at Kerry's record in the Senate.

The point of his answer was to look mature by complimenting the opponent. I thought the insult he levied was poorly worded and made him look small.

Something about the words he used were just really off. It was awkward there too.

I call the debate a tie. Kerry was more presidential, but he needed to do more against Bush.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Was it my ears or did Bush call Kim Jong-Il, Kim Chung Il? I only heard some of the debat but at that precise moment, it sure sounded like GWB was flustered and swimming.

Couldn't hear as I was getting my hair cut by my Lebanese barber..... lets just he say he had some choice words for Mr Bush....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Oct 1 2004, 05:14 AM
Was it my ears or did Bush call Kim Jong-Il, Kim Chung Il? I only heard some of the debat but at that precise moment, it sure sounded like GWB was flustered and swimming.

Couldn't hear as I was getting my hair cut by my Lebanese barber..... lets just he say he had some choice words for Mr Bush....

And "Vlad-uh-mer" Putin.

[Bertuzzied]

I'm watching the replay of the debate on CNN now. I am doing my fullest to watch it unbiased and there is no way Bush can 'debate' with Kerry. And this isn't even a debate. I didn't watch any of the debates in 2000 but if Al Gore could lose to Bush in an election after debating with him he is definitely not worthy of being president.

Why does Bush keep bringing up Poland? Did i miss something and Poland suddenly become a world powerhouse?

It' hard work. It's hard work yada yada yada.... now watch this swing![I]

[Bertuzzied]

One thing i'm still not understanding is why when the US invaded Iraq the first time how did they, or why did they leave Saddam in power? He invaded Kuwait but they give him a 10 minute misconduct. I must be missing something.

He maybe has weapons of mass destruction this time and they give him a doublematch penalty with an intent to injure????
:wacko:

[Flame On]

Was it my ears or did Bush call Kim Jong-Il, Kim Chung Il? Yeah but he's not stupid, Dis says so. It's a myth I tell you. If everyone talks about him being stupid, you're debating his stupidity, we have more clips than a pres usually does of flubs etc. don't you think there's any smoke to the fire?? See if you can answer that without a question or a point about other politicians. I mean people don't endlessly debate whether Tony Blair is stupid, or Kerry, or Martin, or even Saddam for that matter, he's psycho, not stupid. So why so much debate if it's myth. I guess as with most myths, there's a little truth to it's origin. Oh and if that's not the case, I guess we can just call the whole flip-flopping thing accused of Kerry, a myth too. Which by the way I thought he dealt with very effectively.
Much news debriefing seems to agree with me, that Kerry took that debate. If foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong side, it bodes well as the debates go on, for Kerry's team.

[Bertuzzied]

Hey did anyone think that maybe the US has caught Bin Laden but they are waiting until closer to the election to release the news? How can he still be at large 3 years later?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 1 2004, 12:09 AM
Hey did anyone think that maybe the US has caught Bin Laden but they are waiting until closer to the election to release the news? How can he still be at large 3 years later?

Cause Bush wasted a good portion of America's time, money and resources, that would have normally been designated for fighting terrorism, on quelling the imminent threat of an Iraqi onslaught directed at America. People can go to Iraq to shoot at Americans or foreigners or Iraqis if they want, or they can stay away and attempt to avoid American agents. The latter is probably alot easier since Iraq was invaded, and i'm sure bin Laden is toiling away somewhere outside of Iraq right now.

Anyways, the whole notion that bin Laden has been caught already and is awaiting delivery just before the election has crossed my mind. But I think that's waaaay out there and very unlikely. A good conspiracy theory at best. You never know though ...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 1 2004, 06:44 AM
Why does Bush keep bringing up Poland? Did i miss something and Poland suddenly become a world powerhouse?

Poland has one of the biggest number of troops in Iraq (top 5) so now Poland is a close US ally, almost a world powerhouse. Thats why Bush keeps bringing up Poland.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, Poland is one of about 5 countries that has a bit more than a token force, but the Polish president flat out stated that they only agreed to go to Iraq to secure contracts for their county's companies. When the awards were being handed out, they weren't too happy and complained for more.

Not really a "great" ally. They're in it for themselves mostly.

[transplant99]

If I was to score the thing overall...edge to Kerry for sure.

When you break it down into the 2 categories all the talking heads keep mentioning it would look this way to most i believe..

Style...Kerry

Substance.... Tie.

The one thing that grabbed my attention was when Kerry stated "I made a mistake" in answer to supporting the war on Iraq initially and then not funding the troops afterwards.

The word "mistake" is one of those catch words that stick with people when you talk to them, and without many of them even realizing it.

I think that was his biggest "mistake" of the evening.

All in all I was a lot more pleased with the whole thing than i thought i would be going in. Both guys are very good debaters, with differing styles. Kerry's style came across as much more viewer friendly IMO. Honestly dont know if that translates into a better president or not though.

[Flame On]

I thought transplant, that he said his mistake was in the way he talked about the war and that Bush made a mistake in going to war, then asked which was worse.
By the way, in regards to substance, what's to stop the US talking bilaterally with N.Korea and then reverting to multilaterally if that gets nowhere?
Is the next debate open in terms of it's content mattter?

[transplant99]

I thought transplant, that he said his mistake was in the way he talked about the war and that Bush made a mistake in going to war, then asked which was worse.

Could be...however he still said "I made a mistake". Thats a fairly unusual thing to hear from these guys...and i mean the use of the word, not that they admit fault. Like i said...thats one of those buzz words that stick with people even though they dont realize it.

By the way, in regards to substance, what's to stop the US talking bilaterally with N.Korea and then reverting to multilaterally if that gets nowhere?

Fine, if you apply the same standards to Iraq. People clamor on here everyday how dumb it was to invade without the blessing of the UN. Which way is it? Act bilaterally or not? It's a double standard to say its OK with N Korea but it wasnt with Iraq.

Is the next debate open in terms of it's content mattter?

All debates are contrived from start to finish. Both sides agree to a set of "rules".

I too would love to see an open forum, free-for-all, between the two. Will never happen though.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 1 2004, 01:07 PM

Fine, if you apply the same standards to Iraq. People clamor on here everyday how dumb it was to invade without the blessing of the UN. Which way is it? Act bilaterally or not? It's a double standard to say its OK with N Korea but it wasnt with Iraq.


I too would love to see an open forum, free-for-all, between the two. Will never happen though.

I disagree. I think it's drastically different to try bi lateral diplomacy than bi lateral war. You must agree with that. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if George had said "listen Suddam Hussein (mentioned that last night) us folks have gotta get t'gether and talk. We want your oil and for you to stop bein' crazy, in return we'll buy your oil and not attack you." If that had worked, all the world pats George on the back. So I can on the one hand ask for bilatteralism to be tried with N.Korea and not for bilatteralsim in it's current state to be occuring in Iraq. Nice try though.

[Cowperson]

CNN/USA Today overnight poll of those who watched the debate give the edge to Kerry but respondents basically say it didn't change their minds about whom they'll vote for.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10...poll/index.html

The reaction around the globe

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10...x.ap/index.html

Washington Post says Bush/Kerry stretched the truth but made few factual errors:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6144991/

For amusement, the FOX News debate verdict story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134165,00.html

And the FOX News Fact Check - how each candidate did on the facts. Compare it to the Washington Post article if you want.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134160,00.html

Cowperson

[Lurch]

My take on the debate was a little different than what seems to prevail here. I thought both guys really established what they are all about.

Bush: simple, straight-ahead, ask no questions and you'll hear no lies kind of guy. I could really feel him appealing to constituents that dislike the nuance and grey of politics.

Kerry: thought he established that it is not a weakness to be flexible, and showed he is engaged, articulate and understands what is going on.

I think the real meat of it for me came when Kerry talked about needing to satisfy the global community that pre-emptive war is necessary. Kerry suggested you not only need to be right before you strike, you need to show the rest of your allies you are right before you strike. Bush was genuinely aghast at this premise - very stereotypically Texan. My guess is 40% + agree with one man or the other in this area: should America be at the head of a wide consensus versus should America do what it thinks is right, world be damned. The election, in my mind, comes down to which population in America is bigger. I thought it was telling when Kerry talked about France trusting Kennedy over the Cuban missile crisis and contrasting that with Bush. Some value the trust and support of allies, and others see this as a compromise that puts the US in a weaker position.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 1 2004, 03:04 AM
Bottom line on the debate was when NBC cut to a group of six undecided voters in Ohio. None of them said they had changed their mind when orignially asked, but by the end of the interview all six had said that Kerry was much more impressive, more presidental and appeared to be the stronger leader. They all agreed that Kerry won the debate. This was Bush's night to shine and he didn't live up to expectations. One down, two to go.

So then, when can we expect the next terror alert to be issued from Washington? Or maybe this time it will be another alledged "mobile WMD" thing-a-majig in Iraq.

Any bets on what the next diversion will be?

[troutman]

My two cents; Kerry "won" the "debate". There was no knock-out punch, so I doubt there will be a big swing in the polls, but I think Kerry has made it a race again. I keep hearing that Ohio is the real litmus test.

Bush definitely comes across as a warmer and funnier person. Kerry seemed more cerebal and knowledgeable on world affairs, and was much better prepared.

Most observors seem to be saying Kerry out-performed Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/p.../press.pundits/

Foreign reaction gives edge to Kerry:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...1/BNStory/Front

People from Ohio react:

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindea...30214105420.xml

3 polls show Kerry won debate:

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/politic...ylist=president

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 1 2004, 02:35 PM
I think the real meat of it for me came when Kerry talked about needing to satisfy the global community that pre-emptive war is necessary. Kerry suggested you not only need to be right before you strike, you need to show the rest of your allies you are right before you strike. Bush was genuinely aghast at this premise - very stereotypically Texan. My guess is 40% + agree with one man or the other in this area: should America be at the head of a wide consensus versus should America do what it thinks is right, world be damned. The election, in my mind, comes down to which population in America is bigger. I thought it was telling when Kerry talked about France trusting Kennedy over the Cuban missile crisis and contrasting that with Bush. Some value the trust and support of allies, and others see this as a compromise that puts the US in a weaker position.

I don't think that's the meat of it but agree that some will highlight that. For me some of the meat of it was Kerry's, do you want more of the same which isn't working, or do you want a plan that will work. Even Bush seemed to spout a premise of more of the same when he (and this isn't news to anyone) mentions things like being resolute etc. Perhaps people will awake and say, gee, even if Kerry's ideas don't work, the non sophisticated version that Bush gives can be returned to, so why not try him. I guess I should wake up now.....

[octothorp]

Kerry was definitely the more intellectual debater and carried the debate, but I'm not sure how well his upper-hand here will transfer into sound bytes. For example, Bush, quite frankly, looked stupid constantly bringing up the flip-flop thing even after Kerry had given satisfactory justification. Many of the analysts felt that Bush was going to the well too often on that, but the sound-bytes won't capture the fact that Bush kept repeating himself. You could always see the wheels turning in Bush's mind. Kerry was never caught off guard--he always knew exactly what he wanted to say, and for the most part he knew how he wanted to say it. He was probably better-prepared for the debate, but that's another thing that won't come across in the sound-bytes.
I loved the part where Kerry quoted the George Bush Senior autobiography regarding the first gulf war, and he had some other very erudite references as well. My girlfriend and I each have seen very little of Kerry prior to the debate, and we both came away really impressed with both his poise and his ideas. Of course, we aren't going to be the ones voting, so it's all a pretty pointless analysis.