Pres. Debate tonight

[Cowperson]

FOXNews reports the Kerry camp plans to release a tape of the Bush facial reactions from the debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134166,00.html

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Wow, the end of that Fox article outlines some pretty sick campaign advertising (though its not clear whether its a Demo or Repub on the attack). They take an out of context comment on why Bin Laden is popular amongst Arabs and make it sound like the candidate thinks Bin Laden is a good guy. I think the way to fix problems like this is to open up campaign ads to libel charges - if you couldn't say something outside a campaign, probably it shouldn't be said during a campaign. Given that ads are obviously pre-planned and not off-the-cuff reactions, there is no way this type of stuff should go unpunished.

Voice-Over: "When most Americans think of Usama bin Laden, they think of this:"

(photo of World Trade Center wreckage)

On Screen: "Patty Murray has a different view of bin Laden"

Murray: "He has been out in these [Arab] countries for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful he has made their life better. We have not done that."

On Screen: "Patty Murray on Usama bin Laden"

Voice-Over: "He had made lives better?"

[looooob]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 30 2004, 08:54 PM

George's schoolboy habit of scowling and shaking his head while Kerry spoke was a total amateur-hour performance. That was silly. He obviously knew that the camera was on him -- he should have been trying to look somewhat dignified and thoughtful. Instead, he came across like a wronged plaintiff on the People's Court.

I didn't watch much of the debate, but this I did notice

Bush did seem to be pulling off his best "Bob Goodenow reacts to the Canadian Public" every time Kerry spoke

that kind of stuff turns me off . it looks bad when someone does it in the boardroom on the Apprentice or at Tribal Council in Survivor, but I really don't like it in presedential debates

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 1 2004, 11:15 AM
Wow, the end of that Fox article outlines some pretty sick campaign advertising (though its not clear whether its a Demo or Repub on the attack). They take an out of context comment on why Bin Laden is popular amongst Arabs and make it sound like the candidate thinks Bin Laden is a good guy. I think the way to fix problems like this is to open up campaign ads to libel charges - if you couldn't say something outside a campaign, probably it shouldn't be said during a campaign. Given that ads are obviously pre-planned and not off-the-cuff reactions, there is no way this type of stuff should go unpunished.

You can actually see that ad on TV in Calgary. I saw it on a Spokane station yesterday.

I knew they got pretty dirty about these things down there, but it was such an obvious con-job that I had sort of a hard time believing it. How can a sensible person believe that kind of thing? How can a sitting member of the government stamp his name and wrinkled old face on such a piece of bullsh*t? No wonder so many people don't bother to vote. If his opponent is even half as bad, what's the point of picking either one of them?

[sbailey924]

The stage presence problems that Bush went through were the same ones that people offered as the decisive thing that handed Bush the victories over Gore (Gore apparently didn't have "manners").

In my opinion, Kerry won this one hands down. Kerry stated his position very clearly, and showed that he's strong where he stands. Bush seemed flustered all the time, and he stuck to his name-calling of Kerry even after Kerry had shown why those aren't accurate (flip-flopper, for instance). Bush never really gave anything more on his position rather than the same old rah-rah type we hear...no plans or anything. This night was supposed to be Bush's, since these issues are the ones Americans tend to be drawn to him about. Kerry's win here goes a lot longer than simply winning the debate. If people question Bush's ability in security matters, what at all does Bush have over Kerry? The domestic agenda has been Kerry's strong suit, and if he delivers like he did last night, I think the election will be done.

Bush's "hardwork" line was poor. Of course fighting a war on terror is hardwork. That doesn't mean it can't be more successful than it is now. It seemed more like an excuse than a proper response.

When Bush was talking about the International Court, Kerry was wanting to have a rebuttal, but Jim Lehrer wasn't looking at him and went on to the next question. I think Kerry would have hammered this one, probably saying something like "If our troops were led properly, we shouldn't have anything at all to be afraid of from an International Court."

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 1 2004, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 1 2004, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Oct 1 2004, 11:15 AM
Wow, the end of that Fox article outlines some pretty sick campaign advertising (though its not clear whether its a Demo or Repub on the attack). They take an out of context comment on why Bin Laden is popular amongst Arabs and make it sound like the candidate thinks Bin Laden is a good guy. I think the way to fix problems like this is to open up campaign ads to libel charges - if you couldn't say something outside a campaign, probably it shouldn't be said during a campaign. Given that ads are obviously pre-planned and not off-the-cuff reactions, there is no way this type of stuff should go unpunished.

You can actually see that ad on TV in Calgary. I saw it on a Spokane station yesterday.

I knew they got pretty dirty about these things down there, but it was such an obvious con-job that I had sort of a hard time believing it. How can a sensible person believe that kind of thing? How can a sitting member of the government stamp his name and wrinkled old face on such a piece of bullsh*t? No wonder so many people don't bother to vote. If his opponent is even half as bad, what's the point of picking either one of them? [/b][/quote]
A Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on the Patty Murray comments on Osama Bin Laden, including the text, context and reaction.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...murray20.shtml

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Michael Swetnam, co-author of a book on bin Laden and al-Qaida, said Murray's comments were mostly on the mark. He said bin Laden since 1988 has been on a mission to build schools, roads and homes for widows of those killed in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Seems in America you are somehow in league with a terrorist if you point out why they are popular and you are not. I'm sorry, but asking the question 'could we do better and be more effective' is a big gap from saying 'we brought 9/11 on ourselves'. If the hawks want to ignore what makes Bin Laden popular amongst Arabs (both fundamentalists and moderates), it seems to me it will be a lot tougher to beat him and get people on your side. Hysterical group-think seems to be the #1 characteristic of Republicans right now, IMO.

[BlackEleven]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 30 2004, 11:04 PM
Unfortunately Bush doesn't have the ability to make changes mid stream. This is where he got killed in tonight's debate. I think he was extremely poor at trying to answer Kerry because he had to try and react. Unless its scripted he struggles.

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.

Agreed. If anyone saw the debate CNNfn, there was a meter gauging the reactions of 22 undecided voters in Columbus. Kerry received much higher marks than bush throughout the majority of the debate. Granted the sample size was pretty small, but if the voters were truley undecided going in, I think it shows something.

[Cowperson]

A point in the debate I thought was seriously underestimated for impact came when GW Bush said something along the lines of "a free and democratic Iraq will make Israel safer."

That may play well to an American audience but probably goes to the imagination of Muslims in a much different way.

As soon as he said it, I went: "Uh, oh. . . ."

To Lurch, not making a point with this, just adding more to your point about appealing to "hysterical group-think," noting it works both ways:

A story in the Christian Science Monitor roughly one month after 9/11 revealing what Muslims were thinking about 9/11.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1106/p1s1-wogi.html

An opinion poll a month after 9/11 on American attitudes towards Islam:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...lam021028.html

Cowperson

[troutman]

Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/...ain646712.shtml

Forty-three percent of the uncommitted debate-watchers picked Kerry as the winner, while 28 percent chose Mr. Bush. Another 29 percent said it was a tie.

Kerry also made significant inroads on ratings for his potential to handle Iraq and on likeability, two areas where he had been trailing Mr. Bush.

[Lurch]

A point in the debate I thought was seriously underestimated for impact came when GW Bush said something along the lines of "a free and democratic Iraq will make Israel safer."

That may play well to an American audience but probably goes to the imagination of Muslims in a much different way.

Along similar lines, I thought it was telling when Kerry said they were sending a bad message by building 14 or 16 military bases that seemed pretty permanent. (Sorry, don't remember the exact quote). Kerry said he'd make it a priority to get out completely, while Bush seemed (to me anyway) to suggest that America would have a permanent military presence in the country.

[octothorp]

One thing that I particularly liked about Kerry was his promise to axe the nucleur bunker-buster program. A lot of the world finds it pretty hypocritical that the US tries to tell countries like Iran and North Korea that they cannot develop any nucleur weapons, while they continue to increase their own arsenal. Kerry is the only US politician I've ever heard address this double standard. But it's something that's probably more significant to non-Americans than to Americans.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 1 2004, 12:14 PM
A point in the debate I thought was seriously underestimated for impact came when GW Bush said something along the lines of "a free and democratic Iraq will make Israel safer."

That may play well to an American audience but probably goes to the imagination of Muslims in a much different way.

As soon as he said it, I went: "Uh, oh. . . ."

Both candidates brought up Israel.

Bush -- A free Iraq will help secure Israel

Kerry -- I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror

Debate Transcript

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F+Oct 1 2004, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Oct 1 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 1 2004, 12:14 PM
A point in the debate I thought was seriously underestimated for impact came when GW Bush said something along the lines of "a free and democratic Iraq will make Israel safer."

That may play well to an American audience but probably goes to the imagination of Muslims in a much different way.

As soon as he said it, I went: "Uh, oh. . . ."

Both candidates brought up Israel.

Bush -- A free Iraq will help secure Israel

Kerry -- I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror

Debate Transcript [/b][/quote]
Good point. I missed the Kerry reference.

EDIT: On the matter of building permanent bases, look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3708910.stm

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

QUOTE
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.


The one problem is all of the allies in the group of six WANT the DPNK and USA to sit down, even China. Last summer the Chinese foreign minister told him to,

North Korea feels it can negotiate the best compromise with the US directly, instead of trying to appease the whole group of 6. At best, they're stagnating anyway due to NK's reluctance to continue them unless they have direct discussions with the US (who are the only ones directly targeting them for a military strike, if it comes to it).

Besides, the US will be representing it's allies in Japan, SKorea and Russia at the table anyway.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 2 2004, 03:08 PM
QUOTE
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.


The one problem is all of the allies in the group of six WANT the DPNK and USA to sit down, even China. Last summer the Chinese foreign minister told him to,

North Korea feels it can negotiate the best compromise with the US directly, instead of trying to appease the whole group of 6. At best, they're stagnating anyway due to NK's reluctance to continue them unless they have direct discussions with the US (who are the only ones directly targeting them for a military strike, if it comes to it).

Besides, the US will be representing it's allies in Japan, SKorea and Russia at the table anyway.

So TCA I guess you're saying you agree that bilatteral is worth, or even necessary, to try? I agree with that. And as for the quote about applying those same standards to Iraq with bilatteral war?

Interesting points.