The televised debates: Bush v. Kerry [Archive]

IJ Reilly

Sep 2, 2004, 06:34 PM

The debates haven't often been decisive victories for any candidate, but in such a close election, I think they could easily make a difference. I think they work to Kerry's natural advantage for three reasons: First, they allow the challenger to literally stand alongside the incumbent which tends to make the challenger seem more presidential; second, they'll allow Kerry to explain himself to the American people instead of having the Republicans and the media do it for him, and third, although Kerry isn't exactly a wonderful speaker, Bush is probably the least rhetorically gifted politician I've ever seen.

Bush will try to neutralize the last advantage by trying to get a debate format which minimizes the amount of interchange between the two men and the number of surprise questions. Kerry will want the opposite.

None of which means that Kerry is bound to "win" the debates. If he comes off as wooden or defensive, or speaks in those long convoluted sentences, as he sometimes does, he could easily hurt himself.

kuyu

Sep 2, 2004, 06:58 PM

From Kerry's own mouth.. "Bush has never lost a debate".

I saw him say this on the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart. Bush is too likeable in appearance. What he lacks in speaking ability he obviously makes up for in "charisma" and "charm".

I love debates. We really get a chance to see the guys sweat and defend their positions. Since both Bush and Kerry are full of crap 1/2 the time, these debates should be especially interesting... ;)

mactastic

Sep 2, 2004, 07:03 PM

The reason Kerry said that is because Gore 'lost' the debates by not rising to the high expectations that had been set by the media and by most people who thought Bush would fall apart in a debate. Bush 'won' the debates by not falling on his face as badly as everyone expected.

Kerry is working to raise the expectations of Bush this time around. In 2000 everyone thought Bush was a debating lightweight as it worked to Bush's advantage. He will be expected to perform much better this time, as he has proven by not losing a debate.

takao

Sep 2, 2004, 07:19 PM

when will the TV debates air ?.. perhaps i'll tune in if they aren't at european times like 5 AM or something like that
i guess it will be interesting this time..looks like an even match

zimv20

Sep 2, 2004, 07:22 PM

How did Bush do in the last debates with Gore?
if you listened to the content, gore obliterated bush. if you listened to the pop vox afterwards, you lost complete faith in the american public.

the f phrase that killed gore: "fuzzy math"
the f phrase that might kill kerry: "flip-flop"

give the idiot american public a catchphrase and they'll repeat it for months. for example, how long was the phrase "hanging chad" part of everyday vocabulary?

soundbites beat reason. that's the problem w/ american politics.

IJ Reilly

Sep 2, 2004, 07:24 PM

They haven't been scheduled yet. One of the traditional preliminary events is the parties arguing with each other over number, timing, location and format.

skunk

Sep 2, 2004, 07:25 PM

soundbites beat reason. that's the problem w/ american politics.
Something to do with having the attention span of a fruit-fly.

zimv20

Sep 2, 2004, 07:26 PM

will bush debate kerry alone, or will he bring dick w/ him?

mactastic

Sep 2, 2004, 08:49 PM

I'd like to see a much more rigorous debate schedule than is ever the case. Candidates should be able to question each other after the moderator gets things started. Time limits should be strictly enforced. The debate should center on one major, or at most two or three minor issues. Straying from the topic is only tolerated when it pertains to the issue at hand.

But we will likely see 3 or 4 debates at most, all in a format that is relatively low-risk to the candidates. Neither one is likely to be too interested in exposing themselves to the risks of a vigorous debate. I can almost see the vein in Rove's forehead throbbing when he thinks of unscripted Dubya. I'm sure Kerry's handlers feel the same.

mactastic

Sep 2, 2004, 09:06 PM

Anyone think we'll hear the phrase 'Usama bin Laden' from Dubya's lips tonight?

Thomas Veil

Sep 3, 2004, 01:34 AM

I'd love to hear Kerry ask Bush, "Do you honestly think for one moment that if my country were threatened I would hesitate to defend it with all my might?"

And I'd love to hear Bush's answer. Since Dubya & his minions have tried to make Kerry look weak on terrorism, forcing Bush to answer this question would be the rhetorical equivalent of asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Thomas Veil

Sep 3, 2004, 01:35 AM

will bush debate kerry alone, or will he bring dick w/ him?
No, he'll be ----less. :p

skunk

Sep 3, 2004, 02:01 AM

No, he'll be ----less. :p
I must confess, I made exactly the same rather poor joke, but mine got deleted, for some reason... :confused:

zimv20

Sep 3, 2004, 02:50 AM

ah, so it did. along w/ my contextually dependent response.

Sayhey

Sep 3, 2004, 04:21 AM

Anyone think we'll hear the phrase 'Usama bin Laden' from Dubya's lips tonight?

That would be a resounding "no." Not a word on how we are now safer having switched almost all our resources away from destroying al Qaeda and finding bin Laden to the mess in Iraq. My guess is he is still hoping we will continue to believe they are the same thing.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 3, 2004, 08:39 AM

That would be a resounding "no." Not a word on how we are now safer having switched almost all our resources away from destroying al Qaeda and finding bin Laden to the mess in Iraq. My guess is he is still hoping we will continue to believe they are the same thing.
Bin Laden is dead.

Lyle

Sep 3, 2004, 08:57 AM

Bin Laden is dead.He's not dead, he's just resting.

zimv20

Sep 3, 2004, 10:55 PM

link (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0903gop-notebook03.html)

Bush's camp may cut 1 debate

Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
Sept. 3, 2004 12:00 AM

NEW YORK - Could Tempe find itself the odd location out for the upcoming presidential debates?

President Bush's campaign won't say for sure whether he will agree to the three debates proposed by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates, or if a Republican strategist was right this week when he said the Bush campaign would agree to only two debates.

The commission, without a formal agreement by the Bush camp, set debates for Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Fla.; Oct. 8 in St. Louis; and Oct. 13 in Tempe. A vice presidential debate between incumbent Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, was set for Oct. 5 in Cleveland.

GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp's position is that "two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule."

"Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics," Reed was quoted as saying.

On Thursday, after Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman visited a breakfast of the Arizona delegation to the Republican National Convention here, he refused to elaborate when asked whether that was the Bush campaign's position.

"Debates are always very important," Mehlman said.

But will Bush agree to all three of the commission dates, including the one in Arizona?

"We'll see," he said.

(more)

pseudobrit

Sep 3, 2004, 10:57 PM

Planning on going AWOL again, I see.

solvs

Sep 4, 2004, 03:47 AM

Bin Laden is dead.
Can't argue with facts like that. Source please? I know it's un-American, but pardon me if I don't believe you.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 8, 2004, 10:11 AM

Can't argue with facts like that. Source please? I know it's un-American, but pardon me if I don't believe you.
I am the SOURCE :D
Think, if he was alive they would have several videos of him as proof of him being alive to help recruting efforts or to rub Bush's nose in it.

katchow

Sep 8, 2004, 10:33 AM

Think, if he was alive they would have several videos of him as proof of him being alive to help recruting efforts or to rub Bush's nose in it.

wow Bin Laden really is dead!

Mission Accomplished! Yay!

wordmunger

Sep 8, 2004, 10:35 AM

There was a great article in The Atlantic about Bush's debating skills (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200407/fallows).

Check it out. It's a long read, but very interesting indeed.

themadchemist

Sep 8, 2004, 12:48 PM

if you listened to the content, gore obliterated bush. if you listened to the pop vox afterwards, you lost complete faith in the american public.

the f phrase that killed gore: "fuzzy math"
the f phrase that might kill kerry: "flip-flop"

give the idiot american public a catchphrase and they'll repeat it for months. for example, how long was the phrase "hanging chad" part of everyday vocabulary?

soundbites beat reason. that's the problem w/ american politics.

The funny thing is...Gore was exactly right when he spoke of the need for a "lockbox" and Bush was exactly wrong when he derided Gore for so-called "fuzzy math." Gore's math was perfectly clear. Incidentally, so was Bush's--It was absolutely lucid that Bush's policies would lead us in the wrong direction. Alas, even after they have, many Americans don't see it.

zimv20

Sep 8, 2004, 01:01 PM

because "fuzzy math" was the better phrase. it's perfect for bush. not only did it play to people's dislike of math, but "fuzzy" is a funny and memorable world. and it starts w/ 'f', which for reasons i'm uncertain is effective.

(see the "what should kerry do" thread, where i implied kerry should use his own 'f' word: fear).

by implying math is hard, bush played right into the anti-intellectualism that i see as rampant in this country. gore's phrase spoke of frugality and being careful, all bush had to do was bash something. and he "won" the debates. dispicable. and shame on the vox pop morons afterwards who kept saying it: "yeah, i guess gore does use fuzzy math." how the **** would they know? it's not like they worked through the numbers or anything.

math is hard.

apple2991

Sep 8, 2004, 01:10 PM

I wish people would stop posting links for which you have to register in order to read the content.

wordmunger

Sep 8, 2004, 01:22 PM

I wish people would stop posting links for which you have to register in order to read the content.
Oh, Dang! Sorry about that. I think that's a new "feature" of The Atlantic online (I read the paper version). Basic thrust: though both are perceived as poor speakers, neither Bush NOR Kerry has lost a debate. However, they have different styles, so the clash should indeed be an interesting one. Both will try to downplay expectations, so if they "lose" a debate they can just claim the other guy was a better debater.

solvs

Sep 9, 2004, 12:06 AM

I am the SOURCE :D
Think, if he was alive they would have several videos of him as proof of him being alive to help recruting efforts or to rub Bush's nose in it.
Like I said, with logic like that, how can I argue? :rolleyes: I sure hope that doesn't mean something happened to my best friend. I haven't seen him since Bush shipped him off to Iraq. Neither has his newborn baby. But I'm sure there's a good reason he's in Iraq right now... not sure what that is, but I'm sure Bush wouldn't have sent us there without having a good reason. I know I sure feel safer. Of course, if Bin Laden was dead, you'd think they would've told us that's why we more or less left Afganistan to go somewhere else that, you know, was never a direct threat. Mission Accomplished!

What did Kerry do 30 years ago again? Because I'm sure that's relevant for some reason. I hope all this actually comes out in the debates. I'm hoping Kerry actually stands for something.

AhmedFaisal

Sep 9, 2004, 12:12 AM

Meaning no backup for both candidates whatsoever. Right now both have their spinmeisters whispering responses into their ears with radio transmitters. So its not really a one on one debate. I would like to see it where both have to do without these gadgets and just to make sure all radio-frequencies jammed just in case one of them tries to cheat. Would be fun if Kerry started quizzing Bush on foreign policy etc. I believe.
Cheers,

Ahmed

pseudobrit

Sep 9, 2004, 02:28 AM

Thanatoast

Sep 9, 2004, 03:19 AM

Kerry will get caught up in long answers, full of detail and grayness. Bush will come out with something half a sentence long that sounds good yet is contrary to all facts and reality. Bush will win.

SiliconAddict

Sep 9, 2004, 12:53 PM

What do you think will happen here?

Will they make a difference or are most voters so polarised that they won't matter?

Being in the UK, we don't get the full details of what's going on.

How did Bush do in the last debates with Gore?
Bush has a reputation for odd, improvised statements -- but is everything so rehearsed that they will just cancel each other out...

I don't think its going to make a huge difference but come 11/2 I think if Shrub or Kerry sneezes wrong on TV is could cost them the election. Its going to be close. DAMN close.

As for the contents of those debates. I'm most interested in the town tall debate that I think is in October. Those are the debates where common folk can ask the questions.
I think the only thing Bush is going to be able to say is the steps he's taken have secured America from terrorists. Just look! We haven't had another 9|11.
Kerry is going to slaughter Bush. I really think its going to be a bloody massacre.
-First and foremost Kerry is almost as skilled as Clinton in debates and speeches.
-Second Kerry has some of the staff who got Clinton out of hot water during the whole Lewinski (sorry don't know her name.) mess. These are killed spinsters who about as skilled at the art of BS as a samurai is with his sword.
-Third Kerry simply needs to start talking about the economy, 1,000 Americans dead, 10,000 plus Iraq citizens dead, the alienation of just about every country on the planet, the rape of the natural world while Shrub has been in office, the underhanded tactics Shrubs pulled to get his stooges put in place on the various appeals courts, the slime tactics his party has used to smear Kerry based on pure BS. Seriously. Can someone tell me something positive Shrub has done in office that he can fire back at Kerry?
Anything? Anything at all. All Bush is going to have is the supposed flip flip issue Kerry needs to defuse. And that's simple to do. Hey look. I can admit when I'm wrong. The times have changed over the last few years. What I thought then I don't think now. I'm entitled to change my stance. At least I can admit when I'm wrong. Mr. President can you admit when you are wrong? Can you admit that going into Iraq because there were WMD was a bad call?
I want it to play out like that. Shrub would sit there Bushfounded for at least 5 seconds and I wouldn't be surprised if he broke out in a sweat. Don't ya live catch 22's? They are so much fun.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 9, 2004, 02:51 PM

I think the only thing Bush is going to be able to say is the steps he's taken have secured America from terrorists. Just look! We haven't had another 9|11.

Sounds like Lisa Simpson's rock that prevents tigers.....

mactastic

Sep 9, 2004, 03:08 PM

I'm most interested in the town [h]all (sic) debate that I think is in October.

Not gonna happen. The Bush team has decided that they don't trust 'ordinary citizens' enough that they feel they must withdraw from any debate where the common folk are allowed to ask questions because some underhanded Kerry supporters might try to pose as undecided voters. Apparently Kerry supporters might ask questions that the Pres. could find uncomfortable.

No loyalty oath? No admission to the debate!

Must suck when you are so afraid of what the opposition might ask that you feel the need to bow out of the debate.

Another nifty tidbit is that once again Bush is using his daddy's friends to help him out of a tight spot. The negotiator for the debate schedule is none other than James Baker.

solvs

Sep 10, 2004, 07:34 AM

Sounds like Lisa Simpson's rock that prevents tigers.....
That's exactly what I was thinking.

Were it not for the fact that terrorism has gone up in the rest of the world, not down, as the Pres would like you to believe. And there are thousands dead in Iraq, more dying every day, even though Sadaam is long since gone. Osama and most of his cronies are still on the loose. We are expecting attacks in the US all the time ( brown alerts, orange alerts, paisley alerts :rolleyes: ). It's almost like things have gotten worse.

I don't feel safer.

Leo Hubbard

Sep 10, 2004, 08:07 AM

Not gonna happen. The Bush team has decided that they don't trust 'ordinary citizens' enough that they feel they must withdraw from any debate where the common folk are allowed to ask questions because some underhanded Kerry supporters might try to pose as undecided voters. Apparently Kerry supporters might ask questions that the Pres. could find uncomfortable.

No loyalty oath? No admission to the debate!

Must suck when you are so afraid of what the opposition might ask that you feel the need to bow out of the debate.

Another nifty tidbit is that once again Bush is using his daddy's friends to help him out of a tight spot. The negotiator for the debate schedule is none other than James Baker.
Is that the same thing you said about Clinton when he decided on only two debates? Bush is just following the precedent that Clinton established.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 10, 2004, 09:15 AM

<snip> And there are thousands dead in Iraq, more dying every day, even though Sadaam is long since gone. <snip>

My searching skills are good, but not that good. Thought that someone here might know the answer.

The above comment brought a question up in my mind. How many people is Saddam accused of killing while in office? How many Iraqi's have been killed during the current war (and for that matter the first Iraqi war)?

katchow

Sep 10, 2004, 10:12 AM

didn't we support (by which i mean lip-service) a failed revolution in iraq too?

Blue Velvet

Sep 27, 2004, 03:47 PM

Thought it might be a good idea to resurrect this thread what with the first debate on Thursday...

I think it may be broadcast here in the UK (probably after my bedtime, though)

The way things are being portrayed over here is that Kerry has some catching up to do...

Is the first debate the most important one? Or the last?

takao

Sep 27, 2004, 04:12 PM

Thought it might be a good idea to resurrect this thread what with the first debate on Thursday...

I think it may be broadcast here in the UK (probably after my bedtime, though)

Is the first debate the most important one? Or the last?

hm here it's boradcasted and starts around 03:00 (02:00 for london)
perhaps i will stay up and watch it ...(me = student ;) )

i think the last one is the most important ..but the difference is slim perhaps many only will watch the first.. so all are equal important in some way

mactastic

Sep 27, 2004, 05:59 PM

Funny how your candidate is always tops until it's time to lower expectations for an upcoming debate. To whit:

"Senator Kerry has been preparing his whole life for this moment," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "He was an all-star debater in prep school and an all-star debater in Ivy League. He was 20 years in the most august debating society in years, the United States Senate."

Meanwhile, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in a conference call with reporters Sunday, pointed to Bush's debate performance in 2000 against former Vice President Al Gore.

"George Bush defied expectations and won," McAuliffe said. "Let's face it, George Bush is a great debater."

Both sides worked in shots against their opponent as well.

Bartlett: "Obviously, President Bush has had to practice twice as hard to learn all the different positions that John Kerry has taken on the big issues of the day. But he's ready to hold his own."

McAuliffe: Bush "wins them on style not substance, and he wins them because he isn't always honest. The truth is George Bush has historically had problems being forthright at debates."

First the expectation lowering... then the shot at your opponent. Both campaigns are working hard to make it seem like the other guy will blow them out of the water without a stellar performance.

That's how Bush won the debates with Gore, he didn't do nearly as bad as everyone thought he did. Not that he did well, he just managed to beat the spread so to speak.

Toe

Sep 27, 2004, 07:56 PM

Kerry is finally starting to get on Bush's case about the way he has been waging this war in Iraq. It's a mess afterall, and is doing nothing but spread anti-American sentiment around the world.

That's a dangerous position for Kerry or any candidate to take, but it's just so obvious, isn't it? I mean... http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=90695, ya know?

wwworry

Sep 27, 2004, 08:06 PM

Blue Velvet

Sep 30, 2004, 06:33 PM

Am just bumping this thread 'cos I thought it had become relevant again with the first debate to start in about an hour or so...

And also, to hopefully have a good read when I get up to go to work in 7 hours time... It's 12:30am in London and I'm going to miss this broadcast as I have to catch some zzz's...

:)

I think we may see Kerry do quite well, I may be wrong but I have a (completely unjustified) hunch.

He could probably do with a good performance as by all reports, he seems to be lagging a bit in the polls...

3rdpath

Sep 30, 2004, 07:32 PM

i think kerry will be an excellent debater...

bush will merely be a master-debater...

sorry, it was just too easy. and i sure miss the snappy replies regarding cheney...

scem0

Sep 30, 2004, 08:43 PM

Wow, I'd turn off the TV right now if Kerry wasn't arguing too, because Bush says the same thing for each response.

Bah. :rolleyes:

scem0

mactastic

Sep 30, 2004, 08:44 PM

Is Kerry that tan, or does Bush look pale tonight? Lehrer looks like a sheet though... maybe it's my TV.

atszyman

Sep 30, 2004, 08:55 PM

Could be your TV. But Bush looks pretty pale here too. Although I did see pictures of Kerry this week where it looked like he was dipped in bad batch of sunless tanning lotion. It appears that they improved that somewhat since he doesn't look orange.

3rdpath

Sep 30, 2004, 09:35 PM

kerry was articulate, stately and extremely well spoken.

bush came across as a confused schoolkid in way over his head. bush should have memorized more than 3 statements to make his case.

it was much better and more decisive than i thought possible.

thank you john kerry.

mactastic

Sep 30, 2004, 09:36 PM

Wow. I realize I'm no better than a partisan hack in my bias, but I thought Kerry wiped the floor with Bush tonight. The first half hour was a toss-up, but after that Kerry was clearly in control and Bush looked petulant and kept repeating himself.

Thomas Veil

Sep 30, 2004, 09:42 PM

I'll be the first to admit I'm partisan too, but I have to say, by any standard of objectivity, Kerry did indeed look better than Bush...and in a few cases, I think "mopped the floor" with him would be an accurate description.

Bush was hesitant and kept repeating his talking points, whereas Kerry sounded calm, confident and in command of a wider range of facts and logic than Bush.

I'll be very surprised if Kerry's poll numbers don't take a jump now.

Laslo Panaflex

Sep 30, 2004, 09:55 PM

Not that any of them said anything even remotely compelling, but I feel that Kerry seemed more confident, clear and calm, whereas Bush seemed caught of guard.

Also, did you notice how Bush almost always rebutted Kerry, even though Jim Lear was supposed to control that. Bush pretty much demanded that he could rebute, he had way more oportunities than Kerry, which shows another weakness for Bush.

Again, neither said anything compelling, both just bashed each other and defended the bashings. Really, debates like these are pretty useless. :rolleyes:

mactastic

Sep 30, 2004, 10:01 PM

We all knew there would be little substance in these events (I won't even call them debates :rolleyes: ), they are all about style. Kerry looked presidential, Bush looked uncomfortable.

Mike Teezie

Sep 30, 2004, 10:21 PM

Kerry just owned Bush. Bush fumbled, looked/sounded uninformed, and just kept repeating the same things over and over. He has this, "because I'm the president, and I SAID so" attitude.

If the people want to elect the same man I saw "debating" Kerry tonight, we are lost.

solvs

Sep 30, 2004, 10:25 PM

Bush started out making some good points... but then Kerry made some even better ones. Like turning it around when Bush kept referring to the flip-flopping thing. He basically said that he has felt the same way throughout, but that he is not opposed to changing his mind if things are not going as well as planned. Especially if, as he pointed out, there was no plan. Then Bush kept pausing a lot and saying the same things over-and-over again. And mis-speaking, but I'm sure the Bush apologists will say that's just his down home charm. A good job for Kerry, but I'm sure someone will say Bush wiped the floor with him. Just like Nixon wiped the floor with Kennedy.

According to the person I spoke with when inquiring about my voter registration, there are a lot of new people who will be voting this year. Polls aren't reflecting the new voters. I think Kerry is already ahead, and this will only help.

IJ Reilly

Sep 30, 2004, 10:33 PM

Maybe I'm a victim of lowered expectations, but I think Bush acquitted himself fairly well tonight. I did get tired of hearing him repeat the same talking points over and over though. (Yes, i get it -- being President is "hard work.")

Anyway, I don't think we got cheated tonight. What these two men are about was clearly on display. I'm not sure it worked in anyone's favor, but at least on foreign policy grounds, nobody who was paying attention should still be undecided.

Thomas Veil

Sep 30, 2004, 10:41 PM

According to the person I spoke with when inquiring about my voter registration, there are a lot of new people who will be voting this year. Polls aren't reflecting the new voters. I think Kerry is already ahead, and this will only help.
Well, that's an interesting point. In my state -- Ohio, one of the most important "swing" states -- new voter registration for Democrats is approximately three times that of new Republican registrations...and this is a fairly neutral state. (The north is typically Democratic, the south Republican.)

That could explain why we're hearing that Kerry is tightening up the race again.

Backtothemac

Sep 30, 2004, 10:46 PM

wordmunger

Sep 30, 2004, 10:52 PM

Wow. Did anyone see tonight's daily show? Man. Guiliani was on trying to claim that Bush won the debate, and John Stewart pretty much destroyed him. This was a pretty clear victory for Kerry. We'll see how the republican spinmeisters try to reinvent history over the coming days. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow this ends up being a "victory" for Bush, but it won't be because of what he actually said on stage. It'll be all about the damage control afterwards.

jefhatfield

Sep 30, 2004, 11:03 PM

We all knew there would be little substance in these events (I won't even call them debates :rolleyes: ), they are all about style. Kerry looked presidential, Bush looked uncomfortable.

i was quite surprised...kerry usually looks like a dry, confused academic and bush is a prize fighter type of debator, right on course

tonight, bush was truly confused, and like his dad in 1992, he didn't seem to want to be there...kerry was fantastic

though little of substance was pointed out tonight, i think kerry may end up carrying another swing state and a few more electoral votes...today bush had 213 to kerry's 196...the day before bush had 213 to kerry's 211

i will have to look at rasmussenreports.com tomorrow and see if kerry improves on his 4 point defecit...bush has led kerry for more than a month now by one to a few points

if people react positively towards kerry, he may be able to tie things up...but it's still a long, long way until the election is held and one month and one day is an eternity when it comes to these things...one candidate can pull out fifteen points ahead of his opponent in the last few days of this since it's the undecided moderates who will call this thing as has been the case from 1988 through 2000

ironically, the only time where a candidate had a solid enough lead to render his opponent hapless was back in 1972 when richard nixon trounced george mcgovern...not long after though, america's most favorite president of modern times got taken down by the watergate scandal

dsharits

Sep 30, 2004, 11:13 PM

Bush did a great job. I really like how he displays his consistent beliefs. He was right on when he said that the Commander-in-Chief cannot change his stance based on changes in politics. In short, don't be a crowd pleaser, because you will end up flip-flopping with every wind change.

Daniel

3rdpath

Sep 30, 2004, 11:14 PM

abc, cbs and msnbc polls all indicate a decisive victory for kerry in the debates. i wish i'd written the #'s down as they were mentioned post debate...the only one i can find online is the msnbc.( 71% kerry to 29% bush). i know, i know---they're all commie liberal gay marriage loving news agencies. :rolleyes:

a draw?? certainly who "won" is subjective...but i don't think it was anywhere near close enough to call it a draw.

bush looked miffed, lost and resorted to his tired attacks on kerry instead of answering the questions. kerry was articulate and extremely powerful in his arguments. kerry looked presidential and bush looked like he was trying to bluff his way thru an 8th grade oral report.

sorryiwasdreami

Sep 30, 2004, 11:15 PM

I watched the debates tonight at a party with several Independent (Nader/Cobb) voters, and I can say for sure that this debate threw a wrench in thier decisions to vote third-party rather than Kerry.

I think Kerry is taking back independent votes.

sorryiwasdreami

Sep 30, 2004, 11:20 PM

He was right on when he said that the Commander-in-Chief cannot change his stance based on changes in politics.

Unfortunately, when peoples' lives are at stake, to NOT use newly-found information to your decision-making advantage is one word: STUPID. It has to do with I.Q. level and how quickly you can learn. Bush obviously demonstrates a lower level I.Q. than Kerry.

It is STUPID that Bush has not changed his position on the war.

I don't want a president whom I am smarter than.

wordmunger

Sep 30, 2004, 11:25 PM

cnn.com is running 79 for kerry and 18 for bush right now. I'll be amazed if this holds up. It's almost too good to be true.

dsharits

Sep 30, 2004, 11:31 PM

Bush obviously demonstrates a lower level I.Q. than Kerry.

If that's the case, why did Kerry graduate from Yale with a C average, while Bush graduated from Harvard with high honors?

Daniel

Thomas Veil

Sep 30, 2004, 11:32 PM

cnn.com is running 79 for kerry and 18 for bush right now. I'll be amazed if this holds up. It's almost too good to be true.
That's an unscientific poll, but even accounting for a wide margin of error, that still amounts to a big win for Kerry.

dotnina

Sep 30, 2004, 11:35 PM

I thought Bush really looked like immature, certainly at the beginning of the debate. His face showed he was getting really angry. When it was his turn to speak, he actually tried to start talking before the moderator had said he may speak. I could just imagine him clenching his fists behind the podium. :)

You have to wonder: is this how Bush acts when he's in a heated meeting with leaders of other countries? If he can't control his little tantrums on stage in a presidential election, how does he act in other important situations? No wonder so many countries don't like us. :rolleyes:

Also, Bush had about three "uhh" or "umm" utterings in every response! Did anyone else notice that? Isn't that one of the big no-no's of public speaking?

I was pleased with Kerry's quick, powerful, confident responses. I think he succeeded in explaining things clearly. He didn't come off as "some academic scholar" as he may have before ... he was also more specific about things.

Way to go for Kerry, and Bush ... well, I think Bush performed as well as I expected. ;)

wordmunger

Sep 30, 2004, 11:38 PM

If that's the case, why did Kerry graduate from Yale with a C average, while Bush graduated from Harvard with high honors?

Daniel

I think if you gave both of them an IQ test today, Kerry would come out on top. That said, they both went to yale at a time when there was such a thing as a "gentleman's C". There's no way Bush's C+ average at Yale would get him anywhere near Harvard B-school today.

wordmunger

Sep 30, 2004, 11:40 PM

That's an unscientific poll, but even accounting for a wide margin of error, that still amounts to a big win for Kerry.
Yeah, I think ABC's more "scientific" poll had Kerry winning more like 50-ish to 35-ish.

Thanatoast

Sep 30, 2004, 11:41 PM

Wow. Damage control on every channel.

Anyways, I thought Bush, whose talents in "staying on message" were hyped, sound more like a broken record. He kept coming back around to his main themes, but inso doing he sounded like he hadn't thought beyond them.

Kerry looked very composed and sounded very sure of himself. On substance, he also seemed to have a better grasp of the way things are and the way things are going. (Guess that's just my opinion, but c'mon, really, Bush? Substance?)

I give a strong win to Kerry. He was consistent and concise. Bush stumbled, and at points seemed lost. Interestingly, I thought Kerry's closing statement was his weakest moment. With just a little more practice though, I think it would've come off much better.

Bring on Cheney and Edwards! Let there be bloodletting before the gods of polls and talking heads!

kilpajr

Oct 1, 2004, 12:01 AM

I saw a speech Kerry gave maybe a week or two ago at some university that made me a little scared about this debate. Kerry did a really good job (although I did not agree with his positions). Kerry's campaign did a really good job hyping up how good Bush would be. What could the Bush campaign say, "well, Bush is not a very good debater"? That wouldn't have helped him out. I agree Kerry probably won the debate considering his "performance" but I think Bush won on the issues. The best thing Kerry did was not make clear where he stood. He's trying to get votes wherever he can by not being clear and giving a good performance.

I just wish people would vote on the issues (whether for Bush or Kerry) instead of their performance. Would you want to be judged on how you did in a speech or debate or would you rather be judged on what you stand for?

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 12:07 AM

I've seen the type of speech Bush delivered somewhere before, and it took 3rdpath's analysis to being it back. He was like a 4th grader giving a book report for a book he hadn't read.

Backtothemac

Oct 1, 2004, 12:19 AM

Guys don't be so partisan. Kerry did great, I will not take that away, but just like the debates in 2000, Gore won, but Bush won in the public's eye because of his style.

Kerry had composure, and statistics, Bush caught Kerry in a couple of gafts, and Bush stayed optimistic, and positive.

It was a draw. Quoting polls at CNN, ABC and CBS is like quoting a poll from Fox.

Wait until a scientific poll comes out and then decide what the "people" thought.

Again, I say it was a draw. I would venture to say scientific polls will show that it was a win for one or the other within the margin of error.

IJ Reilly

Oct 1, 2004, 12:34 AM

Both Kerry and Bush made their positions perfectly clear. I give that to both of them. Only someone who's on the GOP Kool-Aid diet could conclude that Kerry didn't explain himself. It might not change your views of the issues, but in fairness you really need to actually listen to what Kerry says instead of the spin on what he says. Agree with them or not, Kerry's positions are clear and consistent.

sorryiwasdreami

Oct 1, 2004, 12:42 AM

If that's the case, why did Kerry graduate from Yale with a C average, while Bush graduated from Harvard with high honors?

Daniel

I.Q. and education are not the same thing. Einstein failed the entrance exam to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 12:57 AM

Wait until a scientific poll comes out and then decide what the "people" thought.

Scientific USA Today poll has Kerry at 53, Bush at 37.

link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm)

HyperX

Oct 1, 2004, 01:02 AM

Lancaster, PA. College Students Participate in online POLL!

I bet they all voted Kerry ;)

IJ Reilly

Oct 1, 2004, 01:03 AM

Scientific USA Today poll has Kerry at 53, Bush at 37.

Wow, that's very encouraging. Maybe people really are paying attention, at long last.

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 01:05 AM

Wow, that's very encouraging. Maybe people really are paying attention, at long last.

And the MoE was 4%. What sayest thou now, BTTM?

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 01:06 AM

Lancaster, PA. College Students Participate in online POLL!

I bet they all voted Kerry ;)

Where is that? Millersville, HACC or E-town?

Lancaster is heavily Republican, and Mac-poor.

HyperX

Oct 1, 2004, 01:11 AM

It didn't say. it was posted on Foxnews... I like to see what the GOP had to say so I went there ;P Noticed the picture and craped my pants ;)

Guess I need to start wearing depends or something!

I wonder if they were all using Rendezvous and debating who they thought was winning :)

NAH they were probably using Azureus and surfing Supernova ;P

SiliconAddict

Oct 1, 2004, 01:17 AM

Scientific USA Today poll has Kerry at 53, Bush at 37.

link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm)

WAY too early to tell at this point. What? Give it until Monday-Tuesday for things to soak in. I personally am looking forward to hearing what people around the office have to say tomorrow.

As for the debate itself. It wasn't bad. Shrub and Kerry both volleyed back and forth but I didn't see any hard and fast spikes in the face.
I did see at least 3 openings where Kerry could have seriously stuck it to Shrub but refrained. If nothing else Shrub was using a series of words for Kerry on his stance towards Iraq. (I forget what they were.) He had a golden opertunity to pin him down and make them into buzzwords. So:

"Mr President you really like to associate x, y, z with me. Maybe we can get a game of buzzword bingo going on here." The reality is that x, y, and x, your words, are a sharp contrast to reality." And goes off onto why Shrub is full of crap.

from that point on whenever Shrub used x, y, z Kerry could simply say "bingo" or "there he goes again" (Think a Raganism.) It would have been a solid way of disarming more buzzwords generated by Shrub and co. That and Kerry still seems too stiff. The dude needs to loosen up and joke a little bit granted the topic that evening was serious so I don't know how much humor you could have injected into that debate.

My current theory is that Kerry has 2 more debates at this point. He doesn't want to antagonize or totally polarize anyone at this point by directly and openly sticking it to Shrub. So he's playing things close to the vest. Tonight was ALL about getting the record straight about where he stands. I think he did a solid job of that but I also, much to my dismay, think Shrub did just as good of a job. I found myself agreeing with a few comments of his which more then annoyed me.
I expect to see some serious swinging if the gap doesn’t narrow A LOT by the second debate. More then the debates I’m more concerned about the Dems running out of cash. Shrub and co have boat loads of ad money to keep their campaign going. Kerry…starting to run a tad dry from what I’ve read which is NOT good.
Time will tell how this works out. More then anything I'm really looking forward to the town meeting settings where neither candidate has any clue what is going to be asked. I hope to see Kerry drive home the fact that whatever “plans” Shrub has for this country he’s had 4 years to implement it. Is he coming up with these grand plans for the economy/job growth/medicare NOW?!?!

blackfox

Oct 1, 2004, 04:42 AM

I was very impressed with Kerry's performance. Condidering the topic(s) of tonight's debate were considered relative strengths for the President, Kerry's performance in the coming debates should be even more encouraging. Better than I expected.

I also look forward to the Cheney/Edwards debate on tues.

takao

Oct 1, 2004, 06:20 AM

on a scale from 1(kerry) to 10 (bush) won
i would give it a 4...

for my taste bush stumbled over words too much (confused saddam and osama as well) as they said on swiss tv: bush was nervous
and kerry quoting bush own father was pretty priceless

anybody counted how many times bush said "it's tough" ..

draw, but leaning towards kerry

(never saw kerry speaking before but ithink he was better than bush..but some might like bush like he is)

Lyle

Oct 1, 2004, 07:36 AM

Wow. I realize I'm no better than a partisan hack in my bias, but I thought Kerry wiped the floor with Bush tonight.I'm no better than a partisan hack in my bias, but I have to agree with you: Kerry "won" this debate. Ouch, that hurt. ;)

Having said that, I'm not sure how (or if) it will change things. I don't think anything could have happened in the debate to change my vote (or yours), so I guess it's all about how it affected the so-called "swing" voters' opinions. It will be interesting to see how the polls change in a few days.

katchow

Oct 1, 2004, 07:37 AM

is "mixed-messages" the new fuzzy-math?

the thing that bugged me with that consant rebut was that it seems a little too easy. "Hey you can't criticize the decisions i've made because it sends mixed-messages to our troops"

thats just a tidbit from my perspective...overall, i would say neither candidate let their party down last night. Now for the undecided voters...i have no clue what they'll conclude.

Lyle

Oct 1, 2004, 07:44 AM

... That and Kerry still seems too stiff. The dude needs to loosen up and joke a little bit granted the topic that evening was serious so I don't know how much humor you could have injected into that debate.With regards to injecting humor into the debate: Pat Buchanan was just on Don Imus' radio show and made an interesting observation about why Bush may have been off his game in the debate.

He pointed out that Bush is generally a better stump speaker than Kerry because he (Bush) knows how to work the crowd and feeds off of their reactions (laughter and applause) to his lines. Of course, part of the ground rules for last night's debate was that the audience had to remain quiet, and so Bush wasn't getting any of the kind of feedback that he might have gotten from a typical audience on the campaign trail. If that's true, I wonder how things will go in the second debate, which I believe is supposed to be more of a "town hall" setting.

kafelatte

Oct 1, 2004, 08:33 AM

When I hear Bush speak, I feel like I'm watching a spaghetti western: he is reading from a script in a language he doesn't understand. As soon as he strays from the script, or forgets his lines (or how to pronounce them), he reveals himself to be the mindless parrot he is.

And as far as Kerry flip-flopping? He evaluates new data and revises his analysis to take into account a broader range of knowledge. Lord I hope my doctor uses that same level of wisdom when he tells me what to do with this bottle of Vioxx.

Choose wisely

solvs

Oct 1, 2004, 08:57 AM

mactastic

Oct 1, 2004, 09:28 AM

I agree with IJ. I think it was a draw. Kerry made a couple of gafts, but I really think the voters who have not made up their minds yet did not get much from this debate. I think those that like Kerry will like him more, and those that like Bush will like him more.

Draw.

But 4 years ago wasn't the CW that Bush 'won' the debate against Gore simply by not losing? In this kind of situation the tie goes to the challenger. As CIC, Bush should have done better than he did.

Kerry has a change on the 8th to do damage to Bush if Bush doesn't prepare for the debate better.

I agree. Foreign policy should have been Bush's strong suit. Domestic issues should favor Kerry more. Kerry should 'accidentally' call him Herbert Hoover. :p

For the record. I think Bush did much better than he did in 2000, You think Bush does better when it's a draw as opposed to a win for him? but Kerry is not Al Gore, Thank whatever powers there be for that. Kerry is a master debater. :eek: :D
And just how would you know that BTTM? Have you caught him master debating before? :p

Laslo Panaflex

Oct 1, 2004, 10:05 AM

And just how would you know that BTTM? Have you caught him master debating before? :p

That is classic, a little humor is what this thread needs, I'd hate to see it turn into an all out flame war.

Remeber we are all friends here :D

/ends lovefest

zimv20

Oct 1, 2004, 10:06 AM

jefhatfield

Oct 1, 2004, 10:09 AM

I was probably going to vote for Kerry before. I'm definitely going to vote for him now. Don't know if that tells you anything, or not. I went from just disliking Bush to almost, kinda, sorta liking what Kerry had to say and how he said it.

Bush was a deer in the headlights, but I kinda expected that. I was just surprised at how bad it got, because he almost seemed to be starting off well. Now if only Kerry would take a little more time outlining his plans, I might actually be a little more enthusiastic about him. So far, so good.

i have always seen bush as simple and unintelligent, but not a deer in headlights when it comes to debates...bush rarely shines, but when he does, it's where it counts such as debates

bush completely did not live up to previous times when he favored well or very well in debates...even if bush was "correct" on his defense of all the issues, his scared, confused, and even bored demeanor will lose him a couple or few points in the polls over the next week

even an arrogant bush with a swagger is much better than the weak and confused bush we got last night...bush was like perot's vp candidate, admiral stockwell (or i think that was his name...well, anyway, forgettable ;) )

wordmunger

Oct 1, 2004, 10:14 AM

before everyone gets too excited about how kerry's performance last night may have helped his candidacy, have a look at these USA Today poll results. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm)

though kerry was given the nod for doing a better job, bush still wins categories such as:
- Was more likeable
- Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
- Was more believable
- that his criticisms of kerry were more fair than vice versa

they tied on "Had a good understanding of the issues"

And so the spinning begins (I'm not saying you're doing this, zim). Kerry "won," but Bush was more "believable," so maybe Bush really won. I'm sorry, polling on "believable" only reflects the ignorance of the American people. What we need to do is check the facts, show who lied (or was mistaken), and then give the people that information, not ask them in their ignorance who seemed to be telling the truth.

We all know Bush is a really good liar. I'm not sure that's a very important qualification for the presidency.

jefhatfield

Oct 1, 2004, 10:21 AM

And so the spinning begins (I'm not saying you're doing this, zim). Kerry "won," but Bush was more "believable," so maybe Bush really won. I'm sorry, polling on "believable" only reflects the ignorance of the American people. What we need to do is check the facts, show who lied (or was mistaken), and then give the people that information, not ask them in their ignorance who seemed to be telling the truth.

We all know Bush is a really good liar. I'm not sure that's a very important qualification for the presidency.

i think bush is a liar...but a bad liar...unconvincing and out of touch...iraq=war on terrorism, iraq=wmd's...come on, please!!

it just shows, unfortunately, that there are a lot of american voters who are stupid, blind, or both

personally, i think dean, kunicich, edwards, and lieberman were better than kerry

and i think mccain is better than bush

but in the end, look who we have running against each other ;)

america sometimes votes for the best man/woman, but usually votes for the best connected professional politician...but sometimes the professional politician does not win otherwise it might be possible that old bob dole would be sitting in the white house right now ;)

IJ Reilly

Oct 1, 2004, 10:27 AM

With regards to injecting humor into the debate: Pat Buchanan was just on Don Imus' radio show and made an interesting observation about why Bush may have been off his game in the debate.

He pointed out that Bush is generally a better stump speaker than Kerry because he (Bush) knows how to work the crowd and feeds off of their reactions (laughter and applause) to his lines. Of course, part of the ground rules for last night's debate was that the audience had to remain quiet, and so Bush wasn't getting any of the kind of feedback that he might have gotten from a typical audience on the campaign trail. If that's true, I wonder how things will go in the second debate, which I believe is supposed to be more of a "town hall" setting.

Bush is a "better stump speaker" because he's consistently preaching to the choir. His campaign speech audiences are preselected supporters. I suppose anyone can appear to be a great speaker if their audiences are vetted for friendliness to the message. Consider me shocked that Pat Buchanan failed to mention this little point of difference between how the Bush and Kerry campaigns work.

mischief

Oct 1, 2004, 10:43 AM

I'll just toss out some observations... Personally I think Kerry was doing an excellent job until he failed to deliver the killstrike in his closer by pre-empting Bush's inevitable "Re-elect me and nobody gets hurt." schtick.

Bush made a serious mistake by repeatedly saying:

" (Insert boogie-man meme) won't happen so long as I'M the president."

Kerry suprised a lot of folks when he finally turned aggressive and went for the throat on all the stuff (save TANG) the rest of us pinko liberals have been gritting our teeth over in a blinding 90 second barrage.

Was it just me or was the contents of Bush's water glass(es) something other than water? I could swear the liquid was a pale amber. Scotch? Tequila?
Can anyone find a good capture of the glass? That would be a hell of a coup and would certainly explain (partly anyway) why he got progressively more incoherent.

Backtothemac

Oct 1, 2004, 10:45 AM

And the MoE was 4%. What sayest thou now, BTTM?

Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.

LOL.

I give it to Kerry, he did really well. I don't however think it was a win. Look at those who think it was a draw. At that to Bush's total, and it really is a draw.

I want to see.

"after viewing the debate between President Bush, and Senator Kerry who are you more likely to vote for in the November election."

But you are right. Kerry was spectacular in that debate last night.

mischief

Oct 1, 2004, 10:48 AM

before everyone gets too excited about how kerry's performance last night may have helped his candidacy, have a look at these USA Today poll results. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm)

though kerry was given the nod for doing a better job, bush still wins categories such as:
- Was more likeable
- Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
- Was more believable
- that his criticisms of kerry were more fair than vice versa

they tied on "Had a good understanding of the issues"

Kerry would do a whole lot better if he could just map his expressions after a friendlier version of a similar face: Henry Winkler.

I can see it now: Bush goes off on one of his canned flip-flopper routines and Kerry just gives him the "Fonzie Stare." :D ;) :rolleyes: :p

Backtothemac

Oct 1, 2004, 10:58 AM

That is classic, a little humor is what this thread needs, I'd hate to see it turn into an all out flame war.

Remeber we are all friends here :D

/ends lovefest

I was a champion debater in High School. We had shirts that said.

"We are Masterdebators" :D

wordmunger

Oct 1, 2004, 11:03 AM

I was a champion debater in High School. We had shirts that said.

"We are Masterdebators" :D

Then you might be interested in this assessment (http://slate.com/id/2107518/) of the debate. It's scored much more like a standard high-school debate, where the judge tracks each debater's performance on an issue-by-issue basis and then determines the winner. It brought me back to high school debating, with my yellow legal pad to "flow" the debate.

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 11:08 AM

I can see it now: Bush goes off on one of his canned flip-flopper routines and Kerry just gives him the "Fonzie Stare." :D ;) :rolleyes: :p

There was one point, after a particularly rambling, incoherent, off-topic response (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.14/index.html) from Bush that I thought Kerry could have just said, "I have no idea what point you just tried to make, but...

Backtothemac

Oct 1, 2004, 11:10 AM

Then you might be interested in this assessment (http://slate.com/id/2107518/) of the debate. It's scored much more like a standard high-school debate, where the judge tracks each debater's performance on an issue-by-issue basis and then determines the winner. It brought me back to high school debating, with my yellow legal pad to "flow" the debate.

HA! That is funny. I flowed the debate last night. Personally, I would like to see some cross examination between the candidates, and a real debate instead of the crap that they give us. I really think Kerry won, but, I think the people will view it as a draw because they relate to Bush. It is almost like people don't want to like Kerry, or feel guilt for doing so.

wordmunger

Oct 1, 2004, 11:16 AM

HA! That is funny. I flowed the debate last night. Personally, I would like to see some cross examination between the candidates, and a real debate instead of the crap that they give us. I really think Kerry won, but, I think the people will view it as a draw because they relate to Bush. It is almost like people don't want to like Kerry, or feel guilt for doing so.

Hmm... I'm not sure the people could handle a real cross x-style debate:

"Under Inherency, flow that over to the negative side as I have sixteen cards here that completely refute the affirmative's case, which I'll now read to you at 350 words per minute....

Now onto Topicality, where we argued that the affirmative is in serious violation for twelve reasons. Under reason 2 sub a, the affirmative never defined the most critical term, 'Weapons of Mass destruction,' so...."

See? WAY too nerdy for the American public!

mischief

Oct 1, 2004, 11:32 AM

There was one point, after a particularly rambling, incoherent, off-topic response (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.14/index.html) from Bush that I thought Kerry could have just said, "I have no idea what point you just tried to make, but...

Instead he chose to nod and smile as if to say: "Wow, I couldn't have ASKED you to be more incoherent." It was the slightly pained smile of someone stuck at a train station with a raving drunk.

There were a couple of points where W was quite neatly maneuvered into saying things that weakened his position. N-Korea was the example that sticks in mind: that exchange about sanctions, monitoring and who implemented what. Bush was baited into saying outright that the sanctions were Clintons' and basically all he's (W's) done is involve more nations in not minding the barn.

IJ Reilly

Oct 1, 2004, 11:53 AM

I'll just toss out some observations... Personally I think Kerry was doing an excellent job until he failed to deliver the killstrike in his closer by pre-empting Bush's inevitable "Re-elect me and nobody gets hurt." schtick.

Yup, thanks for mentioning this. Early in the debate, Bush was asked to justify the implications of his campaign that the election of his opponent would make the US more vulnerable to terrorism. He predictably danced around the question. But I was disappointed that Kerry didn't use his rebuttal time to nail Bush on his suggestion that voting Bush out would be tantamount to electing Osama bin Laden. Had the question come later in the debate I suppose Kerry would have given a tougher answer.

I don't know what was in Bush's water glass, but this was a typical Bush performance. Once he gets off of his prepared set of answers, he's kind of lost.

Backtothemac

Oct 1, 2004, 12:04 PM

Hmm... I'm not sure the people could handle a real cross x-style debate:

"Under Inherency, flow that over to the negative side as I have sixteen cards here that completely refute the affirmative's case, which I'll now read to you at 350 words per minute....

Now onto Topicality, where we argued that the affirmative is in serious violation for twelve reasons. Under reason 2 sub a, the affirmative never defined the most critical term, 'Weapons of Mass destruction,' so...."

See? WAY too nerdy for the American public!

Hmm. Not Traditional debate, but Lincoln Douglas style.

Were they don't spread.

mischief

Oct 1, 2004, 12:11 PM

I don't know what was in Bush's water glass, but this was a typical Bush performance. Once he gets off of his prepared set of answers, he's kind of lost.

I really would like a frame-capture of that damn glass. I swear it looked to be scotch.

3rdpath

Oct 1, 2004, 12:41 PM

mischief

Oct 1, 2004, 12:49 PM

what the heck was bush trying to say here:

"You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can..."when talking about a war widow he met?

and try as i might, i can't find " transhipped" in the dictionary.

what a turnipseed.

this election is bush's to lose and i'm beginning to think he'll finally reach his full potential as a failure.

My favourite antigrammatical gem: "You gotta be resolved."

THE WORD IS RESOLUTE YOU FALSE-HICK.

To be resolute.
To reach a resolution.
To resolve an issue.
To have resolve.

Perhaps he meant: to have reached a resolution or preconcieved notion that one is then rigidly resolute about. AKA: to be prejudicial and dogmatic.

I can only think of one thing that can actually be in the act of being "resolved" that isn't a difference of opinion: a digital image.

My issue with your example (the grieving wife). Was that W couldn't bring himself to say "Killed" or anything like it. He stumbled, almost spoke plainly then backpedalled and used more indirect language, skirting any direct reference to the death of a soldier under his command.

It really irked me that he kept saying "It's really hard work being President." when he had to avoid saying "I really don't know what it's like to be in combat or lose a family member to war but I can try to sympathize."

skunk

Oct 1, 2004, 02:51 PM

I loved that bit where he said he knew what combat was like because he'd watched it on TV. That was perfect.

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 03:01 PM

I loved that bit where he said he knew what combat was like because he'd watched it on TV. That was perfect.

??? I missed that one.

coconn06

Oct 1, 2004, 03:05 PM

If that's the case, why did Kerry graduate from Yale with a C average, while Bush graduated from Harvard with high honors?

Daniel

Ha. Harvard? No offense to Harvard or anyone who goes/went there, but it's known for giving everyone A's. I think Bush's policies and words speak for themselves.

atszyman

Oct 1, 2004, 03:50 PM

??? I missed that one.

Because it's not a direct quote.

From CNN
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.

For those who missed it the debate can be read here, there's video too but I haven't tried that yet.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

jefhatfield

Oct 1, 2004, 05:44 PM

Ha. Harvard? No offense to Harvard or anyone who goes/went there, but it's known for giving everyone A's. I think Bush's policies and words speak for themselves.

harvard, stanford, mit, etc...yes most people get A's but not because A's are easy to get but because the student body is selected from the best and the brightest in the nation and A's are a way of life for them...many students from elite schools have spent two decades, or more, without even an A minus on their record

but that being said, i am a kerry supporter...bush had something, connections or grades, to get into harvard, so he's no idiot, but he may very well be the dumbest person ever to graduate from harvard business school ;)

maybe he was smart in his youth and then became stupid...alcohol, cocaine, or just aging...whatever it is, it is very noticeable that he's a few cans short of a six pack

IJ Reilly

Oct 1, 2004, 06:39 PM

My favourite antigrammatical gem: "You gotta be resolved."

Play it for me, big man. (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=2526349&selectedItemId=2526347)

pseudobrit

Oct 1, 2004, 07:51 PM

Ha. Harvard? No offense to Harvard or anyone who goes/went there, but it's known for giving everyone A's. I think Bush's policies and words speak for themselves.

And I've never heard Bush being classified as an honour student. At any time.

solvs

Oct 1, 2004, 11:46 PM

i have always seen bush as simple and unintelligent, but not a deer in headlights when it comes to debates...
Normally, I would agree. Most of the time he is a good debater (well... actor, which we know you don't have to be smart to be). The 2000 debates? Everyone expected him to fail, and he pretty much held his own against Gore (a strategy that didn't work so well this time). Surround him with supporters who cheer his every move, and give him a script - you have a pretty good show.

Towards the end of this debate? Deer in the headlights.

solvs

Oct 1, 2004, 11:51 PM

And I've never heard Bush being classified as an honour student. At any time.
Means about as much as an honorable discharge for a service your Daddy got you into that you didn't even bother showing up for.

Like when a small town high school football player gets an A on a test he didn't even take because he was too busy practicing for the big game. Someone would have to be pretty naive to think things like this don't happen all the time. I'm sure we've all seen it.

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 12:01 AM

zimv20

Oct 2, 2004, 12:14 AM

the front page of http://www.democrats.org/ has a video you can watch w/ the split screen. it's a "highlight" reel, w/o audio of the event (some cheesy music over it).

if this is the worst of what bush did, i don't think it's that bad, personally.

sorryiwasdreami

Oct 2, 2004, 12:16 AM

I heard just this evening that some people who watched TV coverage that split the screen between Kerry and Bush saw a considerably different debate and came away with a less favorable impression of Bush's debate performance. Apparently Bush did quite a bit of grimacing and mugging while Kerry was talking, which those of us who watched on PBS didn't see, as they cut away for reaction shots only a few times. Can anybody who watched split-screen coverage confirm?

Yes, I saw the split screens. It was embarrassing. I actually felt bad for Bush while Kerry was speaking; it was that bad. His facial expressions projected such a defensive, babyish, wimpering, weak, shocked, beaten down, scared version of Bush.

I think we saw the "Real Bush" in those split-screen reactions, the Bush that isn't reading from cue cards or half-assed-memorized play lines. I feel we saw the Bush that is simply a figurehead for the Republican party circa 2004, not an actual, physical, tangible leader.

Chappers

Oct 2, 2004, 08:09 AM

What I find scarey is that Bush will get voted in again. Mostly is is based on him looking like a president, Kerry does not.

The USA is wrapped up in a terrorist war that it can't win when it should have been chasing Osama.

Bush basically said that the situation in Iraq with supporters of Saddam, had been under-estimated.
They were given so much notice that the USA would invade and yet no one thought they might prepare for a terrorist war - it was so obvious to anyone you cared to think about it.

And the idiot who led you down this path will be the next president.

As for all this c**p about not talking to terrorists - just remember that succesive American governments encouraged the UK to talk to terrorists in Northern Ireland and the English government did. Now the language of these governments is very different - I wonder why.

Chip NoVaMac

Oct 2, 2004, 08:47 AM

resm

Oct 2, 2004, 09:22 AM

What I find scarey is that Bush will get voted in again. Mostly is is based on him looking like a president, Kerry does not.

I do not agree.

FINALY Kerry started to look like a President.
Before he looked and did sound like on permanent defensive position.

In this first debate he showed his superiour intellect (something badly needed after this last 4 years with Bush) he did not stumble to find a response and he started to remind me more of Clinton.

Bush looked to me like the class bully who finaly meet his superiour guy.

I loved it, when Kerry told him that even his father (Bush) was more smart to stay out of Bagdhad.
That must have been a punch that hurt :D

mactastic

Oct 2, 2004, 10:12 AM

I saw the split-screen version, and it was definetly not flattering to Bush. Those eye-rolls and that grin are the new sighs or looking at your watch moment.

However, Team Bush is a very disciplined group, and Bush has shown himself to be a disciplined candidate. I have no doubt that they will recalibrate Bush appearance for the next debate. You will see a far different person than the one we saw Thursday night who looked like he didn't want to be there, and couldn't stay focused for 90 minutes.

IOW, look for Bush to do extremely well next time. (How's that for raising expectations :D )

Chip NoVaMac

Oct 2, 2004, 10:43 AM

I do not agree.

FINALY Kerry started to look like a President.
Before he looked and did sound like on permanent defensive position.

In this first debate he showed his superiour intellect (something badly needed after this last 4 years with Bush) he did not stumble to find a response and he started to remind me more of Clinton.

Bush looked to me like the class bully who finaly meet his superiour guy.

I loved it, when Kerry told him that even his father (Bush) was more smart to stay out of Bagdhad.
That must have been a punch that hurt :D

I agree, I watched Kerry and wondered where this "presidential" look and sound came from. I think that if he had shown this confidence on the stump all the long Bush would be planning his moving back to Texas right now.

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2004, 10:57 AM

the front page of http://www.democrats.org/ has a video you can watch w/ the split screen. it's a "highlight" reel, w/o audio of the invent (some cheesy music over it).

if this is the worst of what bush did, i don't think it's that bad, personally.
I don't know. I was noticing those eye-rolls, blinks, blank stares and other things during the debate. But put 'em all together in a video, and Bush looks downright incompetent.

For God's sake, the guy knew he was on TV, even during reaction shots. What was he thinking?? Was he that rattled? If so, Kerry scored even bigger than I first thought.

OTOH, while I find the Bush "highlight" video amusing, I do have to confess it's just this (holds fingers one inch apart) shy of being a cheap shot.

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 11:29 AM

In reading about the debate visuals in my paper this morning, I came across this inscrutable observation:

Then there was the height differential. Bush, who stands 5 feet 11, looked smaller behind his lectern than Kerry did behind his. At 6-foot-4, Kerry appeared to have a larger on-screen presence.

Fox News Channel, which sent the feeds to all broadcast and cable networks that covered the debate, sought to explain this phenomenon.

"There's a thing we have to worry about in television called head room," Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume told viewers after the debate. "When you're trying to match shots side by side, you give parties the same amount of head room in the shot. Because of Kerry's height within the frame, his picture was necessarily bigger."

Kerry, Hume added, "looked taller, and the president looked smaller. That's something that I think both sides were conscious of. I'm not sure it was something anybody planned, but it worked out that way."

Okay, so is Hume saying that the GOP didn't plan on running Bush against a taller candidate? If not, then what the heck is he talking about?

blackfox

Oct 2, 2004, 11:43 AM

In reading about the debate visuals in my paper this morning, I came across this inscrutable observation:

Okay, so is Hume saying that the GOP didn't plan on running Bush against a taller candidate? If not, then what the heck is he talking about?

I am not sure if this clears anything up, but:

From what I have heard (I did not see it firsthand), FOX, when displaying the candidates split-screen, adjusted the picture of Bush to give the appearance of equal height (raised podium height), which was unnoticeable (as a tweak) until they panned to both candidates, at which time Kerry was much taller.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2004, 12:06 PM

Yes, the candidates were "framed" to make them look equal. Unfortunately, because Bush is shorter, that meant including more of the podium in their side-by-side pictures. Couldn't be helped, really. The alternative would have been to shoot it so both podiums were at equal level. But then Bush would've had a lot more headroom, emphasizing his somewhat smaller stature vs. Kerry.

I think the way they did it was the right way, and the best that could've been managed. Unless they wanted to give Bush a shorter podium. That would've made the side-by-side shots look equal, but then would have made Bush look even smaller in the long shots that included both candidates.

In the end, it had very little to do with how the candidates were framed. Bush was simply outclassed, that's all.

BTW, Brit Hume's not exactly correct. He's right about the headroom, but Kerry's picture was not "bigger".

One more thing: it's been hilarious to listen to the right-wing radio "spin" about the debate. On Rush's Friday show, all I heard were excuses about Bush being too busy being President to prepare properly, and similar lame reasonings. Rush was also busy trying to frame Kerry's comments in ways that made it sound as if he were contradicting himself.

On another right-wing channel we recently acquired in town (oh, for joy!), virtually every caller said that Bush won the debate...the rationale being that Kerry won on style, but Bush was superior on substance. Yyyyyyyyeah..... :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 12:19 PM

Maybe they could have had Bush stand on a soap box. It sounded like he was speaking from one anyway.

zimv20

Oct 2, 2004, 12:54 PM

Interesting how personal bias can alter the perception of reality.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002051082_undecideds01m.html

for a little different perspective.
did you read their comments? seems to me they're paying attention to all the wrong things.

kerry looks like he has a rod in his spine? how unpresidential! that's a man who will not be able to shore up social security!

give me a break.

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 01:06 PM

Anecdotes don't count for much, and I find these "man on the street" interviews are often dispiriting. Even when I agree with their conclusions, I find the people the media interviews to often be poorly informed and forming their opinions on the flimsiest of evidence (the political spin machines have to love these people). I was really struck by one of these interviews I heard on NPR this morning. They were talking to an undecided voter, a young woman, who said she hadn't been convinced to vote for Kerry because -- now get this -- she thinks he has a hard time deciding. The mind boggles...

toontra

Oct 2, 2004, 01:08 PM

Interesting how personal bias can alter the perception of reality.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002051082_undecideds01m.html

for a little different perspective.

Christ!! If the views of those two are representative of even a minority of the US population then we are all doomed!!

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2004, 02:22 PM

"I like Laura a lot more. She's so cute she'd invite you in and cook you apple pie."
"Kerry doesn't seem like he's got it together. Answer the damn questions! He says I know these people, talked to these people. Yeah? Pin a rose on your nose. I want to know how he feels."
"I don't own a house, I don't pay property taxes, I don't have a husband or boyfriend in the war. A lot of things they are pushing for don't affect me."
"I really don't like Teresa (Heinz Kerry). She comes across like she wears the pants in the family."
Can't recall for certain if she voted, "but if I did, it was probably for Bush."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mike Teezie

Oct 2, 2004, 03:23 PM

It never occured to me that some saw the debate in a NON-split screen format. That's the way I saw it, maybe that's why i felt it was such a definite victory for Kerry.

Kerry looked/sounded knowledgeable, articulate (without coming off as too high-brow, Americans hate a smarty-pants), and best of all, posied and charismatic.

Bush was obviously annoyed, uncomfortable, uninformed, and lost. There were several "deer in the headlights" moments.

I imagine it would have been a great deal different without the split screen.

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 04:01 PM

I imagine it would have been a great deal different without the split screen.

In terms of the atmospherics, at least.

Thanatoast

Oct 2, 2004, 04:06 PM

From an article on the BBC:The partisans were not swayed by the debate. Olivia left before the debate ended but said "Kerry has been a way better speaker than Bush".

"I spoke to Republican friends, and they said they are embarrassed" by President Bush's performance, she added.

And Manny said that John Kerry continued to be inconsistent.

"He was trash-talking Bush about the lack of support in Iraq, and then he said he would go into North Korea on his own," he said.

He was referring to John Kerry's promise to open bilateral talks with North Korea if elected, which President Bush said would threaten six-way talks that include China and other regional powers.

And persuadable Republican Aseem was not persuaded. "Kerry was a better speaker. He was killing him, but I'm still going to probably vote for Bush," he said.

He said that Mr Kerry was still not steadfast. "He says that he wants to defeat the terrorists, but then he says he's going to pull the troops out of Iraq in six months. His plan doesn't make sense."

Mr Kerry said that if everything went well under his four-point plan that US troop levels could decrease in Iraq within six months.

But Aseem said, "Even though Bush was stuttering and didn't hold his composure as well, he did make a decision."
Do these people make any sense? It's almost as if they only heard one out of every three words spoken. Or maybe they're deliberately misunderstanding what Kerry is saying. I can't imagine how they could be genuinely misunderstanding him.

I mean, a *third* of the nation gave the debate to Bush!? I'm at a loss. Apparently the guy who is articulate, prepared, concise, and clear is no longer the winner. Apparently parroting the same sentence over and over again is enough to "win" a debate.

How can people be this willfully ignorant?

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2004, 05:15 PM

Hot holy ----!

I expected Kerry's performance in the debates to help him narrow the gap with Bush, but I never expected this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/).

Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent.

I don't want to get too excited, but if Kerry manages to win the election, history may very well point to this first debate as the turning point.

IJ Reilly

Oct 2, 2004, 06:13 PM

I mean, a *third* of the nation gave the debate to Bush!? I'm at a loss. Apparently the guy who is articulate, prepared, concise, and clear is no longer the winner. Apparently parroting the same sentence over and over again is enough to "win" a debate.

Most voters, probably at least half, will grade a candidate's speaking performance on whether he says what they want to or expect to hear. Not much surprise there.

Mike Teezie

Oct 2, 2004, 07:42 PM

In terms of the atmospherics, at least.

You are indeed correct, thanks for catching that. We watched on CNN. I had my ears on Kerry, and my eyes on the Dub, which made me feel it was a total blowout for Kerry.

Thanatoast

Oct 2, 2004, 08:02 PM

This about sums it up, I think.

solvs

Oct 2, 2004, 09:44 PM

Debate is now on iTunes BTW. Get is here (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=25601664) free. Just like with the conventions. I just submitted it to MacBytes since I didn't see anyone mention it.

solvs

Oct 2, 2004, 10:09 PM

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I couldn't have said it better myself.

They were either already Bush supporters, or we are in serious trouble as a country. You can call me a Kerry supporter, or liberal, or whatever... but I was thoroughly swayed by the debates. Most of you who have read my former posts know that although I have been unhappy with Bush's performance as a President, I have not been a fan of Kerry (or Nader for that matter, at least not as the leader of the nation). I began to see a new Kerry, so to speak, here tonight. He had some moments that I disagree with (am still unclear on some things, hopefully we'll find out more as we get closer and there are more debates), but overall he did a pretty good job. Much better than Bush.

At first, even Conservatives were saying Kerry won. But as time passed, it was business as usual. People talking about how good Bush did, and saying that Kerry said things he didn't say. :rolleyes: I actually think Kerry has a real chance now. And for once, I'm not just hoping he doesn't suck... I'm actually thinking he probably won't.

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2004, 10:19 PM

solvs

Oct 2, 2004, 11:40 PM

Thanks!
No problem. Even listening, Kerry still wins. Bush does pause a lot.

mischief

Oct 4, 2004, 11:05 AM

I watched on NBC... Entirely splitscreen. I too was listening to one while watching the other. I was amazed at how petulant Bush looked much of the time, how PISSED he got when Kerry landed a real point and how panicked he looked just before each of those telling long pauses.

This is where my question about what was in Bush's glass came from. At one point while Kerry was shredding W's ass, W went through two glasses of.... something. Neither glass began with more than a half inch of liquid in it. Both appeared to be a pale-amber, noncarbonated liquid. Neither had any ice. Now, these days I'm bartending for a living (I'll eventually change my profile...) and that looked entirely too much like a double straight scotch.

Thomas Veil

Oct 4, 2004, 11:25 AM

Ike's Son Backs Kerry (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646482.shtml)
(CBS/AP)*In a rare public statement, John Eisenhower - son of Republican President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower - has announced that he is going to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president on Nov. 2....

Eisenhower explains that after 50 years as a Republican, he has lost confidence in the GOP and has switched his party affiliation to Independent.

"There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them," Eisenhower wrote, going on to criticize President Bush and the GOP for federal budget deficits, for "unilaterally" invading Iraq and for infringing on personal liberties.

The Bush campaign had no immediate comment.

Second poll shows Bush lead evaporating (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0002/20041004/0918042742.htm&photoid=20041002JEY05D&floc=NW_1-T)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush is now in a statistical dead heat with Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry for the Nov. 2 election, in a tightening of the race after the first debate last week, a poll on Monday showed.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll of likely voters taken between Friday and Sunday found Bush's 8 point lead over Kerry in a Sept. 26 poll had evaporated and both candidates would get 49 percent of the vote if the election were held today.

Nothin' but good news for Kerry lately. Let's hope the debates keep the momentum going.

IJ Reilly

Oct 4, 2004, 11:41 AM

Kerry doesn't have a reputation as a "strong closer" for nothing. He seems to find his strength when backed up against a wall.

One concern I've got for this Friday's debate is the now substantially lowered expectations for Bush's performance. Anything short of him taking a header over the podium will probably be evaluated as a vast improvement.

katchow

Oct 4, 2004, 12:28 PM

-- now get this -- she thinks he has a hard time deciding. The mind boggles...

Hey IJ, i think i heard the same show, did you hear the lady who said she thought we should be putting godly figures into the whitehouse and when asked she said, "yes, i think Bush is godly"...

<sarcasm> can't we all just shut up and be christians already? <sarcasm>

man, i'm not watching pbs next time, looks like i missed most of the fun...

wwworry

Oct 4, 2004, 01:43 PM

My favorite moment came when Bush talked about a visit with a war widow, Missy Johnson of Charlotte, N.C., whose husband P.J. had been killed in Iraq.
The president said "You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best I can..."

que the Barry White

Toe

Oct 4, 2004, 01:46 PM

My favorite moment came when Bush talked about a visit with a war widow, Missy Johnson of Charlotte, N.C., whose husband P.J. had been killed in Iraq....right after saying that he sees the violence in Iraq on his TV screen. Now there's a WAR PRESIDENT for you! That's the closest he's ever been to combat, unless you count battling with a line of coke while "serving" in the Air National Guard....

Funny thing is, if he was in the Guard today, he would be fighting in Iraq!

mischief

Oct 4, 2004, 01:52 PM

...right after saying that he sees the violence in Iraq on his TV screen. Now there's a WAR PRESIDENT for you! That's the closest he's ever been to combat, unless you count battling with a line of coke while "serving" in the Air National Guard....

Funny thing is, if he was in the Guard today, he would be fighting in Iraq!

You should be glad he was coached. Otherwise he would have mentioned his Playstation.

" I had a plan for this war... an' I worked hard on it. In fact my hands hurt for weeks from that damn controller. Toward the end of the planning sessions I had to have an intern invade Falluja to finnish out my high score. I beat Condi and Dick by a few thousand points with my plan."

Blue Velvet

Oct 8, 2004, 04:23 PM

blackfox

Oct 8, 2004, 06:30 PM

So... to tonight.

Are we going to see Bush come out swinging as some of the UK papers are predicting?

I suspect that he will do better than last time but still come off worse.

Rumours are that Bush will be hammering away on the flip-flop thing.
Will it make a difference or will Kerry rightly emphasise whose record should be under scrutiny?

I'll be listening to it on BBC radio while finishing off that bottle of Jack Daniels that's hanging around in the kitchen...

won't that be around 3am on a Friday night? So what is unusual about drinking Jack in your Kitchen?

Seriously, I admire your dedication (to curiosity if nothing else). Ironically, if for some reason the Debates didn't run here until the middle of the night, I doubt that many Americans would make the effort.

Nevertheless, considering, I look forward to your comments/analysis...

skunk

Oct 8, 2004, 06:34 PM

I'm up and waiting, too, with a bottle of champagne and a couple of spliffs. Better be good.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 06:35 PM

HAHA! I will be watching, but without spliffs ;)

It won't be as good as the Edwards / Cheney thing

blackfox

Oct 8, 2004, 06:38 PM

I'm up and waiting, too, with a bottle of champagne and a couple of spliffs. Better be good.
Well, I expect something like that from the likes of you...

If the commute time wasn't such a killer, I wouldn't mind the scene. I would bring goodies too. Plus, you can't correct my spelling in person...

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 06:39 PM

You should be glad he was coached. Otherwise he would have mentioned his Playstation.

" I had a plan for this war... an' I worked hard on it. In fact my hands hurt for weeks from that damn controller. Toward the end of the planning sessions I had to have an intern invade Falluja to finnish out my high score. I beat Condi and Dick by a few thousand points with my plan."

Dick IS a computer - the guy's as cold as ice

skunk

Oct 8, 2004, 06:41 PM

If the commute time wasn't such a killer, I wouldn't mind the scene. I would bring goodies too. Plus, you can't correct my spelling in person...
It's just not the same since they scrapped Concorde, is it? :)
Anyway, after a couple of stogies spelling seems increasingly irrelevant...

skunk

Oct 8, 2004, 06:45 PM

Dick IS a computer - the guy's as cold as ice
Obviously not a Mac...

skunk

Oct 8, 2004, 06:59 PM

Are you sitting comfortably?

blackfox

Oct 8, 2004, 07:18 PM

Are you sitting comfortably?
what does that mean? Are you high already?

...well, I'm off to the local pub to watch the action, with many a pint and a diverse group of people yelling at the TV...good times.

jefhatfield

Oct 8, 2004, 07:34 PM

i have the feeling that the best the gop can do in these debates is have a draw...and i think we saw that with cheney vs. edwards

kerry is likely to beat bush tonight and next time, but by a smaller margin

on nov. 2nd, the question will come down to, "are you better off now than 4 years ago and is the economy on the rise by a considerable degree"...that will make the swing voters go one way or the other and with neither candidate a solid 4 points ahead of the other, we will all be biting our nails until the final results come in

while kerry may win new hampshire and florida, bush can still take pennsylvania and new jersey so the overall election results won't exactly be the same as gore vs bush in 2000...but bush will win texas and at least half southern states for sure and kerry will win california and new york by a good margin

it's like a non bloody civil war over here, but the country is very evenly split in ideologies and the hair splitting is what makes people hot under the collar but when one really looks at what is done, vs what is said, it's still politics as usual and the two parties are really cut from the same stone

i still prefer the democrats but i don't think kerry can easily pull out of iraq and pay down the huge defecit

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 07:41 PM

Are we going to see Bush come out swinging as some of the UK papers are predicting?

yes, i think so. that's what he's been doing all week on the stump.

i expect bush to:
- hammer kerry on flip-flopping, but probably w/o specifics
- to reiterate that kerry voted for the iraq war with "the same intelligence i saw"
- ironically, say kerry doesn't have the (presidential) experience, so shouldn't be elected
- make bold claims about this domestic record, relying mostly on their fancy names (Clean Air, NCLB) and stated goals, rather than the reality of those programs

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 07:47 PM

- ironically, say kerry doesn't have the (presidential) experience, so shouldn't be elected

a bit of a crafty one, that :rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:19 PM

20 minutes in and Bush is getting his ass handed to him.

He's totally run out of **** to say, repeating the same junk we heard from last week's debate and this week's campaign speeches.

And he looks hunched over, unnatural and uneasy.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:22 PM

bush just classified the war on terror w/ an effort as stopping WMD. wtf? 9/11 wasn't a WMD attack. odd.

also -- his decision to not join the ICC was okay because it was unpopular? hm.

kerry is definitely impressing me to this point (22 minutes)

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:28 PM

Kerry: "It's the military's job to win the war. It's the President's job to win the peace."

Slam dunk.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:29 PM

"internets"

oh, am i on the wrong one?

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:30 PM

"internets"

oh, am i on the wrong one?

Kerry said troops were being shot at with ammos.

Blue Velvet

Oct 8, 2004, 08:30 PM

Whoops -- too much JD too early!

Fell asleep on the sofa to be woken by the shrill, nasal tones of someone trying far too hard...

And it's on TV too! So I turn it on and see a completely unconvincing Bush...

It's not necessarily the words, it's the way he uses them.

He sounds petulant, whiny, a little sweaty and very uneasy...

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:34 PM

Whoa! Bush just totally lost it!

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:34 PM

i can't believe the way bush just cut off charles gibson. petulant.

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:36 PM

i can't believe the way bush just cut off charles gibson. petulant.

And the only thing he wanted to say was the repeat (almost word for word) of the statement "what do you tell Tony Blair...?"

No class, no composure. I think he's trying to lose.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:38 PM

I think he's trying to lose.
could be. at this point, i think he just wants to go back to texas and hide.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:42 PM

kerry's doing well w/ the canadian drug importation issue.

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 08:43 PM

And the only thing he wanted to say was the repeat (almost word for word) of the statement "what do you tell Tony Blair...?"
As our allies are dropping out, and trying to distance themselves from us. Like Poland, which Bush mentioned as still being an ally (whoops). Glad Kerry pointed it out.

Bush is definitely losing it.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 08:44 PM

i think the ABC guy will be voting for Kerry, if purely on how rude Bush was to the poor guy

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:45 PM

Bush tried to attack Kerry's Senate record, implying he'd done nothing in 20 years. The reply:

"We did something else, something you don't know how to do. We balanced the budget"

Game. Set. Match.

Bush looks like he really needs a swig of bourbon.

Macs R Us

Oct 8, 2004, 08:45 PM

Well whats there NeXTStep:) :) :rolleyes: :cool: ... Well Bush is Great at debates... Its always fun to watch...

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 08:46 PM

i think the ABC guy will be voting for Kerry, if purely on how rude Bush was to the poor guy
I think he was so shocked, he didn't know how to stop him and tell him he was going to give him the floor anyway.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:47 PM

"kennedy"

did i hear that right? did bush call kerry "senator kennedy"? was that intentional?

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 08:47 PM

Well Bush is Great at debates... Its always fun to watch...
Not this one. It is fun to watch though.

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:48 PM

Now he's resorted to using the "l" word. And Kerry's throwing it back in his face.

This is the end of Bush. Live on TV.

Macs R Us

Oct 8, 2004, 08:48 PM

I think he was so shocked, he didn't know how to stop him and tell him he was going to give him the floor anyway.

He was not that rude, just "matter of fact"

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 08:50 PM

He was not that rude, just "matter of fact"
I've just seen rude. The guy is there to moderate, and Bush cut him off as he was about to give him the floor. You don't do that in a civil debate.

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 08:50 PM

He was not that rude, just "matter of fact"

"matter of fact"? He cut off the moderator and burst into a rant over the moderator's attempt at doing his job.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 08:57 PM

I still think Bush did the right thing...
cut off the moderator? the one who decides who gets how much time and asks followup questions? i don't think so. if it pleases your 16 year old "being a man" sensibility, whatever.

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 09:00 PM

I still think Bush did the right thing...
HE CUT OFF THE MODERATOR! That was exactly the wrong thing to do. Rule # 1 in a debate like this, do not mess with the moderator! Let him do his job. Bush is screwing up. A lot.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:01 PM

Clear Skies is a very slight concellation with regards with regards to the excellent pollution cuts that Bush got rid of. The hydrogen automobile still needs fossil fuel - it is not a renewable transport

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:04 PM

and Kerry is now remembering previous questioner's names. Gotta help :)

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 09:13 PM

Kerry just used the word "flip-flop."

Good on him.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:13 PM

that wood thing was a bit surreal.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 09:14 PM

that wood thing was a bit surreal.
he was waiting for the laugh. a very big no-no in acting land.

Mike Teezie

Oct 8, 2004, 09:16 PM

Oh.

My.

God.

"We need certain parts of the Patriot Act. We need to be strong on terror. What we don NOT need to do, is allow the terrorists to make us chnage OUR Constitution" - Kerry.

That was the home run for me, guys.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 09:20 PM

i can't believe bush just made a joke about members of the supreme court voting for him. that's the most base, crass thing i've heard him say.

i think he just lost a lot of votes for that one.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:26 PM

i'd like to see Edwards / Cheney again.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:29 PM

did that woman ask Bush to name specific mistakes, as i have not heard him state them yet

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 09:31 PM

did that woman ask Bush to name specific mistakes, as i have not heard him state them yet
i wish kerry's followup would have been "you didn't answer her question" and sat down.

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 09:33 PM

did that woman ask Bush to name specific mistakes, as i have not heard him state them yet
You cannot name specific mistakes if you cannot admit you've made mistakes. Did he just say it was someone else's fault, but he doesn't want to name them to embarrass them on TV!?!

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:34 PM

hehe. and as the debate goes on, all the same soundbites from each candidate are being repeated from the previous round

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 09:34 PM

And Kerry just stuffed that "$87 B voted before it... against it" thing in a casket and buried it.

Somehow I'm sure Bush will be prying the nails off the lid.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 09:35 PM

my favorite part was when bush said that, had kerry been in office, saddam would still be in power and we'd all be better off. stunning.

Mike Teezie

Oct 8, 2004, 09:45 PM

What do you guys think -

I think it was another victory for Kerry. Hopefully Bush's tantrum will have a Howard Dean effect.

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 09:48 PM

So far CNN isn't even mentioning it. I think it's the story of the night.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 09:48 PM

you guys know me, i like facts and direct answers. in that light, kerry destroyed.

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 09:53 PM

BBC seem to be saying it was a tie

Macs R Us

Oct 8, 2004, 09:54 PM

Well I would admit, that Bush did make a mistake buy cuting him off, but as I said we can <b>ALL</b> make mistakes...

Mike Teezie

Oct 8, 2004, 09:54 PM

So far CNN isn't even mentioning it. I think it's the story of the night.

That's kind of what I am wondering - are we the only people that saw him rudely interrupt the MODERATOR like a crazed man?

Macs R Us

Oct 8, 2004, 09:56 PM

BBC seem to be saying it was a tie

Well I would aggre with that, Bush had some truble but Kerry did not win on all the points...

wowser

Oct 8, 2004, 10:00 PM

the BBC picked up on the fact that neither candidate offereed a way to balance the budget / tax cuts as the mod had asked. THe presenter also remarked on Bush's over'aggresiveness, but did say he showed some charm that he lacked in the previous round. They also said that Kerry's answers are now much more streamlined and he is beating Bush at his own game. I loved the way Kerry refferred to the last time Bush talked of health care / Canadian drugs, kinda exposing a BUSH Flip-flop!

Macs R Us

Oct 8, 2004, 10:09 PM

Well to me it seemed odd that the Media did not highlight the fact that Bush, for the first debate was up late heling in Floida with the hrricane damage, but he did better at this one... It seemed funny when Kerry looked into the camera to say that (he lied) was not... But it did seem like a tie...

stillwater

Oct 8, 2004, 10:11 PM

Bush's line about wanting the supreme court to vote for him was one of the creepiest moments I've ever seen on TV.

QCassidy352

Oct 8, 2004, 10:16 PM

I'm sad to say that it seemed like a tie to me. Both were aggressive (almost overly so) and made their points clearly and forcefully. Too bad; I wanted Kerry to finish Bush off. :)

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 10:16 PM

Pat Buchannan (sp?) says that when Bush interupted it showed how strong he was!?! Someone slipped in or rude, but we barely heard it.

I don't think Kerry that did great. He had a lot of opportunities to truely obliterate Bush. He did score some points and make some good arguments. Bush was on the defensive, and Kerry would start to pounce, but seemed to back-off and not really go in for the kill. He just wanted to get his points in, and reiterated most of what we already know. He could have really defended himself a lot more too, but it was almost like he was too afraid to bore people with facts and just do some name dropping. We're still not sure exactly what his plans are.

HOWEVER, Bush did a terrible job. You saw it. Kerry didn't need to defeat Bush, Bush defeated himself.

Edit: The people on MSNBC seems to think it was a draw, like the VP debates. However the polls indicate otherwise. Kerry 76%, Bush 24%. The VP debate #'s saying Edwards won surprised me. Saying Kerry won this debate does not. Kerry didn't do that great. But Bush just did so badly.

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 10:17 PM

Bush's line about wanting the supreme court to vote for him was one of the creepiest moments I've ever seen on TV.

Orwellian anyone?

pseudobrit

Oct 8, 2004, 10:20 PM

Well to me it seemed odd that the Media did not highlight the fact that Bush, for the first debate was up late heling in Floida with the hrricane damage

I did hear it highlighted after it became clear that the consensus was that Bush lost the debate. It was an excuse trotted out after the fact.

It seemed funny when Kerry looked into the camera to say that (he lied) was not...

Where was the lie?

QCassidy352

Oct 8, 2004, 10:21 PM

Edit: The people on MSNBC seems to think it was a draw, like the VP debates. However the polls indicate otherwise. Kerry 76%, Bush 24%. The VP debate #'s saying Edwards won surprised me. Saying Kerry won this debate does not. Kerry didn't do that great. But Bush just did so badly.

do you mean online polls? Those don't really mean anything, though. We will know what people really thought in a day or two when the real polls are done. I too was surprised that no one is jumping on Bush for his tantrum. That was outrageous, rude, and made him look out of control... why is it not an issue? :confused:

Sayhey

Oct 8, 2004, 10:47 PM

I won't be surprised if the media counts this as close, but to me this was Kerry's debate hands down. Bush came across as angry and not in control. He wouldn't respect the moderator, he wouldn't sit in his chair will Kerry was speaking, and he wouldn't answer many of the questions - particularly the last one on what mistakes he made. Kerry was presidential - Bush was petulant. On style Kerry was clearly the winner.

On content Kerry answered most of the questions in a straight forward manner. Bush had a better command of his facts this time around, but seemed to be skirting too many questions.

Still the media already made up their minds that Bush would do better than last time (this was his preferred format??) and they are loath to go against conventional wisdom. I would say most of the talking heads will say a tie.

Lastly, I loved the Bush slip ups. Just what is the internets? Oh, and since when was he debating Senator Kennedy? Hysterical!

Royal Pineapple

Oct 8, 2004, 11:08 PM

Oh, and since when was he debating Senator Kennedy? Hysterical!
i thought i had imagined that

JFK II

solvs

Oct 8, 2004, 11:28 PM

do you mean online polls? Those don't really mean anything, though.
Yeah I know. Just not surprised by the outcome. Was 73 to 27, now 70 to 30. Bush is catching up! ;)

Thomas Veil

Oct 8, 2004, 11:36 PM

Unfortunately, because I was working I could only hear 15-minute snatches of it on the radio. (Apparently I missed Bush's little rant.)

My initial impression was the same one I had of the VP debate: close to being a draw, though I think Kerry edged him. Bush still relies too much on those hackneyed cliches of his. "What are you gonna tell the president of Poland?" "My opponent put a lawyer on the ticket." (I dunno, is that last one supposed to sound scandalous or something?)

And Bush is, of course, debating from a position of weakness, since almost everything has gone FUBAR for him lately.

In the "What he shoulda said was" category: Bush kept mentioning that we had one of the shortest recessions ever. Kerry should have asked, "Then where are the jobs? Why haven't four years of tax cuts taken effect yet, if they're so good? And how long are you going to keep blaming 9/11 for the economy?"

Oh...what the hell was that business about Bush owning a timber company? I got the impression that was the one place where Kerry sounded kind of dumb.

Anyway, preliminarily I put this one in the Kerry column, if only narrowly. I may change my mind (flip flop?) after I see the whole videotape.

zimv20

Oct 8, 2004, 11:57 PM

since when was he debating Senator Kennedy? Hysterical!
for those who missed it, peter jennings did the exact same thing in the post-debate analysis.

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 12:01 AM

Oh...what the hell was that business about Bush owning a timber company? I got the impression that was the one place where Kerry sounded kind of dumb.

link (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/observer/news/9746478.htm)

Is Kerry a threat to small business?

WHAT WAS SAID | A Bush-Cheney ad claims Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses and "hurt jobs."

THE FACTS | That number counts every high-salaried person who has even $1 of outside business income as a small business owner -- a definition so broad that even Bush qualifies, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of those "small businesses" have no jobs to offer.

Kerry proposes no specific tax increase on small businesses at all, and in fact is proposing some targeted tax cuts for small businesses. What the Bush ad refers to is Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 per year.

Republicans argue that taxing the affluent is, in effect, taxing many small business owners who pay taxes on their business income reported on their personal returns. And that's true enough. -- FACTCHECK.ORG.

edit: here's (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=265) the factcheck link. more detail.

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 12:13 AM

there was this one thing that kerry did several times that i really liked -- looks like they finally got a good strategist.

kerry kept pointing out how bush was delivering his message. in particular, by using labels and making everything too simple. what i thought worked really well was, after kerry said it, bush would, on his turn, do exactly what kerry had just accused him of doing.

dunno how many others caught that, or even think it was effective, but i'm glad it came out and i like the way it was done.

solvs

Oct 9, 2004, 12:37 AM

in particular, by using labels and making everything too simple.
Yeah, the liberals thing. I'm not a liberal, but that offends me when said in a negative way. Like France or French (which I'm also not).Very divisive for the country and a dirty tactic for putting people down. Also, the simplifying everything. I'm surprised people are falling for this as much as they are in such a complex world. I'm glad Kerry nailed him on some of that.

Macs R Us

Oct 9, 2004, 12:49 AM

Well Kerry is a threat to my small business:)... But I do really think the higher taxes will hurt small business... But I only go by what smart people tell me... :rolleyes: :cool:

Thomas Veil

Oct 9, 2004, 12:51 AM

He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.And Bush really said, in response to Kerry, that if he owned a timber company, it was news to him??

Are you kidding me? Is Bush that feeble-minded?

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 01:13 AM

And Bush really said, in response to Kerry, that if he owned a timber company, it was news to him??

yeah, he said he didn't know about it. that should be playing as a rich elitist thing -- he can't even keep track of how many companies he (at least partially) owns and gets money from.

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 01:15 AM

Well Kerry is a threat to my small business:)...
you wanna discuss politics? fine. explain how this threatens your business. be specific. cite real policy changes. stay away from generalities. do your research. supply your sources.

let's see what ya got.

i suspect a giant load of BS. prove me wrong.

IJ Reilly

Oct 9, 2004, 01:22 AM

I caught only the first hour of the debate, but I think I picked up the flavor well enough. If Bush is trying to nail down the Angry White Guy vote, I think he did it tonight.

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 01:25 AM

If Bush is trying to nail down the Angry White Guy vote, I think he did it tonight.
sorry, i'm friends with the Angry White Guy (http://www.wneptheater.org/_html/angrywhiteguy.html) and he's working on the kerry campaign.

IJ Reilly

Oct 9, 2004, 01:30 AM

My, that was quick. So how can we find out more about the Angry White Guy?

Macs R Us

Oct 9, 2004, 01:32 AM

you wanna discuss politics? fine. explain how this threatens your business. be specific. cite real policy changes. stay away from generalities. do your research. supply your sources.

let's see what ya got.

i suspect a giant load of BS. prove me wrong.

Well BS only to you since you don't sopprt Bush but oh well... I shall now ramble... Well besides the fact Kerry can not make up his mide (he has showed us in the 2 debates), he only tries to look good and say the right hting at the right time... I don't hold Kerry resonsabley only he has people feeding him info (after then)... And I know ANY rasing of taxes will hurt the econmys currently... I do think it should go up but slowly.. And Kerrry wants to raise the Minum wage, thats all good and fine, but Bush is right you can not just raise it all at once, greadualy... To make it easyer for store owners such as my sefl... And yes Kerry whats to have people in Iraq but only sucruing them, they need our finacal help, and have for a fair time now, mainly were there to help get peace (YER PEACE, there is a price) and after the situatian claims then slowly get troops out... Since kerry is cerinly not very adept, I know Bush is the right guy for the Job... You may a agrree or disagree... And well Kerry will alow gay marrage (JUST NOT RIGHT) it should be bettwen a Man and Woman... I shall provied more "fact" as needed since I am not "rude" like some members qustioning me knolage...

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 01:33 AM

how can we find out more about the Angry White Guy?
http://www.wneptheater.org/roster/donhall.html

he's threatening to run for a House seat in '08.

IJ Reilly

Oct 9, 2004, 01:38 AM

:D :D :D

blackfox

Oct 9, 2004, 04:44 AM

takao

Oct 9, 2004, 05:16 AM

just watch a few minutes ..there were a WW2 movie with clint eastwood on another channel ..but when i changed channels back to the debate i accidently hit the wrong button and was surprised by seeing a boxing fight ;)...kinda puzzled me for a few seconds....

but from what i saw it looked similiar like the first one ...draw with light tendency to kerry..no overwhelming victory but it was clear who was (slightly) better...

wowser

Oct 9, 2004, 06:22 AM

If Kerry is going to cut taxes for the middle class, won't small businesses be better off? Surely it would only make sense to vote for Bush (as regards taxes) if you were a CEO on over $200,000 a year

Dont Hurt Me

Oct 9, 2004, 07:11 AM

OK. It is bar time (or past). I have been out for 8+ hours. From what I can remember, I thought Kerry cemented himself as the reasonable candidate.

I cannot say how much Kerry has gained in my book because of these last debates.

Again, I thought it was an excellent showing for Kerry, although Bush performed better than last thurs.

I haven't seen the post-debate analysis for accuracy, but it seems Bush was distorting facts more than Kerry.

Too drunk for further analysis...till tomorrow. In closing, I would say Kerry once again came off as more Presidential than Bush...

I am proud, at long last, to be a Kerry supporter.I agree, i also had a beer buzz going :rolleyes: Bush came across as almost angry early on raising his voice to almost yelling at times. I think its very clear to the American people there is a candidate who is for you if you pull in over $200,000 a year. For the rest of us its Kerry. Pretty sad that this president has never used his veto and has no idea what it is for. Without a President watching over congress we are screwed and have been for 4 years.

Blue Velvet

Oct 9, 2004, 07:21 AM

To me, Bush came across as a person who is used to getting his own way, a person who is not used to being argued with...

Dont Hurt Me

Oct 9, 2004, 07:49 AM

zimv20

Oct 9, 2004, 09:49 AM

Until a certen mebmer said I was, "BS"
that was me. feel free to use my "name", it's not like it's some great secret who says what around here.

i called your statements BS because they are, in fact, BS. have a look around and see how often i do that. it's quite rare, actually, because it's rare that people spout such absolute crap.

you think that i can't take a joke, or handle the truth? wrong. those two things are at the core of who i am and what i do.

the reality is that you can't handle criticism. your reaction is to play up the "who, me?" aspect, reference your smilies, pretend that you've got no stakes in what you post, then pump up your self-worth by referring to your business. okay, great, you have a business. so do i, so do a lot of people.

i don't give a rat's ass who you are or what you do. what i do care about is what you post in this forum. i and others have explained how we do things, but for some reason you feel you're above the law here. you're not. play nicely with others or don't play at all. and that applies to more than just posting here, but i have a feeling that's a lesson you've let to learn.

IJ Reilly

Oct 9, 2004, 11:11 AM

I agree, when asked about making 3 mistakes and what he did he spun it around. He just cant admit to doing wrong it seems. well at least he said no draft so if he gets elected again my son wont be getting shot at for his messed up policy in Iraq.

Both candidates have promised "no draft," but in effect, we've already got one for servicepeople who's enlistments have run out, but aren't being allowed to leave. At least Kerry is acknowledging that the current forces levels are inadequate to meet the demands being placed upon them and new forces are needed. Bush continue to insist that our military isn't over-extended. Quick, who's the liberal and who's the conservative?

Dont Hurt Me

Oct 9, 2004, 11:16 AM

Both candidates have promised "no draft," but in effect, we've already got one for servicepeople who's enlistments have run out, but aren't being allowed to leave. At least Kerry is acknowledging that the current forces levels are inadequate to meet the demands being placed upon them and new forces are needed. Bush continue to insist that our military isn't over-extended. Quick, who's the liberal and who's the conservative?
Well if you look at fiscal habits its clear George is a commie liberal