Presidential Debate
- Thread starter youtwohearts
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
deep said:
I am on to you.
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate your support.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
indra said:
Oh, now that is a great post!
Thank you!
I'll be here all week.
Try the fish.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
dlihcraw said:
We are sending a signal the terrorists!
That a free peolpe have the right to question and hold their leaders accoutable.
Bush did say once in public a dictatorship would be easier for him.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
As we all know Allawi is worse than Saddam Hussein because he was also a Baathist enforcer and a terrorist backed by the US.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
deep
Blue Crack Addict
A_Wanderer said:
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
I think Kerry got a leg up in the debate by just looking personable. We all knew Kerry can meander when he talks but he has good oratory. Bush of course stumbles over thoughts and words. Nothing new there, but he stays on message. People may hate the repetitiveness but IMO the audience usually needs reinforecement to get a message especially if it pertains to a point.
With that said, there were no true winners unless you define a winner of a debate as comin across as more likeable. I think Kerry came across more likeable than what he's portrayed. Bush on the other hand just seemed the same old guy. Fairly plain spoken and clear. What worked for Bush in 2000 s IMO working for Kerry... low expectations. The question is if KErry can build on that.
I also agree with Headache.... Given the way Kerry was debating and just the fact that Kerry is walking a tightrope on Iraq, Bush could have smashed him. CNN, MSNBC.... they found more factual holes in Kerry's arguments/ facts then Bush. Of course it could change after the transcripts are looked at and analyzed more closely but the fact they are able to pick up stuff that quickly is not really a good sign. Bush could have really pulled away IMO but couldn't do it. It remains to be seen if Bush can pull out a convincing win. The new employment numbers next week should provide for some interesting spin next week.
Hell, IMO Ralph Reed who was interviewed on MSNBC put up a more cogent/ convincing bashing of Kerry and he didn't have notes... LOL
With that said, there were no true winners unless you define a winner of a debate as comin across as more likeable. I think Kerry came across more likeable than what he's portrayed. Bush on the other hand just seemed the same old guy. Fairly plain spoken and clear. What worked for Bush in 2000 s IMO working for Kerry... low expectations. The question is if KErry can build on that.
I also agree with Headache.... Given the way Kerry was debating and just the fact that Kerry is walking a tightrope on Iraq, Bush could have smashed him. CNN, MSNBC.... they found more factual holes in Kerry's arguments/ facts then Bush. Of course it could change after the transcripts are looked at and analyzed more closely but the fact they are able to pick up stuff that quickly is not really a good sign. Bush could have really pulled away IMO but couldn't do it. It remains to be seen if Bush can pull out a convincing win. The new employment numbers next week should provide for some interesting spin next week.
Hell, IMO Ralph Reed who was interviewed on MSNBC put up a more cogent/ convincing bashing of Kerry and he didn't have notes... LOL
deep
Blue Crack Addict
warchild,
i should not derail this thread
peed
back to the debate.
Kerry did a much better job than Bush.
He answered the questions.
I watched CNN they had the questions posted on screen. Sometimes Bush ignored the question completely.
I don't think these debates will have much effect. I expect Bush to win the election.
"It's hard work" He needs some time off.
i should not derail this thread
peed
back to the debate.
Kerry did a much better job than Bush.
He answered the questions.
I watched CNN they had the questions posted on screen. Sometimes Bush ignored the question completely.
I don't think these debates will have much effect. I expect Bush to win the election.
"It's hard work" He needs some time off.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
IMO Bush wasn't offensive enough (i.e. more aggressive - maybe he was intimidated by the potential for bad soundbites or a good Kerry soundbite) and his message was based too much on his stump speech and not enough on other angles...
Last edited:
I thought Bush was pretty agressive, and seemed very conscious of what would make good soundbites. He'd sort of meander around his answer for the first minute thirty of his answers, but he'd really become animated for the last 30 seconds, raising his voice and shaking his fist, getting mad, etc. And it worked to a degree, as those are the clips I'm seeing repeated on the evening news. For all the people who didn't watch the debates, that is the picture they'll have of Bush's performance.
I thought Kerry did really well, especially considering that Bush always outpolls him on defense/security issues. Kerry had a lot of good things to say, and he said them clearly without being too wordy. I thought he made a lot of good points that Bush failed to adequately rebut.
Gallup/CNN is reporting Kerry "won" the debate 53 to 37 percent. I wonder if they're oversampling Republicans for this poll too.
I thought Kerry did really well, especially considering that Bush always outpolls him on defense/security issues. Kerry had a lot of good things to say, and he said them clearly without being too wordy. I thought he made a lot of good points that Bush failed to adequately rebut.
Gallup/CNN is reporting Kerry "won" the debate 53 to 37 percent. I wonder if they're oversampling Republicans for this poll too.
NBC went through some of the errors made by both candidates. Arguably, Kerry over exaggerated the cost of the war in Iraq by $80,000,000. Again, it is arguable that he over exaggerated the cost. Undeniably, Bush lied on the number of trained Iraqi security force members by 50,000. A week before the debate, the leader of Iraq said 50,0000 troops, half the number Bush claimed, were in active service.
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
The debate was like a boxing match. Bush was definetly on the defensive, but managed to counter-punch at times. No knock out blows. Kerry helped himself in his own demeanor and succinct presentation. Kerry gets a close T.K.O. win.
ABEL
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
ramblin rose said:I enjoy watching GW's facial expressions
haha yeah me too!
the blinking eyes, sheepish and annoyed looks.
A_Wanderer said:
let’s hope so.
i thought bush was more vague on his answers and danced around the answers by bringing up the same things about kerry.
Inner El Guapo
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 609
I thought it was a pretty good faux debate. Really it wasn't a debate at all, it was just both candidates telling their sides and answering some foreign policy questions. Debate is seeing the candidates go directly at each other, this was pretty good for all intents and purposes, I thought it would be much less entertaining.
I don't think it really did anything for people who have been paying close attention in terms of moving their votes. John Kerry has never been the person he's been painted as by the Bush campaign and Bush is smarter than his mouth allows him to be at times.
But for undecideds, it may have done a lot for Kerry to be on stage with Bush and basically come of as more collected and thoughtful. Bush is bread and butter, message, message, message, right or wrong he will sink or swim on his "steadfastness" and Kerry is complicated, easily labeled as shifty, but brilliant. I think it could have helped Kerry but I don't think Bush hurt himself at all.
I am not a Democrat but I have watched with great interest the Democratic race all the way back to January and through the primaries. I can tell you what I have learned about John Kerry. The guy is money when he is not being "boxed" in by 30 second ads or right wing pundits. He won the Dem nomination fo rmore reasons than his war plaudits. The guy is somewhat stiff at times, but he really gives the goods when you listen to him. He's the antithesis of Bush.
Kerry is sort of like Clinton, minus the sexual urges and the tremendous charisma, but he may be even smarter than ol' Willie.
I didn't think many people would be swayed by the RNC or even the Swiftboat nonsense, but they were, if you believe the polls, but they all were saying the same thing, that it's Bush's race to lose. Well, I don't know if this thing is back even after tonight, doubt it, but one thing for sure is that those people who only knew Kerry as the charicature spewed by the Rove machine, might look at him differently. Talking about undecideds here, not those predisposed to believing Rush Limbaugh or Hannity.
It's just a little refreshing to hear issues and not talk about Vietnam, Michael Moore, flip-flopping or other meaningless bullshit. it's an important time and an important election. And I 've always thought that if Bush could beat Kerry in a debate he deserves to be re-elected. Don't expect him to beat Kerry in the other two debates but that doesn't mean he still won't win in November. The American public is strange and fickle, you never know what could happen in the next few weeks, but one thing is for certain, you won't see Bush out-doing Kerry on the debate stage, it's just not going to happen. Bush and Rove will probably crank up the mud machine to divert attention off of the debates.
And also, Dick Cheney will probably do pretty well against Edwards, he's not a bowl of charisma either, but he's sharp and Edwards might need to pull out some stops.
I don't think it really did anything for people who have been paying close attention in terms of moving their votes. John Kerry has never been the person he's been painted as by the Bush campaign and Bush is smarter than his mouth allows him to be at times.
But for undecideds, it may have done a lot for Kerry to be on stage with Bush and basically come of as more collected and thoughtful. Bush is bread and butter, message, message, message, right or wrong he will sink or swim on his "steadfastness" and Kerry is complicated, easily labeled as shifty, but brilliant. I think it could have helped Kerry but I don't think Bush hurt himself at all.
I am not a Democrat but I have watched with great interest the Democratic race all the way back to January and through the primaries. I can tell you what I have learned about John Kerry. The guy is money when he is not being "boxed" in by 30 second ads or right wing pundits. He won the Dem nomination fo rmore reasons than his war plaudits. The guy is somewhat stiff at times, but he really gives the goods when you listen to him. He's the antithesis of Bush.
Kerry is sort of like Clinton, minus the sexual urges and the tremendous charisma, but he may be even smarter than ol' Willie.
I didn't think many people would be swayed by the RNC or even the Swiftboat nonsense, but they were, if you believe the polls, but they all were saying the same thing, that it's Bush's race to lose. Well, I don't know if this thing is back even after tonight, doubt it, but one thing for sure is that those people who only knew Kerry as the charicature spewed by the Rove machine, might look at him differently. Talking about undecideds here, not those predisposed to believing Rush Limbaugh or Hannity.
It's just a little refreshing to hear issues and not talk about Vietnam, Michael Moore, flip-flopping or other meaningless bullshit. it's an important time and an important election. And I 've always thought that if Bush could beat Kerry in a debate he deserves to be re-elected. Don't expect him to beat Kerry in the other two debates but that doesn't mean he still won't win in November. The American public is strange and fickle, you never know what could happen in the next few weeks, but one thing is for certain, you won't see Bush out-doing Kerry on the debate stage, it's just not going to happen. Bush and Rove will probably crank up the mud machine to divert attention off of the debates.
And also, Dick Cheney will probably do pretty well against Edwards, he's not a bowl of charisma either, but he's sharp and Edwards might need to pull out some stops.
ABEL
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
this lil slip up caught my attention when i watched the debate. sure enough it's on the transcript that's now on cnn too.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.4/index.html
Based on the first debate I've decided the lines have been clearly drawn on the candidates supporters...
If people want an intellegent, erudite, experienced leader; they'll vote for Kerry.
If they want a brutish, simple-minded, monkey-boy; they'll vote for Bush.
Sadly, alot of Americans like brutish, simple-minded, monkey-boys. At least we have alot of Americans that fit this description. (sigh)
I know Bush prays alot more than Kerry, I know he's a normal guy who many people could invision themselves sharing a beer with, but guess what--The President should never be 'normal' in teh realm of intellegence and saviness, and as far as I know Bush gave up liquor over 20 years ago. Don't people find it a little weird that they continously use that requirement when speaking admiringly of Bush? Hmmmm?
If people want an intellegent, erudite, experienced leader; they'll vote for Kerry.
If they want a brutish, simple-minded, monkey-boy; they'll vote for Bush.
Sadly, alot of Americans like brutish, simple-minded, monkey-boys.
At least we have alot of Americans that fit this description. (sigh)I know Bush prays alot more than Kerry, I know he's a normal guy who many people could invision themselves sharing a beer with, but guess what--The President should never be 'normal' in teh realm of intellegence and saviness, and as far as I know Bush gave up liquor over 20 years ago. Don't people find it a little weird that they continously use that requirement when speaking admiringly of Bush? Hmmmm?
I am pissed off!!!! At both of them. It was clear they were ready to debate one topic!!! When they ran out of ideas they said the same things again and again.
In a debate about Foreign Policy did either of them mention AIDS?
I was in and out sleeping from 4:00PM to 6:00 Am, but when I was awake I did not hear any mention of it.
In a debate about Foreign Policy did either of them mention AIDS?
I was in and out sleeping from 4:00PM to 6:00 Am, but when I was awake I did not hear any mention of it.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
I watched the debates on CSPAN, which had a continuous split screen. I wish the major networks had carried it that way.
Bush made many faces when not talking, he varied between pissed at his ideas being questioned, to nervous (biting his lip), to exhausted at the end leaning on the podium. It was very similar to watching those seven minutes MM used in F9/11 actually. Kerry came across as dignified and thoughtful (little of that seen the last 4 years).
Kerry also outlined a plan for Iraq though vague and to use his words Bush only offered more of the same, it's hard work (not for him it's not), steady, ect. I think this will be a good boost for Kerry, especially since the anticipated winner was to be Bush.
It's hard to smack someone down when you such a limited scrpited message.
Bush made many faces when not talking, he varied between pissed at his ideas being questioned, to nervous (biting his lip), to exhausted at the end leaning on the podium. It was very similar to watching those seven minutes MM used in F9/11 actually. Kerry came across as dignified and thoughtful (little of that seen the last 4 years).
Kerry also outlined a plan for Iraq though vague and to use his words Bush only offered more of the same, it's hard work (not for him it's not), steady, ect. I think this will be a good boost for Kerry, especially since the anticipated winner was to be Bush.
It's hard to smack someone down when you such a limited scrpited message.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Scarletwine said:
I agree, the war on terror was supposed to be Dubya's strongest point but Kerry beat him. And I don't think Bush will be able to beat Kerry on domestic issues so I think things are looking up for the Democrats.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
GW says pshaw!
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Kerry really looked excellent in the debates. I've been trying to be more even-handed in my assessment of the election lately, but I don't know how anyone can argue that Bush looked as good, or better, than Kerry. The Senator stumbled a bit in the beginning, but once he hit his stride, he was unstoppable.
That said, however, I worry about the town hall format of the next debate. I'm not sure that'll be Kerry's most shining moment (although if it is, WOW to his handlers). If they had any hand in it, it was good of Kerry's people to stick the town hall in between the two other debates.
That said, however, I worry about the town hall format of the next debate. I'm not sure that'll be Kerry's most shining moment (although if it is, WOW to his handlers). If they had any hand in it, it was good of Kerry's people to stick the town hall in between the two other debates.
Oregoropa said:
agreed... this will probably tighten the gap a bit, but kerry didn't do enough to even it. bush however could've put kerry out for good with a commanding performance, but he didn't throw that knock out punch, let kerry get back off the ropes. bush is still gonna be leading in hte polls, IMO, but kerry's still got a punching chance. we'll see what adjustments both sides make going into next week's debate.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
What I mean by being aggressive is that Bush's attacks were primarily based on the themes of his stump speech repeated several times... you know the usual flip flopper, you need a resolute leader, Kerry's position change, etc... Bush very rarely attacked what Kerry said... He just left it out there. For instance, Bush should have tried to more aggressively correct some Kerry's assertions like he did the on the issue of Iran but apply that to stuff like how much has been spent on the war on Iraq.
Strategically, Bush should have railed on Kerry's Iraq plan more, Kerry's themes of global test, his downgrading of Australia, and other countries, etc. Sure saying that Kerry said wrong place, wrong time, wrong war type of stuff over and over again makes a point of Kerry being pessimistic but you IMO you need to use that to lead into other perceived negatives of Kerry.
Kerry did good I must admit by using the foreign policy forum to mention other issues on the sly such as healthcare, outsourcing, etc.
Like I said, Bush had it for the taking but instead flubbed it and IMO Kerry is getting the like appeal that Bush got in 2000 (Gore debates). Low expectations, etc. That is funny b/c IMO I thought Kerry would stomp Bush debate-wise and he did in terms of presentation but he looked very vulnerable in terms of issues and Bush failed to capitalize.
Strategically, Bush should have railed on Kerry's Iraq plan more, Kerry's themes of global test, his downgrading of Australia, and other countries, etc. Sure saying that Kerry said wrong place, wrong time, wrong war type of stuff over and over again makes a point of Kerry being pessimistic but you IMO you need to use that to lead into other perceived negatives of Kerry.
Kerry did good I must admit by using the foreign policy forum to mention other issues on the sly such as healthcare, outsourcing, etc.
Like I said, Bush had it for the taking but instead flubbed it and IMO Kerry is getting the like appeal that Bush got in 2000 (Gore debates). Low expectations, etc. That is funny b/c IMO I thought Kerry would stomp Bush debate-wise and he did in terms of presentation but he looked very vulnerable in terms of issues and Bush failed to capitalize.
Last edited:
Kerry spewed a lot of negativity and offered no solutions. He said he wasn't leaving Iraq, and if his only plan is bringing in more countries, that's just not going to happen. Does he think people will listen to him when they don't want to come now? He must be very stuck on himself to believe that. Tell me who's coming, and why, and what's in it for them? It's not going to happen.
The people interviewed afterward on NBC were so obviously hand picked and coached, and all gloating for "John Kerry" - not just Kerry as most would say, even though they claim they are 'undecided' that was nothing but a Tom Brokaw endorsed Kerry commercial. Maybe I've seen so much of this shit over the years I am more cynical than most of you.
I do not feel any questions were really answered or any issues solved. I don't see how anyone could decide a vote based on what we heard last night.
The people interviewed afterward on NBC were so obviously hand picked and coached, and all gloating for "John Kerry" - not just Kerry as most would say, even though they claim they are 'undecided'
that was nothing but a Tom Brokaw endorsed Kerry commercial. Maybe I've seen so much of this shit over the years I am more cynical than most of you.I do not feel any questions were really answered or any issues solved. I don't see how anyone could decide a vote based on what we heard last night.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
Theme of Kerry being irresloute was what Bush tried to put across, but giving old stump speech facts aren't as effective b/c people have heard it all before. What Kerry did well IMO is attack Bush with different angles to his arguments. Angles such as tax cut vs homeland security.
At the end Bush could have gotten Kerry on North Korea, when Kerry basically said we should have bilateral talks with North Korea but then mentions China being in the talks!?!?! Bush could have spun it by saying this is a Kerrism. Kerry wants it both ways bilateral and multinational... not a good sign of being firm and resolute, etc...
I think Lehrer gave Bush that "in" to make a point but Bush was like... you know where I stand and I can't make myself any clear... he didn't even use all of his time, LOL...
At the end Bush could have gotten Kerry on North Korea, when Kerry basically said we should have bilateral talks with North Korea but then mentions China being in the talks!?!?! Bush could have spun it by saying this is a Kerrism. Kerry wants it both ways bilateral and multinational... not a good sign of being firm and resolute, etc...
I think Lehrer gave Bush that "in" to make a point but Bush was like... you know where I stand and I can't make myself any clear... he didn't even use all of his time, LOL...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
