MERGED: 2nd U.S. Presidential Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It was a pretty energetic debate that played to GW's strengths... Bush looked much better than last time and I believe Kerry was better this time around as well. A draw wouldn't be an unfair assessment. With that said, I think Bush got the more positive bounce from this debate. Bush didn't look like/ act like a moron (i.e. a pretty good grasp of the issues). Bush has always had that idiot boy reputation and it was reinforced by that first debate. This time around Bush came in with a little more command of things and appeared more knowledgeable. Kerry did well in that he kept the attack and was articulate as always. Just as personable. IMO the effectiveness of Bush was that he kept things relatively simple in the debate and somewhat more memorable in his gestures. I have no idea how something like his interrupting Charles Gibson would appear to the majority of people. To some it would be manly like MSNBC said or rude to others. Me, personally: I thought it was pretty funny and set the tone for a more interesting debate.

Kerry on the other hand just seemed the same. He talked about a lot of things but IMO some issues could have been distracted from b/c of the contrast in style the President had. IMO, for Kerry to do well in these debates or to get the max buzz from these debates is to be more aggressive and stay on message. If Bush comes out the same way he did tonight, then IMO Kerry won't get as huge a bump as he could.

Internet polls are funny things.... LOL
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that this was a town hall debate, you should respond more personably, talk person to person, more of a conversation than a Q&A. I noticed once that Kerry didn't hear someone's name and asked for the name again before the question was asked, which impressed me, but both candidates acted like they did when they stood behind podiums in front of Jim Lehrer.

I think one of the key moments in the '92 debate was when a woman asked about the National Deficit and how it affects the candidates personally. She didn't mean National Deficit, she meant declining economy. Bush called her out and asked her what she meant, she was confusing. Clinton understood she was a just an average American that didn't undestand the mumbo jumbo but understood people were losing jobs in her city. He said something along the lines of the job cuts affected him because he usually knew people that were laid off and how that affected his state. Bush looked like an ass, Clinton "felt her pain". There were no moments like that tonight.
 
Kerry seemed regal and presidential, Bush's interruptions of Charlie seemed lilke something the pushy kid on the playground would do. You are right -- bush got a bigger bounce but he had alot more ground to make up after last week than Kerry. If Kerry stayed even tonight, it would be considered a victory.

On that note, I just want to apologize to our Canadian friends. I grew up in Detroit, love watching hockey and am pissed about this NHL lockout. That being said, I don't think Canada is a third-world nation and I believe your drugs are just fine. Wait...I believe your prescription drugs are safe. That's better.
 
sharky said:


On that note, I just want to apologize to our Canadian friends. I grew up in Detroit, love watching hockey and am pissed about this NHL lockout. That being said, I don't think Canada is a third-world nation and I believe your drugs are just fine. Wait...I believe your prescription drugs are safe. That's better.

Maybe if Bush ever visited Canada he would know people aren't falling over dead from OUR drugs. That or he could at least look it up on the internets.
 
Muslims, Jews, Evangelicals, and Catholics are pretty anti-abortion from what I understand. So the question becomes should secularists have the say on the issue of a abortion. I don't think answering that all Americans should be represented on this issue actually supports abortion rights. I believe Kerry's mentioning that an article of faith shouldn't affect legislation is more effective a point.

Bush didn't want to name one mistake b/c it would be political suicide and just hurt his campaign, especially if it is pertaining to Iraq (the sore point for Bush right now). I didn't hold it against him. As for miscues in speaking... this Goerge Bush we're talking about and John Edwards made verbal miscue in his last debate. IMO Bush saying internets was worse than Kennedy.

I don't think Bush flubbed the Supreme Court question b/c his answer is directed at/to his base. His answer falls under a difference of opinion on how people approach what the judiciary can do. However, Kerry crafted a pretty good answer and criticism.
 
the fact that he couldn't name ONE mistake let alone three


Actually,

he did say he made mistakes,
in a few appointments.


O'Neil comes to mind, and some people at the EPA, and many others who have resigned and put honesty and decency first

over loyalty to this bankrupt administration.
 
sharky said:
That being said, I don't think Canada is a third-world nation and I believe your drugs are just fine. Wait...I believe your prescription drugs are safe. That's better.

Well, Canada's other drugs are just fine, too! :D
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Muslims, Jews, Evangelicals, and Catholics are pretty anti-abortion from what I understand.

Most people I work with are Jewish. About half are Israeli-born. Not a single one is pro-life.

I am Catholic, as is my entire family, both maternal and paternal and not a single person in my immediate nor extended family is pro-life. I attended Catholic schools all the way until University and not a single one of my friends there were pro-life.

You would be surprised by how many Catholics follow a much more secular view when it comes to issues of birth control, abortion and a number of other issues. The media likes to bunch them in under the umbrella of the Pope when a good chunk of Catholics probably can't stand the man.
 
anitram said:


Most people I work with are Jewish. About half are Israeli-born. Not a single one is pro-life.

I am Catholic, as is my entire family, both maternal and paternal and not a single person in my immediate nor extended family is pro-life. I attended Catholic schools all the way until University and not a single one of my friends there were pro-life.

You would be surprised by how many Catholics follow a much more secular view when it comes to issues of birth control, abortion and a number of other issues. The media likes to bunch them in under the umbrella of the Pope when a good chunk of Catholics probably can't stand the man.

Yeah, I went to Catholic high school (I wasn't Catholic) and it was only a few years later that I realized that Catholics were supposed to all be so-called Pro-Life. It just wasn't a big issue.
 
Really? My understanding of the relationship between the Pope and Catholics was that Catholics generally respect the Pope. But you're saying Catholics gernally don't like the Pope? Okay...

I understand there are secular religious people. There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus is divine, Jewish people who eat pork, and Muslims who don't wear their scarves/ headress. However, I tend to believe the actual followers of their faith pretty much follow the company line so to speak and that is who I'm referring to. I'd actually lump the more "secular" religious people with the everybody else crowd. But I can see what angle you're coming from.
 
anitram said:
I believe polls re: who won will be in favour of Kerry.

It is very off putting to be screamed at and every TV anchor is calling Bush on it tonight.

Hi there, long time no talk!

Anyhow, I'm not sure what channels you're watching but I'm noticing a real lack of commentary on all the major networks about Bush's yelling and outburst towards Charles Gibson.

How can the media go on about scowls, sighs and glancing at your watch but hardly mention the fact the President was yelling at the audience.

It's so absurd - the media wants this to remain as tight a race as possible to bring in the largest possible number of viewers....
 
DaveC said:
Looks like all the polls are saying Kerry again.

CNN
Who won the second presidential debate?

President Bush 16% 14147 votes
John Kerry 83% 73818 votes
Evenly matched 2% 1363 votes
Total: 89328 votes

MSNBC
Pres. Bush 26%
Sen. Kerry 74%

CBS News
Who won the debate?

President Bush: 11.51%
John Kerry: 88.10%
Neither man. It was a draw: 0.38%

Those were the only 3 I could find at this point.

That's because all the Republicans are all on the "other" mysterious Internet Bush referred to tonight ("Internets")
 
slightly off-topic, but Jewish law permits abortion under certain circumstances such as if the mother's life is in danger or due to the mother's mental health. Also, the soul of the child does not enter the embryo until 40 days after conception and is considered part of the mother until birth, not a separate entity.

I don't want to start a debate with this, just point out that Bush's Christian views do not agree with Jewish views on this and therefore, I believe Kerry is right. He needs to represent all Americans, not just the Christian or Catholics ones.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Mentioning Dred Scott was weak no doubt... but his whole schtick about appointing judges who aren't techincally activist judges is typical Repub talk.... typical Repub talk = kissing ass. We can all admit that.

I will concede that.

Karl Rove schooled him to say "libreral"
and "trial lawyer" to fire up the base.

He was playing to his base.
This election will be more about turnout than the undecideds.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Really? My understanding of the relationship between the Pope and Catholics was that Catholics generally respect the Pope. But you're saying Catholics gernally don't like the Pope? Okay...

Don't forget Anitram lives in Canada and as a whole, we canucks tend to be a lot more liberal than our American friends....(the word "liberal" doesn't have the same negative connotations here as it does in the U.S.)
 
The Dred Scott thing was wrong. he said it was a property case but really it was a case in which the court said a black person was not a human being, thereby making them property. Not the same. As for the pledge case, the fact of the matter remains that the first amendment creates a separation of church and state. maybe bush should reread that.
 
yeah.

the pledge thing just means he will have a litmus test.

the dread scott thing was like the south park guys preped him for the debate.
 
my libral friends,
which of these accomplishments are you against?

5.4% unemployment

Highest home ownership ever

Lowest interest rates in 50 years

Free elections in Afghanistan tomorrow

No more women raped in Saddam's sons' rape rooms

Thousands of Al Qeida killed and caught

Highest minority home ownership ever

Parents able to take their kids out of failing public schools and put them in successful public schools

Seniors have drug benefits for the first time in history

We ALL got tax cuts.

Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia executives all caught and being prosecuted

No more partial birth abortions

db9
 
No Blood For Oil!

I am against:
>No more partial birth abortions
>Limit on government money towards embryonic stem cell research
>Cutting funding to organizations that promote some forms of birth control
>Oppositions to gay marriage
 
Last edited:
OK, I scanned through this thread and can't find my answer, so I have to ask..............

Who said what about the Dred Scott decision? I missed the first of the debate; was this mentioned then?
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Really? My understanding of the relationship between the Pope and Catholics was that Catholics generally respect the Pope. But you're saying Catholics gernally don't like the Pope? Okay...

I understand there are secular religious people. There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus is divine, Jewish people who eat pork, and Muslims who don't wear their scarves/ headress. However, I tend to believe the actual followers of their faith pretty much follow the company line so to speak and that is who I'm referring to. I'd actually lump the more "secular" religious people with the everybody else crowd. But I can see what angle you're coming from.

What I've noticed is that except for very traditional or fundamentalist followers of whatever religion, most people use the precepts of their particular religion as a guide in their lives, not as a compulsary rule without any deviation allowed.
 
diamond said:
my libral friends,
which of these accomplishments are you against?

5.4% unemployment

Highest home ownership ever

Lowest interest rates in 50 years

Free elections in Afghanistan tomorrow

No more women raped in Saddam's sons' rape rooms

Thousands of Al Qeida killed and caught

Highest minority home ownership ever

Parents able to take their kids out of failing public schools and put them in successful public schools

Seniors have drug benefits for the first time in history

We ALL got tax cuts.

Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia executives all caught and being prosecuted

No more partial birth abortions

db9
Lowest interest rates are due to poor economy, we've had the poorest economies in the past 4 years/
 
The only thing that has came from the two debates that really means anything is that the charicature that Bush/Rove painted of Kerry isn't going to stick.

The undecideds will take that in account. Probably the only reason Bush lost his inflated 10 point lead after the first debate.

This debate was really par for the course. You either believe that Bush is doing the right things or you don't. Some people just didn't think Kerry could do the "job", because they had bought into the "charicature".

The more that idea disolves, the better Kerry's chances are, simply because Bush has done enough to himself to implode any non-war time President, and the only thing keeping him afloat is die-hard Republicans and those who are guilty of buying in to the faer mongering.

The war on terror is just as winnable as the war on poverty and drugs. It's a fallacy to think we can win it anytime soon, or easily.

Bush even has support of fiscal conservatives, who would cringe if they really understood his policies. Zero vetoes of ANY spending bills. ANY. He's the antithesis of fiscal conservatism.

This is only a contest because Kerry was painted into a corner and slowly he's getting out of that corner. Will it mean he wins the election? Who knows? But it does mean that Bush needs to offer more than the meat and potatoes, people probably won't buy into it too much longer.

Carter and Reagan was a dead heat until they both got onstage together. I think it's going to be a dead heat until election day.

Tonight's debate was nothing more than a draw, both candidates firing up their base, and the undecideds still scrathing their heads, however many are left of them.

The real issue is that Kerry has stood toe to toe with the President and NOT LOSE either debate, clearly winning the first debate.

Events might make the difference, ultimately.
 
medmo said:
OK, I scanned through this thread and can't find my answer, so I have to ask..............

Who said what about the Dred Scott decision? I missed the first of the debate; was this mentioned then?
\




QUESTIONER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom