**OFFICIAL** Kerry/Bush Debate Thread: 2nd Debate to be 'Town-Hall' Style

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
KERRY:

"With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel,"


Uhhhhh, isn't this how we got in trouble with NK?

Bingo. Its Clinton's doing along with Madeline Albright that got NK where it is with Nuclear weapons now. Kerry is a d@mn fool to think the same will work with Iran.

 

[MidasKnight]

I read this on anothe message board from a poster who is a moderate and since I wasn't able to watch the debate last night I wonder how you feel about his message reguarding his impression of the debate:

The Presidential debate. Interesting...really no surprises. Bush defends his stand on the WAR...Kerry has to maintain his support of the idea of the WAR...but has to make sure he assures people he thought the timing and support was wrong. In effect saying the war was wrong even though he supported it. Noone is arguing whether or not Hussein should have been removed from power. However Kerry did liken going into Iraq to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. This after we all know that he did sign for suooprt of the use of troops in Iraq. Would he have signed for use of troops in Mexico after Pearl Harbor before he knew what the global support and plan for peace would be? Bad parallel and I feel one of the weak parts of Kerry's night. That and Kerry still has these so called "Flip flops" in his stance. A lot of mixed messages. Bush has maintained his position throughout the whole war, so it is tough to find any new insight or surprises there. Actually he repeated himself a lot and really did not offer a knockout punch to Kerry. North Korea scares everyone...but China really holds the cards in that game. Iran...well...the whole Middle East is a melting pot now...Our own Nuclear program in the US...to disarm without a global disarmament is a huge sign of weakness in the US. When the world throws in the nuclear towel I would support being right there with everyone. But as long as the threat is there, we need a defense system in the US and we have to maintain our strength in the Global Community.

Does this sum it up pretty well ?

Thanks.

 

[erialf]

Originally posted by: conjur
Personally, I think everyone should avoid the post-debate spin. Form your own thoughts and compare it to the spinmeisters tomorrow morning. That would be quite interesting.

Kerry/Edwards '04!! Bush/Cheney '04 - Four More Years (of TERROR) I agree, Four More Years of T error Spread in the World of Terrorist!!!!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The problem with Bush losing this debate handily is this; this was HIS debate. Foreign policy is his strong suit and if he can't win on foreign policy please tell me how he will do better on the economy in a town hall style format.

GWB does not do well answering questions on the spot and the Town Hall debate format will exhibit this clearly. Plus, the economy is probably his weakest point and I can't see how he can defend himself effectively like he could have with foreign policy.

Of course neither party's base is going to switch sides, it's the undecided voters that we must watch. The undecided voters that I've talked to are almost uninamously moving towards Kerry after watching the debate. All he has to do is seal the deal with the economy and domestic issues and this one is over.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I read this on anothe message board from a poster who is a moderate and since I wasn't able to watch the debate last night I wonder how you feel about his message reguarding his impression of the debate:

The Presidential debate. Interesting...really no surprises. Bush defends his stand on the WAR...Kerry has to maintain his support of the idea of the WAR...but has to make sure he assures people he thought the timing and support was wrong. In effect saying the war was wrong even though he supported it. Noone is arguing whether or not Hussein should have been removed from power. However Kerry did liken going into Iraq to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. This after we all know that he did sign for suooprt of the use of troops in Iraq. Would he have signed for use of troops in Mexico after Pearl Harbor before he knew what the global support and plan for peace would be? Bad parallel and I feel one of the weak parts of Kerry's night. That and Kerry still has these so called "Flip flops" in his stance. A lot of mixed messages. Bush has maintained his position throughout the whole war, so it is tough to find any new insight or surprises there. Actually he repeated himself a lot and really did not offer a knockout punch to Kerry. North Korea scares everyone...but China really holds the cards in that game. Iran...well...the whole Middle East is a melting pot now...Our own Nuclear program in the US...to disarm without a global disarmament is a huge sign of weakness in the US. When the world throws in the nuclear towel I would support being right there with everyone. But as long as the threat is there, we need a defense system in the US and we have to maintain our strength in the Global Community.

Does this sum it up pretty well ?

Thanks.

I think his message is poorly constructed, formatted and does nothing to convey any sort of articulated point.

Quite frankly I am baffled as to why you would choose to waste bandwidth on an opinion from a poster from another forum that does not post here.

Do you intend to use this opinion of another individual to make your decision in voting in November, if not what is your point in posting this ??

Or as an alternate post:

What is your handle on this other forum

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
One of the things that came to my mind after watching GWB last night: Is this how Bush comes off when meeting foreign leaders in private, when the hard questions can get asked? Do they see him as dazed an confused when he is trying to further the country's interests in such discussions? I would think that debating and extemporaneous speaking skills would serve a leader well such situations.

No he doesn't....you must have not watched any of his one on one interviews. He comes off very well one on one.

BTW....Gore won the first debate back then too with Bush.

Meeting with Leaders of the Netherlands
Pretty casual and IMO rude actually with his demeanor.

 

[Zedtom]

I wonder if the people in Great Britain are as gung-ho on the developments in Iraq as the Bush supporters are here. The President last night made it sound like the US, Britain and Poland, (!), can handle this war all by themselves, and we don't need France or Germany to interfere with our nation-building experiment.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.nationalreview.com/...linger200410010114.asp

Even the national review thought that bush got his ass handed to him by kerry.

That's a really interesting article, particularly given the author's great fondness for the man he considers a "Rushmore-level" president. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, I have a hard time imagining how anyone without a heavy Republican bias could consider this a Bush victory, or even a draw.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hope you're right, Sudheer Anne, and I suspect that you are. The Bush base is insufficient to carry the election, so he has to be able to campaign to the center to win, as he did in 2000. While his basic gut level message carries well in prepared remarks, set side by side with Kerry, it's obvious he's no centrist. His record only confirms that observation. Unless he can hurt Kerry badly over some emotional sacred cow issue, like guns, Dubya's in trouble...

 

[lordtyranus]

Hope you're right, Sudheer Anne, and I suspect that you are. The Bush base is insufficient to carry the election, so he has to be able to campaign to the center to win, as he did in 2000. While his basic gut level message carries well in prepared remarks, set side by side with Kerry, it's obvious he's no centrist. His record only confirms that observation. Unless he can hurt Kerry badly over some emotional sacred cow issue, like guns, Dubya's in trouble...


-------------------------
Fed up with the Greedy Opportunistic Party? Show 'em the door in 2004!

Do you think Kerry and his #1 ACLU rating are anywhere closer to the center? You still have the issue that Kerry is a bumbling idiot when it comes to running a campaign.

 

[unlockthesource]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Kerry is already trying to break the debate "rules"

look for Kerry to "break the rules" and ramble on well after his time is over....
rules and red lights, he doesn't follows rules! he makes the rules!

Dude, did you watch the debate??

Kerry never went over his time by more than a few seconds.
Remember when Bush went so far past his 30-seconds that the moderator tried to signal for him to shut-up. If i recall, Bush yelled "[inaudible word] Just let me finish!" while pointing a finger at the moderator. Check the video... its there.

 

[Jhhnn]

From LT-

"Do you think Kerry and his #1 ACLU rating are anywhere closer to the center? You still have the issue that Kerry is a bumbling idiot when it comes to running a campaign."

Apparently, you haven't realized that your own views are extremely right-wing, the proof of that being in your recent thread about the Supreme Court ... It's easy enough to tell if you're an extremist, all of you political opponents lie in one direction on the spectrum...

The ACLU, contrary to the view from your unenviable perspective, isn't leftist, at all, unless you believe that defending the rights of Nazis and everybody else is some kind of marxist conspiracy... And bumbling? there was only one guy doing any bumbling on that stage last night, and it wasn't Kerry.....

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I read this on anothe message board from a poster who is a moderate and since I wasn't able to watch the debate last night I wonder how you feel about his message reguarding his impression of the debate:

The Presidential debate. Interesting...really no surprises. Bush defends his stand on the WAR...Kerry has to maintain his support of the idea of the WAR...but has to make sure he assures people he thought the timing and support was wrong. In effect saying the war was wrong even though he supported it. Noone is arguing whether or not Hussein should have been removed from power. However Kerry did liken going into Iraq to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. This after we all know that he did sign for suooprt of the use of troops in Iraq. Would he have signed for use of troops in Mexico after Pearl Harbor before he knew what the global support and plan for peace would be? Bad parallel and I feel one of the weak parts of Kerry's night. That and Kerry still has these so called "Flip flops" in his stance. A lot of mixed messages. Bush has maintained his position throughout the whole war, so it is tough to find any new insight or surprises there. Actually he repeated himself a lot and really did not offer a knockout punch to Kerry. North Korea scares everyone...but China really holds the cards in that game. Iran...well...the whole Middle East is a melting pot now...Our own Nuclear program in the US...to disarm without a global disarmament is a huge sign of weakness in the US. When the world throws in the nuclear towel I would support being right there with everyone. But as long as the threat is there, we need a defense system in the US and we have to maintain our strength in the Global Community.

Does this sum it up pretty well ?

Thanks.

I think his message is poorly constructed, formatted and does nothing to convey any sort of articulated point.

Quite frankly I am baffled as to why you would choose to waste bandwidth on an opinion from a poster from another forum that does not post here.

Do you intend to use this opinion of another individual to make your decision in voting in November, if not what is your point in posting this ??

Or as an alternate post:

What is your handle on this other forum

As I said I missed the debate. Read this and wondered what those here thought of his take so I could read any feed back. I've already made my choice on who I'm voting for as many here have as well. His message board is about his music so P&N is rarly disscused.

His board is : Chris Caffrey

My handle there is MetalMadMan FYI.

 

[lordtyranus]

Apparently, you haven't realized that your own views are extremely right-wing, the proof of that being in your recent thread about the Supreme Court ... It's easy enough to tell if you're an extremist, all of you political opponents lie in one direction on the spectrum...

Too bad they don't. There are people like cyclowizard and his abortion views that scare me quite a bit. Looks like anyone even moderately to the right is an extremist here.

The ACLU, contrary to the view from your unenviable perspective, isn't leftist, at all, unless you believe that defending the rights of Nazis and everybody else is some kind of marxist conspiracy..

Do they have to be? They rated Senator Kerry the most liberal senator in 2003. The same rating was also given by the National Journal.

Bush at least knows where he stands when he says he plans to appoint strong, conservative judges. Apparently, Kerry hasn't realized that his own views are extremely left-wing, though I don't fault him for denying his liberal label, especially given what has happened in the past.

As for my supreme court thread, don't you find it a wee bit odd how the same libs who were bashing it for the Bush vs Gore decision are now backing it for kicking Nader off the ballot?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

As for my supreme court thread, don't you find it a wee bit odd how the same libs who were bashing it for the Bush vs Gore decision are now backing it for kicking Nader off the ballot?

How is that odd? Obviously no sane human is going to like or agree with every decision that emerges from the Supreme Court. What's odd is that you would, as you did in that thread, paint them as partisan liberals, when that couldn't be much further from the truth.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

My favorite line of the debate - President Bush on consoling war widow Missy Johnson:

"You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can . . . "

 

[lordtyranus]

How is that odd? Obviously no sane human is going to like or agree with every decision that emerges from the Supreme Court. What's odd is that you would, as you did in that thread, paint them as partisan liberals, when that couldn't be much further from the truth.

The libs were painting the court as partisan conservatives in Bush's pocket 4 years ago.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

How is that odd? Obviously no sane human is going to like or agree with every decision that emerges from the Supreme Court. What's odd is that you would, as you did in that thread, paint them as partisan liberals, when that couldn't be much further from the truth.

The libs were painting the court as partisan conservatives in Bush's pocket 4 years ago.

I'd submit the Court's holding in Bush v. Gore was made for partisan reasons, rather than on the merits. I suggest you read the article in the current Vanity Fair on the subject. It's available here: Part 1 Part 2

 

[fjord]

The debate was a disaster for Bush.

This morning I walked in on a conversation by 5 of my co-workers talking about last night. They were joking how Bush said it was "Too hard to be president"

 

[Garuda]

Kerry gave Bush the NYPD treatment, i.e. he sodomized him with a toilet plunger. It was painful to watch.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Garuda
Kerry gave Bush the NYPD treatment, i.e. he sodomized him with a toilet plunger. It was painful to watch.

Bush needed some dreadlocks then we'd be all set.

 

[exdeath]

Kerry in office will send this country into a downward spiral of liberal socialism.

If CA is a sign of what could be coming to the entire US....

If this happens, I for one will invoke the 2nd amendment to protect myself and my country when they knock on my door to take my paycheck to give free everything to illegal locusts.

Boston tea party anybody?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Kerry in office will send this country into a downward spiral of liberal socialism.

If this happens, I for one will invoke the 2nd amendment to protect myself and my country when they knock on my door to take my paycheck to give free everything to illegal locusts.

Boston tea party anybody?

Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Garuda]

Here's a good website, run by a pretty conservative, anti-neocon Republican, Steve Sailor: http://www.isteve.com/

He has some good analysis on the debates. In these debates, it's not so much what you say, but how you say it. Kerry came off as very confident last night, and Bush came off as a frustrated, whiny half-wit:

- This was more of a true debate than most Presidential "debates," which are usually just a couple of guys giving short, stock speeches while they happen to be standing on the same stage.



The Republican Convention worked well for Bush because there was nobody to point out that Iraq wasn't the War on Terror, it was the War in Error. In contrast, the first debate had some real punching going on.



BUSH: ? But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us?I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye...



KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."



Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other. That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits...



BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.



Ouch.



Bush should have loftily changed the subject, but Kerry had gotten under his skin with that accurate accusation, causing him to snarl back in an un-Presidential snit.



Bush was exposed as having one of those grandiose but fragile egos that responds violently to perceptions of being dissed, that kind that cause so many bar fights:



GWB: "Hey you! Are you lookin' at my girlfriend?"



You: "No, not at all."



GWB: "Well ... whazzamata with her that you ain't lookin' at her? Are you sayin' she's ugly? Is that what you're saying? You wanna a piece of me?"



- While it made better than average television for debate viewers, I wouldn't think this debate's feistiness works to Bush's advantage. If you are the incumbent and hold the lead in the polls, you normally don't want to get down on the floor and wrestle with your challenger. You want to maintain the Presidential aura around yourself by only occasionally deigning to notice this non-Presidential lifeform with whom you have graciously condescended to temporarily share a stage.



At a campaign dinner Monday, President Bush identified incumbency as the key issue in the upcoming presidential election. "Look at my opponent's record on incumbency," Bush said. "John Kerry is not the president at this time. That's an indisputable matter of public record." Bush added that the American public should seriously consider whether it wants to risk electing a president who has no experience heading a nation, has never resided in the White House, and does not have even one State Of The Union address under his belt.



Okay, that's from The Onion, but you get the point. There are a lot of people out there who, deep down, superstitiously regard the duties of the President as somewhat akin to those of the Aztec priests who somehow kept the sun rising every morning by ripping beating hearts out of human chests. These voters think to themselves, "Well, look at all the bad things that haven't happened during the incumbent's four years in office, like ... well, like... the Earth hasn't crashed into the Sun. He must be doing something right!" And they are uneasy about the challenger's abilities to handle the Presidency's mysterious but no doubt challenging Orbit Maintenance duties.



- Kerry looks like the President that central casting would send over if you told them you needed a minor star to play a generic President. If this President thing doesn't work out, Kerry could star in "The James Brolin Story!" Seriously, after the debate, it's certainly easy to visually imagine Kerry as President for the next four years, which has to work to his advantage.



- The Kerry people must be celebrating how peeved they made the President look. I would think that Kerry won the debate by making Bush look small and nasty. But what do I know? Karl Rove has lots of polls and focus groups to tell him about how to appeal to the swing voters in the swing states, such as, perhaps, this gentleman.

 

[Perknose]

All George Bush had to do was show up and not be outrageously pathetic and this race might well have been over and he couldn't even do that.

He couldn't even do that.

A telling point: If Kerry had been that bad, a good percentage of his supporters here would have ruefully but honestly conceded that fact. With but a few notable exceptions though, the Bush fanbois here remain stubbornly unwilling to admit their candidate really, really stunk.