posted
The President spent how much money, I wonder, preparing his answers, and then clearly forgot them. Pathetic performance. Kerry couldn't help looking good in comparison.
Bush fell for a cheap debating trick on the Poland thing. He answered exactly how Kerry wanted him to. I don't know for sure he was actually hurt by that, of course.
Kerry spent a lot of time defending himself on the flipflopper thing. Doubt he changed any minds, though. I came away thinking the way I came in, that he has one consistent position that he spins in different ways at different times.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, there is still one big thing that stands in Bush's corner and that's the simplicity with which he continues to deliver his message. He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
posted
Also, the debate was very good in that it was much more substantive than anything in the past with this election. Real issues were discussed and both candidates made it clear to viewers what they stood for and how they differed. If nothing else, that's good news for America.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush fell for a cheap debating trick on the Poland thing. He answered exactly how Kerry wanted him to. I don't know for sure he was actually hurt by that, of course.
Oh yeah, totally, although I wouldn't call it cheap, just a trick. I missed this part; do people think Senator Kerry intentionally pulled a broken wing or did it just happen? Also, was it effective? - if so, I want to add it as a minor hit to my count.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was mostly surprised to hear actual policy coming out of Kerry's mouth instead of "Bush screwed up." That made the debate much more interesting. I thought the last half was much more substantial than the first bit.
I have to admit Bush can really look like a doofus on TV. Especially when he stares at the camera for five seconds.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
I dunno. It aggravates the hell out of Cor.
afr, did you read the Iraq letter to Kerry supporters that was shared in a Hatrack thread recently? Most of Kerry's talking points in the debate were straight off of that, including the Kennedy/Cuba line that was praised in this thread.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have to admit Bush can really look like a doofus on TV. Especially when he stares at the camera for five seconds.
The word "simian" comes to mind. Which is sad, because I wonder if Mr. Bush even believes in evolution...Still I can't help but like the guy.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody see John McCain on Hardball? He said that he also expected to see immigration issues in tonight's debate. Vindication is mine.
But when Chris Matthews forced him to say that Bush won the debate, he looked a lot like Gwyneth Paltrow when she has to go on Jay Leno and say how excited she is to be in Bounce.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WEll, he "used " it out of context then...and he couldn't even pronounce it....he didn't say a word, actually, he stumbled over transport and shipment....
I loved it, but it scares me.
This is the man with all the codes for the US's nukes...
posted
Then you should be happy that he probably can't pronounce the codes right the first time. Assuming you don't want him to order a strike. He'd probably wind up with a steak, and that would give him some time to think.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... Dubya'll mangle the launch authorization codes? And how would not having nuclear bombs going off be a bad thing?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that puzzled me when Bush said it "we are going to get rid of all weapons of mass destruction." or something to that exact effect, I was wondering if he meant get rid of our 10,000 nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure if George W. Bush understands the irony of us being the judge of who gets and doesn't get to own nuclear weapons.
Nukes to Nations are like Guns to Houses.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did ANYONE catch the comment Bush made about trying to leash his daughters in????????????
I was on my way to "curriculum night" for Nathan's class when Bush made that comment . . .
I listened to the debate on NPR, and frankly, while Kerry was a much more polished speaker, I don't think either of them did a credible job. If you want to compare tonight to the last several months of mudslinging, okay, better . . . but still not real substantial. I managed to sneak a glimpse of their faces when I dropped Nathan off to the sitter, and I think there's something to be said for just listening to content.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's really funny about the Poland thing is that Bush was wrong. Poland wasn't part of the alliance when we invaded, and is pulling out now. I'm going to assume he was just mistaken about what time frame Kerry was talking about, as the other possibility is he wasn't paying enough attention when we invaded to know who are allies were.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't bring up Spain. Sure, they backed out. But they were with us all the way when we went in. And Kerry was the only one to bring up Australia. There were plenty of other countries, and you'd think he'd have them all on the tip of his tongue, in alphabetical order, by now. I was surprised when he choked after one. "We didn't go in alone. We had... Poland. Yeah, Poland. Take that, chump."
posted
The only thing I really want to add is that I find all the "Ha ha, Bush made a slip of the tongue" stuff to be incredibly petty. We already knew he's no Demosthenes. What's that got to do with anything? He seemed unprepared when compared to Kerry, yes. He repeated himself a little too often, yes. Those are legitimate complaints. "He's such a buffoon, he mispronounced 'mixed messages'!" is not.
I wonder how many of those laughing at his slips could survive having all their posts combed through in a search for typos.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support Bush, but I must admit that Kerry "won" the debate, if that really was a "debate".
Bush took too long to think to answer his questions.
He was also on the defensive too much.
He could have blasted Kerry's flip-flopping inside just this debate itself and he let it slip by.
"We need more troops in Iraq"
and
"If we follow my plan we can begin to lower the troops in Iraq in 6 months."
So do we need more troops or do we need less Mr. Kerry? Or do you plan on putting them in just to pull them out and then some (to get lower #'s than 6 months previous) 6 months later?
President Bush was way too "defensive".
I would have been much "meaner" Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Bush hit on the alleged flip-flops plenty. It seemed to be the only real point he could make. And I didn't think Kerry did enough until the end to refute it, although he easily could have, as has been noted here.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Bush's faithful likes it when he says things like, "I know how these people think." And they like staying the course. I get nervous anytime a someone says, "I know how these people think." and I think staying the course for the sake of staying the course is inappropriate. Those pauses in the middle of Bush's answers after his soundbytes were supposed to be for obvious common sense answers. The problem is that very little of it is obvious, and I pay attention. It wonder how many of these issues are a little too obvious to him.
It was a draw. I liked Kerry better, but that's because I like Kerry's approach to the issues better. The debates weren't targeted for me, though. And at this point, I haven't heard enough fence-sitters to know how they would gauge the debate.
quote:Kerry shifted the focus away from Iraq to North Korea at the end of the debate. Kerry did not clearly explain why bilateral talks between American and North Korea is better than the six- country group discussions that Bush supports.
If I were an average person who is not well-informed regarding the North Korean crisis, I would be puzzled by Kerry's position. First Kerry stated that coalitions are important for Iraq. But then why are group talks not good for North Korea?
Actually, my question, as an average person who is not well informed about the North Korea crisis was: "What's so bad about bilateral talks?" Since Kerry stated several times that he wanted both group talks and bilateral talks and all Bush said was, "China won't like it." Um, why exactly won't China like it?
I think that was my problem with a lot of things Bush said tonight, they were just statements of, "that won't work." without ever telling me why. So it turned eventually into Kerry saying, 'I want to do this, because of this.' and Bush saying, 'That's a bad idea, because I say it is, and I'm the president, so I know more than he does.'
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was his problem. He needed to diversify his attack. He attacked the same flip-flop over and over.
He needed to say this:
"Mr. Kerry, just a few minutes ago you claimed that we didn't have enough American Troops in Iraq. Now you are claiming that with your plan, 6 months after taking office you are going to begin to REMOVE American Troops.
How do you plan on accomplishing this? Do we have enough troops and therefore your point that we didn't have enough is false? Or do we need more and your plan to remove troops in 6 months is false?
I dunno. Kerry definately stayed on the attack. Bush stayed on the defensive and timidly took to the offense with the same play over and over.
Mix it up a bit.
Anyways. Advantage Kerry from this debate in my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, my question, as an average person who is not well informed about the North Korea crisis was: "What's so bad about bilateral talks?" Since Kerry stated several times that he wanted both group talks and bilateral talks and all Bush said was, "China won't like it." Um, why exactly won't China like it?
My opinion? China borders N. Korea.
I think it's akin to Canada and the U.S. holding a North American trade summit and saying "Screw You Mexico!"
China has a very deep vested interest in whether N. Korea acquires Nuclear Weapons on a mass scale.
We most DEFINATELY took an interest in Cuba having nukes.
MULTI-LATERAL talks with ALL of those in the affected regions is the best option in my opinion.
China is a pretty big country to say, "We're going to decide which neighbors of yours have nukes or not and we don't care what you think."
Again, this is just my opinion.
Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands.
That sets a DANGEROUS precedent I don't even want to contemplate the road that sets us on.
posted
That's one thing I can't fault Bush on. The NK bilateral/multilateral issue is a little too complex to get into in a 120-second segment. Bush did mention that we need China's leverage at the table or North Korea won't have any reason to listen to us. I think in this format that was about the best he could do.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands."
That's interesting CStrongman. As I confessed earlier, I'm not very informed regarding the North Korea situation. Can you provide some proof of this assertion? Thanks.
Speed, my thoughts exactly. Leveraging China's influence on North Korea seems like the logical thing to do. Kerry did eventually say that bilateral talks does not necessarily preclude China from the equation. But by definition bilateral talks exclude China to a certain extent.
blacwolve, that's what Bush means by conviction of leadership: Never saying you were wrong. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kerry wants to "give in" to N. Korea's demands.
I got the impression he wanted to do the opposite.
I'm not getting why having both bilateral and group talks with N. Korea are mutually exclusive. I mean, isn't it logical that we would want to have personal as well as group diplomatic relations with all countries? Doesn't China have bilateral discussions with N. Korea? If not why don't they?
Pretty much all of my knowledge of any political issues come from the debate, so I'm asking these questions in all seriousness, not just to be argumentative.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we went in, afaik we only had troop commitments from two other countries -- GB and Aus.
CStroman -- nothing flip-flop about it. Kerry's position is that there need to be more troops overall in Iraq, and fewer US troops. He proposes to do this by actually working to pull in foreign troops, unlike Bush's plans, which have worked to cause nations to pull out their troops (spain and poland are the current big departures, I believe).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry didn't say he wanted China out of the talks, he said he didn't think China would pull out of the talks if NK was part of them -- which is what Bush was insisting on. To extend your analogy, can you imagine Canada pulling out of talks on a north american trade treaty because the US got involved?
Also, NK fears China (as anyone who shares a border should just because of fairly recent memory). This does not mean they want to do what China wants.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really hoping OSC tackles the murkier points of the debate, like the North Korea issue. I always find things a little clearer when he writes an essay on them.
posted
Also, Kerry didn't say he would withdraw troops in 6 months. If you are going to quote him, at least do your homework and make sure you get what he said right.
Bush isn't a good CIC, or a good speaker, or a good CEO, or a good student....
Hmmmm....anyone notice a pattern here?
I Like his gaffes because they are real, and are a simple reason not to mock him..
I misspell things all the time here..
But I am not President, and didn't "attend" Yale....not even the drinking scene he frequented back then.
I was too busy actually showing up for my duties in the millitary...no wonder I never ran into him.
IMO, if you can't pronounce the word Nuclear, you probably shouldn't be able to launch them either.
posted
Saying that how one pronounces "nuclear" reflects one's intelligence is kinda silly. Eisenhower tended to say "nuke-you-ler," and he's generally regarded as having been one of our better presidents.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I understand correctly that Kerry wanted China to give up their nukes? Sure the world would be better with no nukes at all, but if this is what I understood I think he's out to lunch. Then again, I think Bush's vision of a truly free and democratic Iraq/Afghanistan is out for a smoke break. Delusional, but slightly less so.
Sure there are a lot of things we ourselves could have mentioned- such as that The United States itself took many years to establish a constitutional government after its war for independence ceased.
I don't think Muslims are inherently less deserving of democracy than us, since Muslims are obviously part of our democracy.
Kerry's tack of "if we did it to Iraq, why not North Korea" may sound good to college students, but it is not what I want to hear from a prospective president.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to applaud all of you who watched the debate.
Whether Democrat or Republican, no matter what your stance on issues -- most important to voting is to have informed voters.
One of the greatest dangers to America is apathy.
I'm glad you watched the debate and listened to the men speak and present themselves, instead of just letting the media "interpret" it for you the following day.
Some say our nation is strongly divided over these two candidates at this time. I don't see that as a bad sign -- I see that as meaning suddenly perhaps the people care, and I'll take that over apathy anyday.
posted
And a to jatraqueros for interesting debate commentary... after the debate I read an AP article to try to get a sense of how the debate went over. Well, the article I read was incredibly bland, seeming like it was trying to avoid giving offense to anyone by actually having an opinion... so coming to Hatrack and reading the threads here was MUCH more enlightening. Thanks y'all!
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Like he's trying to remember the answer he was supposed to use if this came up."
What makes this especially odd, to me, is that both candidates were provided all the questions asked last night well in advance, so that they were able to prepare not only for their own questions but for the questions asked their opponent -- a point, I might add, that was specifically demanded by the Bush camp. And yet there were moments when Bush seemed genuinely lost or surprised by a question or by Kerry's response to a question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of the reason that Bush didn't do well in the debate is that he's just not used to arguing/debating in public. While he gives lots of speeches, that doesn't involve any give-and-take discussion, and he rarely holds any press conferences:
quote:In a nonparliamentary system such as ours, close questioning of the President is supposed to come from the press, usually in the form of press conferences. Yet Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences, fewer than almost any modern President. Over a comparable period, his father held seventy-one and Bill Clinton thirty-eight. The Bush White House claims that they have answered thousands of press questions, but the bulk of those answers come from the handful of questions allowed a couple of times a week after photo opportunities, and from joint press conferences, where the President gets only one-quarter the number of questions and few follow-up questions are permitted.
posted
I've heard several conservatives suggest that Bush would have done better had he stuck to the Reaganesque "there you go again" approach that worked so well for him during the Gore debates: when your opponent says something you don't understand, or you can't challenge, just shake your head sorrowfully and appear disappointed that he'd attempt to deceive or bamboozle the public like that. It relies on people's perceptions that all politicians are in fact bamboozlers (which is especially effective if you've already been calling someone an inveterate braggart or a flip-flopper), and establishes the head-shaker as a defender of the public trust -- without actually having to practice more than one expression. Frankly, I was expecting this approach from Bush, and was really surprised that he DIDN'T do it. On one hand, I'm deeply, deeply glad that he -- against all my low expectations -- actually attempted to engage Kerry on the issues; on the other hand, I'm sorry that it didn't work so well for him, because I suspect it's only going to make the head-shaking trick more tempting for politicians in the future.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He (Bush) did seemed irritated by Kerry mostly throughout, and his face showed it, unfortunately.
I think he had lots and lots of coaching going into this debate with people telling him "don't smirk - don't smirk - don't smirk" (that impish little smile he does while he talks, which I like). But all commentators said he MUST lose the smirk. Trouble was, he was trying so hard to not smirk at Kerry remarks, that he just looked irritated instead.
I agree with Tom that Bush would have been better off using a Reagan-ish approach; because optimism is infectious, and that was how Reagan won people over.
quote: The only thing consistent about my opponent, is that he's inconsistent.
Best description of Kerry that I've heard yet.
It drove me nuts how often he keeps changing his mind. I counted at lest three times, in the same segment, that he contradicted himself. I also made a bet that in his closing statement he would mention (a) being in Vietnam and (b) his "plan".
Bush isn't a great alternative, either. If I could vote, I would be voting for this guy.Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I understand correctly that Kerry wanted China to give up their nukes?
I missed this one. I doubt Kerry would says anything like this, as China is as likely to give up their nukes as we are to give up ours.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Farmgirl
