posted
President Bush screwed up majorly on the mistake question and now Senator Kerry is playing into his hand. All he needed to say is "You see. Even when directly asked about 3 specific mistakes he's made and what he's done to rectify them, my opponent can't admit that he even made any mistakes. I'll tell you right now, if you elect me, I will make mistakes, just as the President has made mistakes. The big difference between us is that, well, I think I'll make many fewer mistakes, but more importantly, I'm not going to hide from my mistakes. I'm going to admit them when I make them and I'm going to work to make them right. That's what adults do. That's what you have a right to expect from the person who is going to lead you. That's what the President has consistently failed to do."
Instead he said some tired old crap about Iraq, just like President Bush wanted him to.
posted
You've expressed an interpretation of what he's said about the UN on this thread. You don't like your interpretation of what he's said. I'm just asking you to recognize the bias.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush did a better job in the closing statement. Senator Kerry's statement has been said so many times, it seems like even he isn't energized by it. George Bush connected with what he was saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but that comfortable blanket statement doesn't preclude you from having to actually recognize where you are biased.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have my opinion based on what Kerry has said repeatedly about the U.N. Yes, he's softened his position, especially in the closing statement tonight, but I don't believe it. There's been too much before of him wanting to get permission through the U.N. What he said tonight was about trying to convince certain voters that he wasn't going to give up our rights to the U.N. But I do NOT buy it.
Go ahead and disagree with me. I don't wish to debate you. Say what you want.
posted
Overall, I'd say Senator Kerry kicked him around in the first 30 minutes or so, but it was pretty much a wash after that. It's hard for me to call it, but I'd say, based off of John Kerry's start off, I'd call it for Senator Kerry at a moderate amount. However, the differential in his performance is really going hurt people's impressions of the debate. It would have been better to start off weak and end strong instead to start strong and end weak, which is what he did.
George Bush start out strong but was rocked back on his heels in the beginning of the debate and you could see his lack of composure in his jumping in, his whining starts, and his ranting. However, his performace was still much better than in the previous debate and he looked reasonably strong, despite these problem. When he regained his compsure, he did a very credible job of defending himself and overall came out as much steadier and personable than his opponent.
Considering that this was John Kerry's debate to win, I think overall for him, this wasn't a strong showing. I think he'll continue to gain ground in the polls, especially among undecideds, but he should have been able to work a very big jump out of this debate and I don't think he's going to get it. If he had continued as he did in the very beginning, I think we could have just about called this election. As it is, maybe 4 or 5% gain in the polls.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. "Man". Yeah, I can see that. I wish he'd addressed him as 'ma'am". That would have been much funnier.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This won't be like the last debate, I think - Bush definitely improved his performance. However, he still looked too angry - especially when he jumped up and argued with the moderator. Some voters will like that, but I think others will be put off. It's hard to say what the net effect is.
Kerry did just as well as last time, although I do think he somewhat missed a huge opportunity on the very last question. He should have came out and said point blank that Bush won't own up to mistakes and is thus not living in reality. Since that was the last question, I think it really would have been remembered.
Besides that, though, I think Kerry gave very good answers. He showed the complexity of his views but not in that meandering wish-washy sort of way he used too - especially on Iraq and the abortion issue.
Edit: And the judge question. That answer was EXACTLY how a judge should be picked, and I think most moderates realize it.
posted
I don't get the animosity toward Katarain. She's expressing opinions and making some jokes. I haven't seen any trolling behaviour. How did all this dogpiling start?
posted
I agree with Tres. (I've been trying to write what I think for a while now, but Tres said it faster and better.)
I am biased though, in the fact that I agree with Kerry on more things, so I can't properly judge who is giving the better performance.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact Check is going to have a great time with this debate, and that just concerns what was said. What wasn't said were his three mistakes. Answer the lady's question. I know he is the president. I know that he takes the responsibility. But it would have been nice for him to acknowledge that it's the other people who pay the consequences.
I got a little miffed when he wanted to go after the moderator. It makes me wonder if he is that savvy at the negotiating table with other nations. Kerry scored huge points on Bush's inactivity with respect to the environment and the treaty.
And when Kerry started spinning out the reasons he voted against parental consent and partial birth abortions, it was the most cogent response to his argument for nuance that I have ever heard, then having Bush to come back with that Yes/No statement made Bush seem dangerously simple. Kerry also nailed the Supreme Court question, and I hope his spinners are using that for an argument about how to bring a divided country together. Bush didn't always come out incompetent. Kerry didn't always appear energetic, but come on, if it's a question of considered judgment, Kerry won by yards.
posted
Irami, yeah, that was a great response on Kerry's part. And one that I happen to agree with. Bush's response was an excellent illustration of one of my objections to Bush. The world is not black and white and treating it as such is dangerous.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Tres, I agree with the judge thing, but he didn't come across like he meant it. It sounded like something that was good to say and not something that he was necessarily going to hold to. In other words, it sounded like a typical politician's promise. Had he done a credible job of conveying sincerity with this answer (especially tieing it together with the respect for the Consitution thing he did on the abortion question), it would have looked much better for him. As it was, it looked like, to me, at least, that he knew what the right thing to say was and we have a slim hope that he'd actually act according to that when the time comes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed, thank you for the support and kind words. I'm just going to consider this over, but I would hate not to recognize what you said. So thanks.
And I think Ben and my questions are valid in trying to understand her opinion. I am certainly still bewildered.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Judge question and President Bush's "Black and White" thing were the best parts of the later half of the debate for Senator Kerry. Since the Judge thing is actually one of the big issues of this campaign, I'm going to move my estimation of the debate more in favor of John Kerry. I still don't think he'll gain much more than 5% in the polls, but I think it will be a more lasting gain.
He ran into problems with the stem-cell research and the abortion questions, especially in the beginnings, because he seemed very uncomfortable discussing them. He said, "I really respect the beliefs behind these things." - and I believed him - but this was really the only times in the debate where he faltered, and pretty conspicuously so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
CNN had already debunked a few of the facts being thrown out in the second debate.
1. 97% of health insurance enrollees would be unaffeted by Kerry's plan, and the vast majority of healthcare would not be federally controlled, as Bush suggested.
2. Kerry's claims that there are 1.6 million fewer jobs after 4 years of the Bush administration is more like half that in some correction of the data. (Which I do not understand).
3. Bush's claims of 900,000 new small businesses is exaggerated according to this same analyst, using information from factcheck.org.
posted
Katarin... Give me one good reason to support Bush... Sorry to seem like I am attacking, but politics will drive me eventually to drinking moonshine. That's how frustrated I am.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, moonshine keeps better in mason jars than it does in the empty coffee cans...save them for when you have kinfolk come over...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. Kerry's claims that there are 1.6 million fewer jobs after 4 years of the Bush administration is more like half that in some correction of the data. (Which I do not understand).
The 1.6 million is only including private jobs - jobs that aren't for the government. Bush massively increased government spending, so he created a bunch of government jobs that offset it to some degree.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of my friends are calling this for President Bush, even the pro-Bush people, some of whom called the last one a weak win for GW. Is this people's consensus or just a consequence of my limited sample size?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did that come across as a little patronizing to anyone else when Kerry said his tax increases would only apply to himself, Bush and the moderator? Like he can look at all those people and decide immediately that there aren't any doctors, lawyers or successful business owners in the room? In fact, if my figures are correct, nearly 1 in 10 people make $100,000 a year, which means that if two of those people are married, they'd be up for a tax hike. But Kerry didn't want to give them that much credit. "Don't worry, it's clear that none of you are as cool as I am, so I'm going to cut you a break. Someday if you learn to windsurf and marry a ketchup heiress, then you can be in my club."
posted
I'm with Speed. It spooked me a little too. I can't imagine that those three in the room would be the only ones affected, but I think that everyone in the room will be positively affected by his plan.
I caught the fact that there were 1.6 million private jobs lost, and that explanation answered my question before.
However, do enlistments in the military also offset this number? Are active recruits also considered government employees?
As far as who won the debate, my wife and I each meekly favored Bush by the end of the debate. I found Kerry to continually answer questions more succintly and with more polish and skill, especially in the first half of the debate. Bush finally found some questions that must have sounded familiar from his practice rounds, because he commanded the second half.
Strangely, I did not really appreciate Kerry's responses even though they were stated so well. I believed that I saw the true John Kerry in the last 30 second rebuttal in which he finally relaxed and stopped sounding so rehearsed in his earlier, more carefully answered repsonses.
And his candid nature, although brief, frightened me.
posted
Syn, I'm afraid you can't get what you seek from me. I don't know how to answer that question, except to say... if Bush stands for what you believe in, then vote for him. If Kerry doesn't stand for what you believe in, vote for Bush. But we are different people, with different values, with different beliefs.
I HATE debate. I hate having my views attacked and some points are scored against me because the other person is a better debater. I think debates are useless for really proving anything, really. And I also think we can look at the same set of "facts" and statistics and come up with completely different conclusions. Democrats and Republicans have been doing it for years, with other groups coming up with a dozen other interpretations.
I am voting for Bush because I support the war in Iraq, as nasty as war is. I am voting for Bush because I agree with the Republicans a lot more than I agree with the Democrats. I am voting for Bush because I don't trust what Kerry says. I am voting for Bush. I am leaving the persuading of other voters to other Bush supporters. At this point in my life, I am more concerned with other matters and I am not sure I would do a good job of convincing.
Besides, I highly doubt there are many true undecided people here--and if they are, they should be doing some research on their own.
I realize that many Kerry supporters can not understand why anyone could possibly support Bush. It bewilders them--maybe even makes them lose sleep. But what you need to understand is that over here, I can't understand why so many people support Kerry. I don't understand the liberal mind. I don't agree with it.
I'm against abortion in most instances. I'm against most gun control. I believe in our freedoms and I see that being taken away under a liberal government, ironically.
So, that's why I'm voting for Bush. But I am not interested in debating it. I tell you this because for some reason you seem to want to know, but I must say, I can't help suspecting you're asking simply to argue with my reasons and debate with me.
posted
The thing that bothers me about that whole thing is that, the effects on small businesses is an important question and an apparent hole in Senator Kerry's plan. The problem is that, by making it sound like a bigger thing than it is by using numbers that I'm pretty darn sure he knows are incorrect, President Bush allows him to dodge that question by focusing on the irrelevant part of it.
From FactCheck:
quote:A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers.
I'm very concerned with John Kerry's proposed economic "plans" because to be honest, they don't sound very credible to me. He seems to be making promises that I don't think he'll be able to keep and the stuff from his website doesn't really meet my scrutiny either.
posted
Of course you aren't wrong. Of course we're going to argue with your reasons. But not for some arbitrary points in a debate format. (or did I not get a scorecard, cause I don't seem to have one) We'll do it because we don't understand or we just disagree and discussion is the only way to resolve either of those.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think you are right for voting for Bush just as someone is right for voting for Kerry. There is no right or wrong.
There is no spoon, for that matter. I don't see how either frontrunner can drastically change the way I live my life over the next 4 years. After all, I LOATHED Bill Clinton, and he didn't even make a dent in my lifestyle. He was too busy living his own.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly.. It's just that I could be missing something... One never knows. Maybe I would have been more supportive of the Iraq war if the administration had been more upfront about their intentions. Or, perhaps the fact that I despise war under any circumstance blinds me... I simply cannot understand why being a liberal is such a bad thing... I can understand being against abortion, but I don't believe in banning int because it will still happen, only not under the most safest conditions. I don't really understand being against common sense simple gun control, not banning them outright, just keeping them out of the hands of criminals. I think family values are important, but I don't see how gay rights are a threat to family values... Really, what I want is middle ground. I don't hear it anywhere. This board is a lot more civil than another board I frequent, but I wonder, do a lot of conservatives see anything negative about Bush? Perhaps I am wrong for not seeing anything positive about him... *ponders*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)
quote: I can understand being against abortion, but I don't believe in banning int because it will still happen, only not under the most safest conditions. I don't really understand being against common sense simple gun control, not banning them outright, just keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
Syn, I think most conservatives turn your arguments around...they don't really understand not making laws against abortion, and they think that criminals will ignore laws against guns and get them on the black market. They will still be manufactured somewhere, after all.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm The problem is my life WOULD probably change under Bush... For the negative... Especially if a few things he is proposing come into effect. It will make things harder for me...
True. But... It's not unreasonable to do background checks on people before they get guns... *cannot think straight today*
quote:I HATE debate. I hate having my views attacked and some points are scored against me because the other person is a better debater. I think debates are useless for really proving anything, really.
Debates are not about points. A good debater brings all parties closer to the truth. A bad debator worries about points, or tries to obscure the truth to "win" some game he's playing. In the end he may get more points, but the debate is point-less because nobody is closer to understanding at the end and those points will unravel as soon as everyone realizes they were generated through tricks rather than truthful argument.
And without debate, I don't believe you can have an informed opinion because it is only through debate that you truly get to understand differing viewpoints. And I don't mean listening to debate - I mean engaging in it. Thus, hating debate endangers one's judgement.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
