posted
Here it is. Final election time. The dynamic of the race has changed radically over the course of the last few weeks. George has some serious catching up to do. Anyone think he can do it? Who's got their sets turned on to the pre-election coverage already?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a non D/R has been invited since the "mistake" of '92.
No one thought an insane, Frank-Purdue looking millionare could do well against established debaters. Perot proved them wrong.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya but who are they to subjectively decide whether the public should hear Nader's opinion? Who knows, maybe it would've turned this election around from whoever it was favoring.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I think we should get rid of the whole party system and have the candidates run on issues alone.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, this is an interesting first question: "Will our children ever live in a world as safe as the one we grew up in?"
Obviously, both are going to twist the question to tout their policy, but something else comes to mind: was the world "they" -- they being their generation-- grew up, was it really safe?
posted
George Bush is doing much, much better out of the gate than John Kerry. His delivery is better, his energy is higher, and his project sincerity is better. He's saying things that actually make sense and don't sound like pre-fab talking points and he's actually playing back the balls that John Kerry is hitting to him. Senatior Kerry is going to have to turn things around if he's not going to lose this debate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is he talking about school? 50 year olds who lost their jobs don't want to go back to school.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pay-go Pay-go". Wasn't that some fruity dance the redheaded guy kept pestering Barney Fife about in "Strictly Ballroom"?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is he talking about school? 50 year olds who lost their jobs don't want to go back to school.
Because he can't answer the actual question. But man, what a bad way to point out that he dodged it. Come on man, say something like, "I think I might have missed something there. That question was about jobs, right? Why was he talking about schools and not about jobs?"
posted
I've definitely lost assistance through Pell Grants and my brother didn't get any even though we needed more assistance. I'm believing Kerry there.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can believe both of them. They're both right. President Bush is just being very deceptive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is starting to get high-pitched and defensive. He started out the debate okay, but he's already going downhill.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bullcrap. The bishops don't have the authority to declare that a sin. If the bishops are actually doing that (and I wouldn't be suprised if the ones doing are the same three who said they'd deny John Kerry communion), than they are exceeding their authority.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure who's winning yet, but Kerry seems to have been using one strategy through all 3 debates, focus on the state. So far it seems like every debate he's been talking about the statistics of that individual state where the debate is taking place. I thought it was a good idea at first but it's not as if only people from that state are listening, this is televised nationally. Also, I don't know how well the moderator is doing, it seem like the questions he's asking are just questions to put the candidate's feet on fire rather than actually try to get some decent answers here. Last thing, Kerry's hand motions are boring me, same thing over and over and over. That's all, sorry for analyzing pointless parts of the debate.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a debate format where when one of them makes a claim, that claim gets checked and we can see the results of that check. I think it would change the debates drastically.
Candidate A: <blah blah blah blah>
Moderator: Can you source that?
A: err...no.
Moderator: Because we checked up on it and your information is completely innaccurate. Were you trying to deceive us or are you just badly informed?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Minimum wage... reading... yeah, that answered the question.
Increasing minimum wage has a negative impact on small business and jobs. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase minimum wage, but if he didn't want to, there are arguments he could have made that didn't have anything to do with reading.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're both just answering whichever question they wish the moderator would have asked. I wish he would start calling them on it.
Also, points for Bush (finally) for answering the question and shutting up instead of rambling for the rest of the time period like he did in debate #1.
posted
The best way to protect people from guns is to wait until someone gets shot and then try to catch them?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this is why I think George Bush could give a crap about actually supporting our troops. "I talked to them and they're all happy about this." Does anyone believe that this is true? Would we even need a stop-loss order if these reservists were itching to go "serve their country" for 2 or 3 tours of duty? These people deserve as much support as we can give them. They deserve to get to go back to their families after serving in dangerous and stress conditions. Does anyone really think that the troops, upon being told "Yeah, we told you that you'd be going home in a week, but instead you're going to be here for another six months...or a year...or, well, you'll get home someitme." responded with cheering support?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Kerry repeatedly saying "This is a problem, and I'm going to fix it by doing X, Y, and Z, followed by a few Qs and Ns.". And Bush responding with, "See, he doesn't have a plan!"
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if there's any point in calling this debate. It was just bad. If I had to label winners or losers, I'd say the America people lost. Voter turnout will be lower because of this debate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say kudos to the govt for C-SPAN. Split screen the entire time, with the current question they were "answering" displayed across the bottom.
Also, they're airing phone calls afterwards with viewers take. Very entertaining.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm... this one is tough to call, I think.
Kerry was being far too nice (not unusual for him.) When Bush came out and claimed his "global test" was a veto for other countries, Kerry should have come back more aggressively - Bush was standing right next to him just a week ago when he emphatically pointed out that was not his global test. Bush needs to be held accountable for his campaign of attack ads, just as much as for his record.
Kerry also still failed to adequately explain his payment plan, and also should have mentioned that Bush is really the big government candidate here, rather than Kerry - that Bush's plan is more costly than his own, and that Bush's wars make up such a significant part of the deficit. In general, Kerry missed a lot of opportunities.
Bush, on the other hand, just didn't sound very credible on anything - just because his economic record undermined most of what he said. He kept dodging to education to escape questions about jobs. The No Child Left Behind laws are actually job laws? In an abstract sense maybe, but the people aren't going to buy that.
Both candidates looked good on the "mushy" questions - abouts religion and their women. I didn't think, though, that the question about women in their personal lives was substantive enough to warrant being the final question in the final debate. Aren't there more important things to discuss - things where the candidates will actually illustrate differences of viewpoint, rather than give out anecdotes?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say, I loved that Bush pulled out a new program. People familiar with how he operates now know that he has little intention of doing anything substantial on immigration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry's answers displayed more thought and a clearer understanding of specific issues. Kerry didn't do anything wrong, yet he came across as inspiring trust and vision. Bush has four years, a huge deficit, an energy lobby, and a divided nation to run on. As with the other two debates, Kerry came across as more competent, and with the thought process befitting a President of the United States.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
There's the soundbite.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
