posted
I enjoyed this debate. They really are humans...with actual senses of humor as well. I don't think anyone "won" the debate because there was nothing new and nothing done "better" this time.
I think Kerry focused alot on math and numbers. Bush focused more on message I felt.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Minimum wage? We gotta teach the kids to read!"
He isn't wrong. It's just deeper than that. If we make education for the sake of economic interests, we risk some long term stability issues, with the result being an affluent nation devoid of culture and thought. We'll have engineers o'plenty, though. It's a principle difference between Rome and Greece.
quote:If we make education for the sake of economic interests, we risk some long term stability issues, with the result being an affluent nation devoid of culture.
Culture is dead, baby.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but kerry seemed very "tired" around the eyes. I'm not saying it's a negative thing at all, but his right eye facing seemed a little "slower/droopy" when he was blinking/speaking.
I know the campaign has got to be taking it out of them both, but kerry was smiling and bright during the first debate (I missed the second) but I didn't see him look his bright eyed, bushy tailed self....no pun intended.
posted
It IS the weakest state Governership in the US...
Not that that is Bush's fault. It was that way for years, more of a figurhead position than a position with real power....at least compared to other states.
However, it CAN be a springboard to other positions....:
I thought Bush looked a lot metter this debate...he still sounded like he couldn't hear what the questions were, so he just answered whatever he wanted.
I though Kerry did a good job calling him out on the No Child Left Behind thing, too...he was perfevt onthat, IMO...
But Bush didn't look as bad as he did in the first Debate...
posted
One thing that I found particularly frustrating is that one candidate would make a statement and the other would flat-out claim he was lying or at least misled. This happened more than once, and generally there was very little discussion of why a fact was inaccurate. If Bush and Kerry had to provide a link to an authoritative source as is commonly done here, that would be great.
I did think this debate had a little more substance to it. Certainly there was less repetition than in the first one. However, the candidates often went in a completely different direction from the question asked. For example, in the flu vaccine question, Bush's answer was pretty much straight facts: We don't have half our supply of vaccine because the supply was contaminated. So if you're healthy, don't get a flu shot. This was a good answer, though he just had to throw something in there about legal reform. Then Kerry starts talking about having health care for every American. Yeah, that'll solve the flu vaccine shortage! The problem is that we do not have enough vaccine for everyone, not that poor people can't afford it.
Likewise, Bush tended to deflect questions about the economy by talking about education. His solution to outsourced jobs is educational training. "We'll send you to community college." He does realize that white collar jobs are being sent overseas, too, right? By all means, send an unemployed engineer with a bachelor's degree to a community college.
I thought the question about the candidate's faith was interesting. Kerry in particular seemed to take a much stronger stance on his own faith than he has in the past. In fact, he made quite a few statements that risk alienating his base. He talked about hunting, not exactly the favored liberal pasttime. And the "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" stance is also potentially a problem for him. Though I can see all of this as his attempt to reach out to the center and right, and it may be his supporters are determined enough that they won't abandon him.
At least Bush didn't mention the flip-flopping, and Kerry brought up Vietnam only once. I also found it amusing that Bush kept calling Kerry an extreme leftist when Kerry seemed fairly moderate with his advocacy of responsible goverment spending, refusal to prevent the outsourcing of jobs by coercion, and promise not to interfere with the second amendment. Yeah, he supports legal abortion, and raising the minimum wage, and all that. He's on the left, but doesn't seem to be on the fringe, not at this point.
One thing that you can't tell with the camera angles they have is that Bush figets with his foot a lot. It was kind of distracting.
Bush did a better job than last time of stating the things he had done well and had some decent wisecracks that made the audience laugh. Oh, and he stopped rambling so much. It sounded like he was much better prepared this time around and the answers didn't seem to pre-packaged.
I can't say this debate really inspired me to vote for either man, but it was very cool getting to see them in person, even if I didn't have a chance to actually meet either one.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, but keep in mind that most Senate and committee meetings are both largely procedural and largely opportunities to grandstand (again, take a look at C-Span sometime). Attendance says little to nothing about work done.
Work day appointment schedules do say something about work done, though, and they say quite clearly that George W Bush considered being Governor of Texas to be such a low priority that he could do the entire job in a 6 hour work day.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a bit disturbed by some of the things I heard Kerry say. His tough talk about the border is misguided. The US border patrol already has unconstitutional powers and the right to use them arbitrarily. Also, he mentioned wanting to redeploy the national guard and reserves to help homeland defense. What could that mean -- more troops in cities and airports? Let's not become like Israel.
The word 'homeland' has begun to make me cringe.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coccinelle, not true. Bush was in office from 1994 on. He was not running for President for 2/3 of his time as Governor.
quote:He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.
And attendance in the Senate is bunk. The only thing it matters for is close votes. You know Bush knows that, but he sticks to his talking points because he has embraced a truth-neutral approach to politics that just cost him the Presidency.
The polls are calling this a decisive Kerry victory. For the first time (I think), I get to use one of the new smileys.
posted
That's funny. I was on the verge of handing this to Bush. I got really frustrated with Kerry's redirection of the questions.
Just for perspective, I think Kerry is the only hope our country has for regaining ANY of what we've lost.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honore, thanks for correcting that for me. I just remember very heated debates from my parents during what must have been his re-election year about whether he would make a good governor since he was a potential for presidency. I also recall a very triumphant dad telling my mom "I told you so" when Bush spent the latter part of that term campaigning.
(There's a reason I don't talk about politics... it has a lot to do with my parent's heated screaming matches whenever it's election time, however it does make every election memorable.)
posted
Did they change the rules to allow the audience to laugh?
Why does Kerry keep on using the same false jobs number that he's been called on before? Its really pissing me off because Bush is perfectly aware of it but can't say anything because while it is only half its still a negative number. As far as I'm concerned if you can't get people to believe the truth without using lies, then it probably isn't the truth.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you won't be voting for Bush or Kerry? Bush was still using the same "vote" numbers "for" tax raises.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those numbers include every procedural vote as a vote "for" tax increases. They've been handily dealt with at, among other places, factcheck.
Kerry's job numbers are actually sort of amusing (in a positive way): "Well Mr. President, if you weren't such a huge advocate of big government your job losses would be x. But I can't use those numbers because you've bloated our government bureaucracy by y."
They still represent Bush's record in creating jobs of a very relevant sort, private sector jobs, ones he can't create nearly by fiat.
The votes, on the other hand, don't represent Kerry's record in any particularly useful way at all. What general position does it reflect to know that Kerry voted to approve a rule that would allow a bill which had as one of many provisions a small tax raise to come to debate?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So technically Bush is still right on both counts. Especially since the net loss is still only half and Kerry was still voting for higher taxes even if his vote is essentially counted more than once per bill.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Essentially counted more than once? Voting to bring a bill to debate is not voting for it, its voting to bring it to debate. Voting to bring a bill to vote is not voting for it, its voting to bring it to vote. These votes are called procedural for a reason, because they don't necessarily reflect any support or opposition to a bill. Sometimes one will want a bill brought to vote because one feels at this particular time it can be defeated, for instance.
Counting those votes as votes for bills is factually inaccurate.
posted
quote from the debate: "He voted to increase taxes 98 times."
factcheck.org: 'Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.'
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: factcheck.org: 'Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.'
Amazing how Factcheck disproves points while not actually disproving them.
Bush did talk about how "busting the budget" results in higher taxes so whether or not you believe Bush is fiscally responsible does not diminsh the credibility of his attacks on Kerry.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its amazing when votes for things that won't and can't increase taxes are counted as votes for tax increases.
If votes by Kerry on things that can't increase taxes get counted as votes for tax increases, then perhaps we can not count jobs that aren't part of the private economy. Seems a pretty similar semantic gap to me. I think both of them have factual problems, where you're clinging to a delusion that Bush doesn't have factual problems.
What's more, the position you defend Bush from (regarding the jobs) is one in which admitting the real position makes him look even worse! He's been growing the government to an extreme degree, completely counter to any concept of fiscal responsibility!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the only person I have seen in this campaign actually back away from a misleading statistic is Kerry, when he said the war had cost about 120 Billion last night. Previously, he had been including money earmarked for the war that would be spent in the coming fiscal year.
posted
The morning after a debate I go to WashingtonPost.com and read their transcript, because they post "referee" symbols throughout with popups to show the real facts behind whatever the candidate was saying.
This one was a mess. Neither man scored very well on the "honest truth" scael, both picked the numbers that backed their case, even if they had to nudge them a little. I was very disappointed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, this was, in my opinion, the worst of the debates. Both of them played way too defensive, and neither of them gave any real answers to the questions that were asked. Too much subject changing and too many pre-fab BS answers. It was a worthless exercise that I think made them both look bad. On the plus side, though, it made the third parties look good by comparison. So I feel better about the vote I'm going to cast. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bush's false numbers on tax votes isn't convincing, consider his repeated claim that 75% of terrorist leaders have been captured:
quote:But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.
Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.
-FactCheck.org
This is at least as false as Kerry claim about jobs which, though misleading, is technically true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: He's been growing the government to an extreme degree, completely counter to any concept of fiscal responsibility!
I know we all got sick of the RNC Waving around 9/11 as a banner, but it's nice that we can essentially pretend it didn't happen, both with the impact on the economy (loss of jobs) and increasing the government.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to see live debates anymore. I want to see them an hour later, with "Pop Up Video" style annotations leaping up to correct inaccuracies and exaggerations. More useful, I think, and it would really show where candidates are flailing and where they're right.
Plus, the "boyip!" sound effect would add a certain flair to the proceedings.
[ October 14, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer to see them re-enacted by Dave Letterman's stagehands dressed in beekeeper's outfits and wader boots. That may be just me, though.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
the path from 9/11 to a need for 800,000 new government employees somehow escapes me (that's the number that have been created). Some new government employees? Perhaps, though I see many of the efforts as creating bureaucratic levels that will ultimately get in the way of preventing terrorism. 800,000? No.
Second, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ever other war we've gotten involved in (edit: in recent-ish history) has improved the economy. This would rather suggest a mismanagement on the part of the executive in a war that doesn't improve the economy.
posted
The jobs number was another debating trick by Kerry--I'm sure he was hoping that Bush would burst out, "You forgot the public sector!" as Kerry got him to do with Poland earlier. The difference between the two gambits is that Kerry's omission of Poland was actually correct, the way he phrased it: Poland was not part of the original coalition. But there's no logical sense in omitting public sector jobs: a wage is a wage. Bush didn't bite, either because he's wised up and knew it would just make him look worse or because he's not sufficiently familiar with numbers that make him look bad.
So both candidates were deceptive. But there is no moral equivalence there, in my opinion. Bush's lies were greater in number and egregiousness, and reflect a pattern of disregard for the truth.
Happily, it's just not working for him anymore. Viewers at the time were put off by, for example, the way he repeatedly insulted Ted Kennedy and then later claimed him as a frequent ally. But his biggest tactical mistake was saying "I never said I wasn't worried about Osama. That's one of my opponent's exaggerations." Since the media loves videos, they will run that video juxtaposed with the video of Bush saying he's not worried about Osama. When he said it, I knew immediately that he could only hope for a draw. He didn't get one.
Sorry for the gloating aspect here. But I've been waiting for the So-Called Liberal Media to finally turn on this pretender for months. It may just be about to happen.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Second, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ever other war we've gotten involved in (edit: in recent-ish history) has improved the economy. This would rather suggest a mismanagement on the part of the executive in a war that doesn't improve the economy.
How many other wars were begun by an attack that was devastating to the economy? I don't know about you all, but as self-employed in a luxury service market, 2001-2002 was wretched economically. The war has improved the economy immensely. Sure that it isn't quite to where it was before the attacks. Your are saying there are 800K new jobs and this still represents a net loss. I don't think you can deny that Sept. 11 was devastating to the economy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, there are 800,000 new public sector jobs -- and a loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs, still an immense net loss (especially considering how we haven't lost jobs over the course of a presidential term in decades).
While many public sector jobs are useful and necessary, many are not. Private business is a better way of organizing the labor market in most cases.
Also, I rather suspect you'll find most of the issues in the luxury service job market were due to coming off the 90s tech boom. Lots of those businesses channeled lots of their money into luxury perks for their employees and such. Also, people were using stock value supported ideas of personal worth to justify major luxury purchases. With those markets mostly gone, the luxury market lost a lot of its highest margin customers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we all know that big governmental beauracracies know how to pay their employies well, making sure our tax dollars are used in the most efficient way and in ways fair to all levels of the department.
posted
These are all reasons that it was a good debate strategy. That doesn't make it true.
Speaking of debate strategy, I thought it was odd that they both got so nice towards the end. I think the mod might have been pushing them in that direction with how he organized the questions, but still...given the nastiness that Bush has been spewing towards Kerry, and Kerry surrogates have been spewing towards Bush, I guess it was somewhat refreshing. According to some lipreaders on other forums, Bush approached Kerry afterwards to propose that they meet later (it's ambiguous whether he said "later tonight" or "after the election"), and Kerry agreed.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere ( I can't recall where nor can I find the link again) that the U.S. needs to generate 1.3 million jobs per year just to keep up with the population It was also stated that there have only been 1.7 million jobs created THIS year. If supposition one is correct, then the highly touted job creation for this year isn't all that great. Some one (maybe one of our Econ types) could you check further into this to determine the validity of this?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disappointed that Kerry didn't say something about the price gouging that's going on with the flu vaccine when asked about the current crisis.
I was also disappointed - again - when I think Kerry missed an opportunity to talk about the divisions in Congress. Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, some Republican congressional leaders admitted to being troubled by the fact that that Bush had not met with any Democratic leaders in Congress. (OK, to be fair, they also said he met with few Republican congressional leaders as well, but Kerry could have left that out. It's not like Bush could say, "hey, I didn't meet with Republicans either.")
The charge could be fairly laid that Bush hasn't done much to foster bipartisanship since we invaded Iraq.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
