September 30, 2004 at 1:32 pm #909
[b:1m7dj1fs]Don’t forget to watch the presidential debate that is happening tonight.[/b:1m7dj1fs] This is the first of a few nights where we all can hear where the candidates stand on various issues straight from their own mouths.
Watching the presidential debates 4 years ago sure helped me make a decision about who I wanted to vote for. You can learn a lot about their character, etc. just by watching them on tv.
I hope you’ll all join me and watch tonight!
It should be on one or more major broadcast television networks.October 1, 2004 at 11:35 pm #3398
:” title=”Question” /> surely someone has something to say about the debate :” title=”Question” /> The media and the networks sure do. What’s on your mind folks?October 2, 2004 at 1:11 am #3399
Expressed themself more clearly Kerry 60-32
Agrees with issues I believe in Bush 49-46
Believable Bush 50-45
Command of Issues 41-41 TIE
Likeable Bush 48-41
Tough enough to be President Bush 54-37
Check MateOctober 2, 2004 at 3:12 pm #3404
[quote:2lpj3gxs]: surely someone has something to say about the debate :” title=”Question” /> The media and the networks sure do. What’s on your mind folks?[/quote:2lpj3gxs]
I’ll just be honest: I think Kerry came out ahead of Bush [b:2lpj3gxs]regarding the specific theme[/b:2lpj3gxs] of the debate.
The only thing Bush was left to do was repeat his perception of Kerry’s position (“wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”) and “It’s hard work.”
Meanwhile, Kerry used the event to outline his stance on the war. Apparently Bush wasn’t listening because he kept repeating his campaign rhetoric even after Kerry addressed it and asserted his position multiple times.
I really could care less about Kerry’s time in Vietnam. I think if he has a plan and is well thought out he will be a dandy commander-in-chief.
One thing that sticks out in my mind is Kerry’s quote of Bush senior regarding the invasion of Iraq. Bush senior essentially said in his book that he did not invade Iraq because he did not have a plan (or there was not an adequate one) to be able to leave the country after a successful invasion. I, like Kerry, think that is what is happening right now.
Also, Kerry seems to have a better grasp that the decisions that the USA makes as a country, [i:2lpj3gxs]ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF FOREIGN POLICY[/i:2lpj3gxs], affect other countries and it affects our relations with other countries.
Bush really didn’t seem to care about that. His only response was “what about Poland?” Give me a break! [b:2lpj3gxs]Like Poland is a major force![/b:2lpj3gxs] ” title=”Confused” /> Seriously.
Also, if the accusation that Kerry brought forth that our troops were only protecting the oil ministry in Iraq was not true, why did Bush not address that? That only reinforces the notion that Bush only cares about the USA and not the role we have in being a world player and not concerned about the common good.October 2, 2004 at 11:30 pm #3411
I am glad that people have responded on this.
Jon—-I have to agree with you on a couple of things. ( still can’t use the mechanics on my keyboard—-to quote you : :rolleyes: ) I feel as the media has reflected; that Kerry won the debate. This is not much news to me, Bush is not an orator, nor is he a lawyer—-we saw this in the last election.
Also—-most U.S. citizens are very concerned about the war and where it is going-so they like Kerry’s message of lets ‘fix it’
Understandable if you ask me.
I am concerned about Kerry’s ability to form alliances-he certainly has not been diplomatic in referring to the ‘coerced and the bribed”, or the Iraqi leader.
The word ‘flip-flop’ has been used ad-nauseum-it’s sad. However Kerry showed me as a listener several times
referring to S. Hussein as a threat and then arguing he wasn’t a threat at all. This whole thing about weapons of mass destruction is just as bad for the campaign as the ‘flip-flop’ term the Bush campaign has used. Why are not box-cutters, and suicide bombers, and poison gases considered just as much of a threat? I can not put myself in the position of waiting upon the U.N. weapons inspectors or waiting for yet another failed resolution
I do not think it is the terrorist mentality to co operate with such agendas—I meant I can not imagine what, who, or how a commander in cheif/chief? makes decisions that put the rest of his/her country in harm’s way. As difficult as it has been it has been easier for me to trust Bush’s call than Kerry’s hindsight. Likewise the war has become much more difficult—-we are given a choice about who we trust to make the ultimate decisions.
Gore was more charismatic than Bush in the previous campaign, and Kerry is a better speaker than Gore was. So the direction the debate went is not surprising—-I only fear that Kerry will convince our country that embryonic stem cell research will solve many health care problems—-and that abortion is a correct choice for some economic/social/political matters. This last sentence is anticipation of the next debates and not addressing response to the current debate and issues.October 2, 2004 at 11:50 pm #3412
Last time I checked [b:1vasr7wr]there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq[/b:1vasr7wr] so I think [b:1vasr7wr]we all[/b:1vasr7wr] could have waited for another UN weapons inspection.
That is another thing I think Bush messed up on – he kept talking about how Sadaam Hussein was such a threat and we needed to act because he had WMDs. Where are the WMDs? We’ve been there 18 months and still haven’t found any.October 3, 2004 at 4:34 am #3413
Kerry’s reputation as a flip flopper is well deserved.
Kerry did not win the debate so much as Bush lost it.
Kerry spent the entire debate hunting for a cohesive debate.
I agree with dick morris. If Bush had been on his game, even a little, we would be discussing the election in the past tense.
a slew of new state polling confirms that, although Kerry won the debate, he is still bleeding in the election. In fact, it is difficult to see him having any reasonable hope of reaching 270 electoral votes.
Right now, Kerry is in deep trouble in virtualy all of the red states and half of the blue states.
He won the debate on points but it did virtualy nothing to alter the election race- where it counts. This despite an awful performance by Bush.
Team Bush has to be heartened that Kerry cant take advantage of Bush- even at his very worst.October 5, 2004 at 7:21 am #3422
In the first Presidential debate in 1984, a majority said Walter Mondale won the debate against Ronald Reagan. Reagan carried 49 out of the 50 states. So much for winning debates.October 6, 2004 at 1:16 pm #3438
[quote:6ve5aqmx]Kerry spent the entire debate hunting for a cohesive debate.[/quote:6ve5aqmx]
Well, I think Kerry used the debate to come out and clarify his position on the issues in the debate. Bush kept retorting “It’s hard work”, “Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time”, and “Poland” (which, by the way, they are pulling all their troops out by the end of 2005). Sounds like Bush was scrapping for substance during the debate.
Now, let me ask all of you this: what is the harm in bilateral talks with North Korea? Does it mean that other countries are excluded from the North Korea issue?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.