Thoughts on Debate #1

[bideau]

So, who "won" the debate and why? It would be preferable if the responses didn't just come down to Bush/Kerry sucks. Try to look at it from the point of view of an uncommitted voter.

I thought Kerry had the advantage for a couple of reasons.

First, Kerry just came off as better prepared, more confident, better spoken. Bush just seemed uncomfortable through a good part of the night. He seemed to be trying to put together thoughts and sentences, with long pauses to do so. Kerry usually wasted little time in firing off responses and did so with confidence. For Kerry, this was a big plus. Many undecideds have not had a chance to see and listen to him. It was important for him to show that he could look and act presidential. I think he succeeded.

Second, I think Kerry became the agressor, which is something many voters were not expecting to see. He was precise in differentiating their differences and continually challenged Bush. Bush scored points by emphasizing Kerry's contradictory positions on the war. But at times, it seemed as if it was a fallback strategy when he ran out of things to say.

In general, I think Kerry succeeded where he needed to. Showing the voters that he could stand with the President toe-to-toe.

Early polls are showing he did what he had to. One poll this morning of undecided voters showed Kerry 44%, Bush 26%, draw 30%. Those are encouraging for Kerry. Bush could have delivered the knockout, but Kerry will now get another look from the undecideds.

Here's an analysis from the Boston Herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/election/view.bg?articleid=46895)

Challenger comes out swinging hard at Bush
By David R. Guarino/ Analysis
Read Guarino's Road to 1600 Blog
Friday, October 1, 2004

The bar was high last night for John F. Kerry - he was on the ropes, sagging in polls and caught in what had become a web of his own confused verbiage.

But by any measure, Kerry sailed over the bar.

The four-term Massachusetts senator denied President Bush the knockout punch the incumbent wanted and set the stage for a five-week, two-debate sprint to Election Day.

Kerry didn't get tripped up in explaining his stance on Iraq.

In fact, he proved he could stand toe-to-toe with the president and, at times, succeed in knocking Bush on his heels.

It must have struck the president as odd that it was Kerry who made the first reference to a flip-flop of Bush's only moments into the debate.

At several times, the senator seemed to stupefy the president in his lines of attack, leaving Bush grimacing in reaction after he called the Iraq invasion a ``colossal error in judgment.''

The senator's tack was evident from the start, and it was classic debating that had Kerry on the offensive and, for the most part, in control.

``This president, I don't know if he really sees what's happening over there,'' Kerry said of Bush.

Later he added, ``The president's not getting the job done . . . The president's plan is four words - more of the same.''

But Bush yielded no ground and was far from undercut by the aggressive senator.

Bush tried throughout to belittle Kerry by trying to highlight the senator's shifting views on Iraq and to paint him as anti-soldier because he has been anti-war of late.

``He voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place,'' Bush said. ``I don't think you can lead if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send to our troops?''

The president clearly liked that line, he repeated it nearly every time it seemed Kerry had him on the ropes.

Throughout the debate, Bush hammered the senator with his own statements and positions, casting him as wilting, eager to cede American sovereignty to European allies and - once, seeming to care what Osama bin Laden thought of the U.S.

But Bush seemed so well practiced that he at times appeared to run out of things to say, repeating his lines of attack with more incredulity each time.

The president got tongue-tied at times, mixing his words when he tried to speak of Kerry's ``mixed messages.''

And Kerry appeared to leave Poland off the list of U.S. allies in the war.

The debate was by no means like the fistfights of past elections, it was mostly a bloodless affair.

But it sets a new stage for next week - Kerry may be down, but he's not out.

And, the next time, Bush will have to hit a lot harder if he wants a knock down, or a knock out.

[bideau]

Here's another view of the debate, this time from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/01/senator_scores_with_confidence/) :

Senator scores with confidence
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | October 1, 2004

After two months spent reacting to attacks on his own record, John Kerry last night succeeded in turning the roving spotlight of the 2004 presidential campaign onto President Bush's Iraq policies, blaming Bush for allowing the United States to bear "90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs."

Bush, following the same effective strategy of his past debates, stuck to a few core themes, such as his argument that Kerry's attacks on the war undermine American troops and insult US allies.

But for most of the first hour, during which Iraq was the prime focus, Bush's repetition seemed insistent rather than firm, and his body language -- sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes -- suggested a man on the defensive.

Kerry, as had been expected, was more fluid and facile in scoring conventional debating points -- answering Bush's arguments with fresh rebuttals. But his easy manner projected an unexpected confidence that has been missing for most of the general-election campaign, and he leavened his senatorial manner with more-direct answers.

After Bush reminded the audience that Kerry had once said he voted for $87 billion for the Iraq war "before he voted against it," Kerry offered a wry retort reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.

"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war, but the president made a mistake in invading Iraq," Kerry said, pausing dramatically. "Which is worse?" In exchanges like that one, both candidates may have made their points, but Kerry's aggressiveness was more of a surprise to an electorate conditioned, both by attacks from his opponent and by his own equivocal statements, to think of him as weak.

In recent weeks, as Bush has maintained a lead in most polls, Republicans had almost succeeded in turning Kerry into a figure of derision; after a forceful debate performance, the disdain expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney and many GOP members of Congress may seem more strained.

Kerry also gave national exposure to some of the criticisms of Bush's policies that critics said were not effectively aired at the determinedly upbeat Democratic convention in Boston.

Kerry charged that Bush "rushed into war without a plan to win the peace"; that parents of soldiers troll "the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send their kids"; that soldiers were maimed because the Bush administration did not provide proper armor for Humvees; that Osama bin Laden was surrounded in Tora Bora but Bush "outsourced the job" of catching him to "local warlords."

Bush bored in on Kerry's past depiction of Iraq as "the wrong war at the wrong time," saying such a statement sends the wrong message to troops and allies, and "not the message a commander chief gives." He also shot back Kerry for saying the president should pass a "global test where your countrymen, your people understand what you're doing" before initiating military action.

"I don't know what you mean passes the global test, you take preemptive action if you pass global test," Bush said. "My attitude is you take preemptive action order to protect the American people."

At times, the different styles of the two men stood in stark contrast, and each was effective in his way: Kerry deftly wove facts into arguments while Bush offered personal commitments and expressions of his values.

Discussing homeland security, each addressed the question from moderator Jim Lehrer in his own distinctive way.

"Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do, and there is a long list," Kerry said. "First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers on the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America? What kind of a message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses that are the first responders here in America. The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel, into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems."

Bush said: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. That's my job. I work with Director [Robert S.] Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work."

But the built-in constraints of a debate about foreign policy allowed Bush only a few opportunities to display the easy personal touch that many observers thought was his secret weapon against Kerry; only at the very end, when he bantered a bit with Lehrer, did Bush seem fully at ease.

By then, Kerry had scored a lot of points and perhaps forced voters to look at him with fresh eyes.

If they do, the debate last night will have transformed the 2004 presidential race.

[Annihilus]

As usual - a few interesting moments, a whole lotta spin afterwards and not much of a difference maker in my opinion. I don't have time to break down what I thought issue by issue, but all in all I'd say that if there was an option in your poll for 'Kerry by a nose' I probably would have taken that one. IMO it was too close to give him the win outright.

I hated the format - I want one of those town hall debates like Bush/Gore had in 2000. This whole thing seemed too contrived and rigid to me.

I got to see a little more of Kerry, which is good at least. I hope the next debate is better...it couldn't be a whole lot worse.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

I think Kerry probably won it over all, but there were key points when Bush plowed Kerry's fields for him.

First and foremost was the Korea issue, IMO. Kerry kept lambasting Bush on the fact that Korea was a bigger security threat than Iraq. Point Kerry. But when asked what his plan for North Korea was, Kerry said that he wanted to start bilateral talks immediately.

Bush destroyed him on that - giving up the leverage that China can offer and the 6 party negotiations, Kerry looked distinctly uncomfortable during Bush's 90 second response.

I also think that Bush took some of the pressure off himself when Kerry was working the "Bush lied to bring us into the war" angle, by pointing out that Kerry looked at the same intelligence Bush was, and came to essentially the same conclusion.

Both candidates hurt themselves with their reactions while the other one was speaking, though. Bush kept screwing up his face like he was constipated, and Kerry just looked...well, sort of hard to describe. Just weird.

[spiderman]

I would say a draw.

Everyone already knows that GW is a poor communicator. I didn't see the long pauses and stammering as anything unusual. In fact I expected a lot worse. Kerry is more refined and comfortable at the podium. Once again no surprises there.

I would like to make one observation. Everyone is giving the slight edge to Kerry based on his quick responses, and "neat & clean" answers. But I would like to propose another viewpoint.

Sometimes a quick, "neat & clean" response seems too prepared. When Bush pauses you almost get the sense that he has deep thoughts, emotions, and feelings on the issue. I really think that this connects with a lot of Americans, and I think it's something that the Democrats overlook.

Last night I felt like Kerry knew what he was going to say before the question was asked. Whereas with Bush it felt like he was hearing the question for the first time.

IMO the most notable exchange, was the one about North Korea, and as Flagg mentioned I think Bush was on the winning side of that. When Kerry said he was in favor of "bilateral" talks with North Korea, it seemed to go against everything he had been saying with regards to foreign relations up to that point, and it left me scratching my head.

[bideau]

Anni, I think Bush will be alot more comfortable in the town meeting format. The onus is still on Kerry to make a connection with the undecided voters. It'll be interesting to see if he can come across as a guy that people can relate to when he actually has to interact with them (Ya, I know, that's the partisan in me coming out).

Flagg, I agree with you about how each candidate reacted to the other. The split screen was interesting. I think that's where Bush had his biggest troubles. He seemed to get visibly agitated at Kerry's remarks. He rarely ever looked in Kerry's direction. At least Kerry looked over as if he was actually listening. Bush seemed to be trying to figure out how he could slip a campaign slogan into his response.

Kerry's look brought to my mind one of my favorites Saturday Night Live skits, one about the Dukakis/Bush debate. Bush was rambling about his 1,000 points of light. When Dukakis responded, his line was, " I can't believe I'm losing to this guy?" It still cracks me up. Kerry could have dropped the smirk, but at least he didn;t pull an Al Gore and give us heavy sighs.

As far as China is concerned, I don't pretend to know the issue well enough to comment. But I did hear a response from Joe Biden when he was questioned about it. His response was that China has asked the US to enter bilateral talks. I'm not sure what that means, but you're correct. Kerry needs to explain to people why he thinks bilateral talks are good.

Bush definitely scored points with the intelligence point. I think at this point people are a little tired of discussing how we got into Iraq and want answers on how to get out. Kerry will start to score points if he can steer the debate in that direction and convince people that his plan is better and can work.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
I would say a draw.

Everyone already knows that GW is a poor communicator. I didn't see the long pauses and stammering as anything unusual. In fact I expected a lot worse. Kerry is more refined and comfortable at the podium. Once again no surprises there.

I would like to make one observation. Everyone is giving the slight edge to Kerry based on his quick responses, and "neat & clean" answers. But I would like to propose another viewpoint.

Sometimes a quick, "neat & clean" response seems too prepared. When Bush pauses you almost get the since that he has deep thoughts, emotions, and feelings on the issue. I really think that this connects with a lot of Americans, and I think it's something that the Democrats overlook.

Last night I felt like Kerry knew what he was going to say before the question was asked. Whereas with Bush it felt like he was hearing the question for the first time.

IMO the most notable exchange, was the one about North Korea, and as Flagg mentioned I think Bush was on the winning side of that. When Kerry said he was in favor of "bilateral" talks with North Korea, it seemed to go against everything he had been saying with regards to foreign relations up to that point, and it left me scratching my head.

It's interesting how we can come to different conclusions about the same thing. I would certainly chalk that up to where we stand on the election. I see Kerry's quick responses as meaning that he prepared better and Bush's hesitation as meaning he was poorly prepared. If Bush was hearing the questions for the first time, then shame on him. There should have been no surprises. It's interesting that you were expecting worse because the Republican publicists were trying to downplay expectations before the debate.

Again, points to Bush on the "bilateral" issue. If the republicans are awake, they'll hammer Kerry on this. Kerry needs to explain this better. But, how many voters will understand or care?

I'm really interested in how uncomitted voters saw this. Those of us who are steadfast behind our guy will see what we want to see. Bush will certainly be in his element in the next debate. Kerry succeeded in showing he's still viable, but the expectations have now been raised. The next debate is the most critical, IMO.

[Ballbustah]

What is wrong with being prepared?
That shows attention to detail and a realistic opportunity on what is going to be discussed.
That GW was not prepared is a total lack of preparation on his part. At some points GW almost looked like he did not know what to say. Sometimes he looked like he wanted to cry. I’d rather have a prepared President then someone who is unprepared. I’d rather have a President who has gone over all the options instead of picking the one choice that only a stubborn close-minded President would choose.

Kerry 1
Bush 0

Even the political experts picked Kerry as the winner of last nights debate. Even the ones that were Bush supporters.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
As far as China is concerned, I don't pretend to know the issue well enough to comment. But I did hear a response from Joe Biden when he was questioned about it. His response was that China has asked the US to enter bilateral talks. I'm not sure what that means, but you're correct. Kerry needs to explain to people why he thinks bilateral talks are good.
Yeah, China doesn't want to deal with the issue anymore. China is economically outgoing, but isolationist when it comes to foriegn policy in anything outside of the economy. As much as anyone in the world, China is fully supportive of the "US as world police" idea - except when it comes to Taiwan. One thing's for sure: they don't want any part of it.

Why would we want to legitimize N. Korea by starting bilateral talks? We'd be announcing to the world: "you want to be treated with respect? Go nuclear!" We sort of already have made this announcement.

Bush definitely scored points with the intelligence point. I think at this point people are a little tired of discussing how we got into Iraq and want answers on how to get out. Kerry will start to score points if he can steer the debate in that direction and convince people that his plan is better and can work. I think Kerry blew a major opportunity to do just that. I DIDN'T hear from him a plan to get out, just that he wouldn't fail and that he would do better.

I also think Kerry hurt himself by his answer to the pre-emptive strike question: he's been all over Bush for snubbing his nose at the world and making a pre-emptive strike, and when pressed, he just says: "President's perogative," essentially.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
What is wrong with being prepared?
That shows attention to detail and a realistic opportunity on what is going to be discussed.
That GW was not prepared is a total lack of preparation on his part. At some points GW almost looked like he did not know what to say. Sometimes he looked like he wanted to cry. I’d rather have a prepared President then someone who is unprepared. I’d rather have a President who has gone over all the options instead of picking the one choice that only a stubborn close-minded President would choose.

Kerry 1
Bush 0 I don't think Bush came off as unprepared.

But I stand by my idea that I think our president has a learning disability. I *still* don't think he's stupid by any stretch. But if you saw all these symptoms in a child in a school room, it would be a slam dunk for a LD diagnosis.

That said, I think he's compensated for it remarkably well, except that developing his own replies to spoken questions takes him a little more time - thus the pauses and hesitations and the words fall into place.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
I see Kerry's quick responses as meaning that he prepared better and Bush's hesitation as meaning he was poorly prepared. If Bush was hearing the questions for the first time, then shame on him. There should have been no surprises.

I fully understand your viewpoint, I was just trying to pose the opposite viewpoint to you, so that you could see what you thought of it. I think that most Kerry supporters don't see the appeal of GW, therefore, when they watch the debate they see a well prepared Kerry, and an ill-prepared Bush. I'm trying to say that I think some folks will see Kerry as trying to win a contest, whereas they see Bush as someone who really takes the issues seriously. I'm not sure if you see the point I'm trying to make here, I may be doing a poor job of explaining it. Once again, I'm not arguing either way, I was just trying to show you another way to view each candidate last night.

Originally posted by bideau
It's interesting that you were expecting worse because the Republican publicists were trying to downplay expectations before the debate.

Well, with good reason. Did you ever see the GW "sovereignty" tape? It's hilarious. As a Bush supporter, I have to say that I was on edge all night. He can sound really, really, stupid sometimes. IMO he's just not a good communicator, and he struggles to put his thoughts into words. To others, he's an idiot. Some people are not verbose, and they think talk is cheap...I think he's one of those people. Unfortunately that does not help when the American people want to hear what you have to say.


And you're right about the bilateral thing. It went right over my wife's head until she heard me go...HUH?! Then I had to explain it to her.

[dchester]

I'd give Kerry a slight edge, but more on style than substance. With the political junkie types (um, us), it probably didn't change anyone's opinion. But I think it is possible that with people that are just tuning into the election now, Kerry might have helped himself.

I will say that overall, I thought this debate was little better than some of the ones in previous elections. Their was less fluff, none of those silly oneliners, and no one made any gaffs. They talked about issues, although I was hoping to hear more about what (and how) Kerry might do things differently. We already knew that Bush's plan is to "stay the course", or as Kerry called it, more of the same.

All in all, since I thought Kerry's campaign was sinking, this might have at least plugged the holes, but he still has a lot of bailing to do.
________
easy vape (http://vaporizers.net/easy-vape)

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by dchester
I'd give Kerry a slight edge, but more on style than substance. With the political junkie types (um, us), it probably didn't change anyone's opinion. But I think it is possible that with people that are just tuning into the election now, Kerry might have helped himself.



That's pretty much my opinion too. I'm looking forward to the next one, for sure. This debate went about like I figured it would. Kerry is much smoother when it comes to speaking, for sure - but I think everyone knew that already. I've got a Bushisms calendar on my desk that can attest to that.

On the lighter side...I really miss the Saturday Night Live skits from the last election year with Will Ferrell as Bush and Darrell Hammond as Gore. My favorite was where they both decided to be President and they played the music from the Odd Couple. I hope they can do something that good when the season starts this Saturday...I don't think anyone can top Ferrell's Bush though.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by dchester
I'd give Kerry a slight edge, but more on style than substance. With the political junkie types (um, us), it probably didn't change anyone's opinion. But I think it is possible that with people that are just tuning into the election now, Kerry might have helped himself.

I will say that overall, I thought this debate was little better than some of the ones in previous elections. Their was less fluff, none of those silly oneliners, and no one made any gaffs. They talked about issues, although I was hoping to hear more about what (and how) Kerry might do things differently. We already knew that Bush's plan is to "stay the course", or as Kerry called it, more of the same.

All in all, since I thought Kerry's campaign was sinking, this might have at least plugged the holes, but he still has a lot of bailing to do. I can agree with this assessment. I think a lot of the points Bush scored would be lost on the people who aren't political junkies, anyway.

[O_P_T]

I also give Kerry the edge.

However, I think one could make a comparison between this debate and a championship boxing match.

The challanger has to clearly defeat the title holder. If it's close, the champ keeps his crown.

Kerry didn't land a knockout punch and GWB didn't screw the pooch.

He did score with his explination about the "voted for before I voted against" comment.

Considering how poor a public speaker GWB is, one would have expected Kerry to score a clear victory.

There were a few opertunities I noticed that GWB missed.

When Kerry was asked if US Soliders are dying for a mistake (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.7/index.html) in Iraq , he said no.

GWB didn't contrast this answer with the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" line that he repeated at other times.

He could of used this as an example of his "mixed messages" line.

The second was when they talked about Sudan (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.15/index.html).

Once Kerry called the situation in Darfur a genocide, he had an opertunity to neutralize Kerry's earlier comments about the lack of UN approval for Iraq.

He could have pointed out that the UN has talked a lot and done nothing to halt the problems in Darfur. If they can't or won't act to halt the genocide in Darfur, then perhaps taking action without waiting for the UN to vote is sometimes necessary.

A possible third was Kerry's comment about GWB's poor planning in Iraq resulting in troops not having proper armor for the Humvee's or body armor.

If the 87 $B funding bill included buying these items, then he could have critisized Kerry for voting against it. I don't know the details of the funding bill, so this argumrnt may or may not have been valid.

[bideau]

Originally posted by O_P_T
I also give Kerry the edge.

However, I think one could make a comparison between this debate and a championship boxing match.

The challanger has to clearly defeat the title holder. If it's close, the champ keeps his crown.

Kerry didn't land a knockout punch and GWB didn't screw the pooch.

I don't think I agree with this point.

Kerry needed to show he could stand toe-to-toe with Bush. Kerry had a couple of things still going for him, the polls were still within the margin of error and Bush still has a fairly high unpopularity rating for an incumbent.

Many undecideds had never had an opportunity to see Kerry in this type of setting. The fact that he showed he could look, act and speak presidential gave him some legitmacy.

But now the stakes are changed for the next debate. Each candidate has something in their favor. The town meeting format fits Bush's strengths. Plus, the questions will already known and the answers canned. Bush will not have to worry about trying to find the right words. Kerry goes into this round with an advantage in the polls on domestic policy. The latest polls show that the majority of voters feel that Kerry would do better at domestic policy.

It'll be interesting. I do think the pressure has been raised on Kerry. We'll see how he reacts.

[spiderman]

Kerry Cheated!!!

No seriously, what did Kerry pull from his coat, unfold, and place on the podium? Does anybody care?

I realize that most of you Kerry supporters will dismiss this as "radical right wing insanity". BUT, he obviously pulled something out, and it wasn't a pen...

I'm just wondering hypothetically if in fact, Kerry cheated during the debate would that affect your vote in November?

And before anyone goes NUTS, and starts flipping out on me...just relax, I'm just generating discussion...Frankly, I find the whole thing humorous. :D

[Ballbustah]

How could Kerry have cheated?
You sound like a Bills fan.

[spiderman]

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/debate_video/sept29/1.html

Watch Kerry as he walks around the podium. With his back to the crowd, he pulls something out of his coat, unfolds it, and places it down.

Now refer to the debate rules! You're on your own, with finding them.

[Ballbustah]

That is decisive evidence if I ever saw it.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by spiderman
http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/debate_video/sept29/1.html

Watch Kerry as he walks around the podium. With his back to the crowd, he pulls something out of his coat, unfolds it, and places it down.

Now refer to the debate rules! You're on your own, with finding them.

You may of heard of this little tool called google? ;)

I did a quick google on "Presidential debate rules" and found a CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/21/debate.highlights/) story on the rules.

The applicable bit would appear to be as follows.

No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing.

I thought I noticed Kerry jotting down some notes during the debate, so its likely that's what you see him take out of his pocket.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by O_P_T
You may of heard of this little tool called google? ;)

I did a quick google on "Presidential debate rules" and found a CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/21/debate.highlights/) story on the rules.

The applicable bit would appear to be as follows.



I thought I noticed Kerry jotting down some notes during the debate, so its likely that's what you see him take out of his pocket.

I love it when people try to make me look stupid...Next time please don't refer to a CNN site that only "highlights" what is a 32 page document.

Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."


:thumb:

[Ballbustah]

I guess we found the smoking gun then.
Paper and a pen that Kerry used to take notes.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I guess we found the smoking gun then.
Paper and a pen that Kerry used to take notes.

You're right Bustah, nothing gets by you does it?

The paper and pen that Kerry found necessary to carry in his jacket pocket, and then non-chalantly slip out while his back was to the crowd, as opposed to just having it placed for him ahead of time.

Makes perfect sense...thanks for clearing that up for me...:rolleyes:

[Ballbustah]

You belong on the Bills board.
Kerry cheating…
You look GW straight in the eye and tell me he is not an idiot.

GW has been misinforming the public about WMD. He was stupid enough to rely on Saddam’s enemy’s to fabricate the truth. What kind of Mickey Mouse operation do we have running? Does he believe only what he wants to believe? Does he take opinions and advice from his advisors and treat it like God’s own truth? Does he not know how to weigh things against each other and find the right path to take?

I just don’t get this guy.
I have been a Republican all my life and I look at GW and see an airhead.
I see someone who cannot make the proper decisions.
I see someone who may bring us to the brink of disaster.
If anyone can kill the USA it is Bush.

Not that I have that much enthusiasm for Kerry.
He flip-flops…
But at least he is not an idiot.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You belong on the Bills board.
Kerry cheating…
You look GW straight in the eye and tell me he is not an idiot.

GW has been misinforming the public about WMD. He was stupid enough to rely on Saddam’s enemy’s to fabricate the truth. What kind of Mickey Mouse operation do we have running? Does he believe only what he wants to believe? Does he take opinions and advice from his advisors and treat it like God’s own truth? Does he not know how to weigh things against each other and find the right path to take?

I just don’t get this guy.
I have been a Republican all my life and I look at GW and see an airhead.
I see someone who cannot make the proper decisions.
I see someone who may bring us to the brink of disaster.
If anyone can kill the USA it is Bush.

Not that I have that much enthusiasm for Kerry.
He flip-flops…
But at least he is not an idiot.

BINGO!!!

I WIN AGAIN!!!

[Ballbustah]

Maybe you think you win.
But you don't know the difference.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Let's just rename this forum "Ballbustah and Spiderman's Personal Pissing Contest Forum."

[Ballbustah]

I don't know Flag.
You seem to get a jab in every now and then....
With your unbiased analysis of coarse....

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You belong on the Bills board.
Kerry cheating…
You look GW straight in the eye and tell me he is not an idiot.

GW has been misinforming the public about WMD. He was stupid enough to rely on Saddam’s enemy’s to fabricate the truth. What kind of Mickey Mouse operation do we have running? Does he believe only what he wants to believe? Does he take opinions and advice from his advisors and treat it like God’s own truth? Does he not know how to weigh things against each other and find the right path to take?

I just don’t get this guy.
I have been a Republican all my life and I look at GW and see an airhead.
I see someone who cannot make the proper decisions.
I see someone who may bring us to the brink of disaster.
If anyone can kill the USA it is Bush.

Not that I have that much enthusiasm for Kerry.
He flip-flops…
But at least he is not an idiot.

Well I certainly agree that GWB is a very poor public speaker, that is not necessarily an accurate judge of intelligence.

There is an UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r) article that gives some other estimates of GWB's IQ based on various tests he's taken in his life.

Are these estimates definitive?

No.

But they are more concrete than "looking someone in the eye"

[Ballbustah]

You will take some ambiguous IQ tests that don’t mean anything over looking a guy in the eye.

Yeah... That makes sense....

[dchester]

From what I've been able to make out from the expert analysis in the media, Bush lost the debate because he was sometimes scowling or frowning when Kerry was talking. In contrast, Kerry looked more presidential by either nodding or taking notes when Bush was speaking.
________
bho hash oil (http://trichomes.org/hashish/bho-hash-oil)

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

First and foremost was the Korea issue, IMO. Kerry kept lambasting Bush on the fact that Korea was a bigger security threat than Iraq. Point Kerry. But when asked what his plan for North Korea was, Kerry said that he wanted to start bilateral talks immediately.
Bush destroyed him on that - giving up the leverage that China can offer and the 6 party negotiations, Kerry looked distinctly uncomfortable during Bush's 90 second response. The bilateral talks are what chinawas asking us to hold.

I also think that Bush took some of the pressure off himself when Kerry was working the "Bush lied to bring us into the war" angle, by pointing out that Kerry looked at the same intelligence Bush was, and came to essentially the same conclusion. Kerry was for the war but only after the weapons inspectors had the time they needed and then had the support of the UN. When Bush went ahead with the war without allies is when Kerry "changed his mind".

I'm not trying to pick on you Flagg. These are just the points I thought where very clear and we seem to differ on.
I see Bush as trying to take the focus off of his record of the last 4 years and make it a Kerry bashing because of "flip-flopping". I guess in the hopes that the "middle class" won't remember the billons of tax cuts that bush and his friends received while the "middle class received a bone in the form of a $300 "tax credit" another point that Kerry made painfully clear to Bush. These are my opinions and again i appologize if this comes off as an attack on you Flagg

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by PA_PATS_FAN54
The bilateral talks are what chinawas asking us to hold.
Right, but the Bush policy was to leave off the bilateral talks as an unspoken punishment for continually violating the non-proliferation treaty.

China wants us to hold bilateral talks because China is one of the world's biggest proponents of U.S.-as-world-police. Except when it pertains to Taiwan, of course.

It's idiocy to reward NK for developing nukes - what message does it send to other rouge states striving for legitimacy in the international community?

Kerry was for the war but only after the weapons inspectors had the time they needed and then had the support of the UN. When Bush went ahead with the war without allies is when Kerry "changed his mind".
I don't think anyone is denying that. Well, except for the "without allies" part. And the fact that the bill that Kerry supported contained nothing about the weapons inspectors or United Nations having additional time. Or about the backing of the United Nations. Wait, I think I am denying that.

Look - Kerry was part of the "Rush to War" that he is now disclaiming. There were only a handful of Dems that had the sack to stand up against the tide of public opinion at that time, and more power too them. Kerry was NOT among them.

I also think it's a little silly to deny that Kerry makes up his mind by licking his finger and putting it in the air.

It is clear, however, that once the war was underway, Kerry voted to deny funding to the troops that were already in the field, or soon would be. He was positioning himself politically at the expense of the safety of the troops.
This is made all the more disgusting when both Kerry and Edwards have tried to swipe at Bush/Cheney because the troops didn't have the body armor, and family was purchasing it and sending it on their own.

I'm not trying to pick on you Flagg. These are just the points I thought where very clear and we seem to differ on.
I see Bush as trying to take the focus off of his record of the last 4 years and make it a Kerry bashing because of "flip-flopping". I guess in the hopes that the "middle class" won't remember the billons of tax cuts that bush and his friends received while the "middle class received a bone in the form of a $300 "tax credit" another point that Kerry made painfully clear to Bush. These are my opinions and again i appologize if this comes off as an attack on you Flagg [/B] I'm not taking it personally. You've said your piece.

Look at it this way: what do you or I care?

Lets say you are a father to two kids. You give one a $20 and send him on his way. Later on, you give the other a $5. If he complains, what is your response? Kid's got nothing to bitch about.

Yes, Bush cut taxes on the top 1% and top 5%. They were, and still are, paying in a much higher tax bracket than the middle class. I'm not wealthy, and I don't plan to be. I support progressive taxation (higher tax brackets for the highest wage earners.) But it is a little too easy in a democracy to engage in class warfare and make the rich the fall guys.

Look at it this way: You, me, and Bill Gates form a democracy. I'm going to look to you immediately and propose a vote that all wealth be shared equally. I'm no mind reader, but my guess is that you vote with me on that one.

Here's the other thing - cutting corporate taxation makes even more sense. We can whine and cry about corporate profit margins, yadda yadda yadda, but the simple fact is that anyone who wants a piece of that can get it. Any time you tax a corporation, it gets passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices. When you cut taxes, it either: 1) gets passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices as competition dictates; or 2) increases profit margins and makes the stock price rise, which raises all boats.

Now, you need to get some revenue from businesses, of course, but you need to be careful about it - faceless organizations can be an easy target, rather than Dick and Jane Smith on Evergreen Terrace. But the long term effects of corporate taxation are very detrimental.

Ditto for taxing the top wage earners. I'm a lawyer, and I do estate planning for some of these people. They talk all the time about how its actually more beneficial for them to spend time figuring out tax dodges than it is to work. That's not good for America, either.

I don't deny that Bush has been good to the upper crusters. He has. But because you and Joe both have something good happen, are you mad at Joe because his good thing was better than yours? Doesn't make sense.

Anyone who cuts taxes starts out way ahead in my estimation, no matter who they cut it for. Now, Bush's spending is WAY out of control. The Dept. of Homeland Security should never have happened. But on the other hand, Kerry is one of the ultimate tax-and-spenders. As I've stated again and again, neither candidate is much use to me, but given the choice, I'll take not-Kerry.