I think Kerry really did well: far better than Bush. Bush hesitated and seemed on the defensive several times...nervous even at moments.
Hope springs eternal in my chest. Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
My take was that it was not a runaway victory for Kerry, but he edged out by a hair by using so many facts. Bush looked exasperated like a lot of conservatives do with liberals. But he still looked resolute enough. Bottom electoral line is that Kerry still needed a near-knockout punch to pull off a victory in about five key states. I think the debate rules constrained the candidates enough that most of the unpredictability was driven out (e.g., they were not allowed to say the word "Vietnam"). I'm not convinced Kerry's had it tonight. He's got to take off and keep off 5% of Bush's total until Tuesday to have won. We'll know the result in the next 48 hours. For the moment, I think it is a functional draw.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmmm, didn't have a chance to see it. But this quote from the cnn article seems kinda funny.
quote: And an Annenberg Election Survey released Tuesday found that only about half of those asked could correctly match the candidate with his position on several policy issues.
C'mon. Try to keep up people, its a 50% chance guess and half the people got it wrong?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
It looks to me like Kerry won, but it was close. I think that the thing Kerry got BUsh on was when Bush was saying "We were attacked on September 11, and we took the appropriate action." Kerry responded by saying it was al-Qaeda, not Saddam, that attacked us. Bush said, "First of all, I know it was Osama bin Laden that attacked us."
Gotcha. We'll wait and see if Kerry can keep it up.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
That's almost as inanne as the CNN poll of ten clueless dolts with buzzers numbered 1-10. Anyone else see that? The blonde woman that said she trusted Bush's military experience to lead the country needs to be de-lobotomized somehow.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:What to say about Bush? Let's get the compliments out of the way. When asked to skewer Kerry's character, he was classy and genuine. His anecdote about the war widow was heartfelt and poignant. He had a few good lines - and skewered Kerry easily on the $87 billion. He also kicked Kerry's elegant Brahmin butt on the coalition point, reminding him that Poland exists. (Kerry was effective, however, in detailing the relatively small contribution of most of the allies. But why oh why did he not mention the obvious parallel of the vast coalition Bush's father put together for the first Gulf War? If I were a debate judge - and I've had my fair share of debate experience - I would have flunked Kerry on the spot.) The few laugh-out-loud Bushisms - especially the point about the insurgents fighting "vociferously" - were worth the price of admission. On the more general point about alliances, Bush did well - espcially on the International Criminal Court, and on the need to base foreign policy fundamentally on the defense of the American people. More Americans will agree with him on this than with Kerry. Still, there were major weaknesses. If you believe, as I do, that the Iraq war is beginning to spiral downward, Bush was not reassuring. He seemed as out of it as ever. When Kerry rightly pointed out the failure of Bush to revamp the CIA or to secure Soviet nuclear material, Bush simply and sadly responded that every morning some guy comes in and briefs him on national security. Now I feel better. And you don't want to be the president who is forced to say, "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us." Moreover, his fundamental critique of Kerry - that by criticizing the war, he had made himself unworthy to be commander-in-chief - was dumb and border-line offensive. It implies that if you've ever criticized the president's war conduct, you cannot succeed him in office. Huh? By that logic, the only credible alternative to Bush is someone who has agreed with him every inch of the way. Memo to Bush: we live in a democracy.
I think Mr. Kerry did very well and came in with a solid victory in the debate.
He was calm and made his points well.
On the other hand, Mr. Bush was defensive and stumbling.
The very picture of his presidency.
Most of the night I felt like I was watching the flash cards in Mr. Bush's brain actually flipping to find the right word or phrase he'd been coached about. And while that sorting process took place, he stood there mumbling random things until the caught an odd phrase or bit of talking point to say.
All in all, a good night for Mr. Kerry and another bad public performance for Mr. Bush.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
YOu notice kerry taking notes on how to respond whenever Bush was speaking? Very nice: he found weaknesses in BUsh's coments each time and nailed him on several points.
Kerry flubed a few times on facts, mainly the "there's WMD crossing the border every day" line. That was odd. As was Kerry's assertation that N.Korea obtained nuclear weapons "on Bush's watch" when most have suapected Kim had them mid-Clinton administartsion....something Bush rebuked without naming Clinton (though mabye the "no Clinton" was part of their overly-wrought agreement).
I'm suprised that Kerry did not bring up the lack of respect the other world leaders have shown Bush: Bush opened himslf up to critique several times by taling about "I speak to the other world leaders all the time" bit and on how to "handle Kim".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I've just seen a few clips on the news and Bush seemed to be really struggling to get out a coherent sentence at times. Didn't think much of him at all. But Kerry didn't seem to actually get really stuck into Bush.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At least it serves the purpose of stimulating political debate. Everyone I've spoken to today (four only, but the day's young) think Kerry did very well.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Bush was no worse than normal. But it seems that's all it takes to be President of the US.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Bush was no worse than normal. But it seems that's all it takes to be President of the US.
For some reason, that's all it seems to take for this one...the standards for him seem to have been greatly lowered.
Considersome of Mr. Bush's mis-speakings from the debate.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Most of the night I felt like I was watching the flash cards in Mr. Bush's brain actually flipping to find the right word or phrase he'd been coached about. And while that sorting process took place, he stood there mumbling random things until the caught an odd phrase or bit of talking point to say.
Funny, I also look that way too while I'm talking about serious issues and have to think about what I'm saying before I say it. Criticizing a politician on his public speaking skills is a stupid way to decide who won a debate. Of course, a lot of people seem to do exactly that. This is why televised debates are of little use. They should just kick e-mails back and forth constantly, or post to a message board or something. You'd get far more information about what each cantidate actually believes that way.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:George W. Bush seems *much* better in the transcript than he was in the debate. His deer-in-the-headlights looks, his I-can't-think-of-anything-else-to-say silences, and his I-have-no-coherent-thoughts pauses are all left out of the transcript. Even so, he looks pretty bad here.
So:
It is a legitimate criticism of a debate.
It�s only part of the reason why I think Mr. Bush lost. It�s not nearly enough for the President of the United States to go into a public forum and when asked to defend his policy, to simply repeat �it�s hard work� over and over again and expect that to work.
I�m pretty much tired of the �poor Mr. Bush, he�s just a bad public speaker� line of argument because to me, his performance in the debate pretty much typifies Mr. Bush�s administration...stumbling, petulant, incoherent, confused, and lacking a solid process.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"YOu notice kerry taking notes on how to respond whenever Bush was speaking?"
Actually, they were both doing that.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I think Bush just kept writing: meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote: Kerry flubed a few times on facts, mainly the "there's WMD crossing the border every day" line. That was odd
I didn't interpret that as a flub. I interpreted that as "The WMD haven't been found, but there are WMDs coming into Iraq every day." You know, the terrorists? Blowing up things? Kidnapping?
It's like those people who say "We found the WMD--Saddam Hussein."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bombs and mortars are not WMD though: or Bush would have a lock on the election and justification for invading Iraq -if they are.
Fuck that noise.
I liked Bush pointing out that Poland was on our side: great. They'll be instrumental in...er....um... Yeah.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And we should be glad to thank Tonga with 45 troops, Singapore with 33 troops, Kazakhstan with 29 troops, and Moldova with 12 soldiers in Iraq. Among others.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Omega: I was thinking too I'd wish they would do these things through medium-length posting on a board not unlike the National Review's and the New Republic's series on NRO where the editors straight debate each other.
I'm not sure I'd want to mess with the Grom Commandos.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: Who even knew Poland had special forces? For a while, not many. The Polish government waited three years before publicly disclosing GROM's existence.
Cool. I sure never heard of them...thanks for the link!
...though they should have been named GORT for some retro style.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
No problem, Jason!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The problem with an online debate being that we'd have no way of knowing if it was actually them posting.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not like we know if it's actually their sentiments being expressed as it is or just what demographics and some speach writers think will win the election.
They could just have their writers post in for them and "approve the message" like their commercials.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Personally, I think Bush won it. My opinion of his debate 'strategery' was so very low that his actual performance seemed spectacular by comparison. Kerry, meanwhile, had been presented as a debating powerhouse of Lincolnian or Ingersollian proportions, but ended up looking like a tall, waffling douchebag.
Don't get me wrong, though . . . Kerry, though not looking presidential at all, is more capable with language than Bush could ever hope to be . . . and call me crazy, but I value that in a president.
However, Kerry talked much but said little . . . he was a master of the vague and contradictory. In the below, I go entirely by memory, like many Americans probably will . . . (but I'll check the transcript later).
He wants to build alliances, but go it alone with NK at the table. He wants to leave Iraq quickly, sometime. He will talk to Europe about something. He will rebuild alliances with those who are bribed and coerced and who he seems to have little respect for by showing that he has respect for them, somewhere. He will put federal funds into state/city road projects. He complains about the lack of kevlar body armor that he shot down. And so on.
Bush, meanwhile, scored a few points. He completely threw Kerry when the two discussed family, and if Bush had wanted to play nice guy all night he could've done so with maneuvers of that sort. Bush's overall tactics, however, while not as horrendous as I expected, were nonetheless quite terrible. There were times when I heard Kerry say things that left him open to devastating attack, but Bush almost never pressed the advantage. On those occasions when he did, he did it over and over and over and over and over. Yes, Kerry's position changes with the tide . . . yes, his voting record is like a spray-and-pray of positions. We all followed along the first three times it was said. While this repetition might've helped to hypnotize some watchers, it didn't really work. It was just hard work, another repeated phrase. That said, though, it was Bush, surprisingly, who was the debater who was on the ball with his details, though I haven't gone back to fact-check them.
In short, Kerry was all promise, little substance, and weak tactics. Bush was substance, often weaker tactics, and lesser speaking ability.
I don't think there really was a winner, to be honest, but by not getting gutter-stomped Bush won the battle.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Regarding North Korea, I suggest some additional reading:
quote:North Korea: Kerry killed on this one. While Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein on the false belief that he might be developing a "weapons of mass destruction-related program," North Korea�another spoke on the "axis of evil"�started to develop real nuclear weapons. When Bush took office, 8,000 fuel rods were locked in a storage pond under continuous monitoring of international inspectors. As Kerry correctly noted, Colin Powell said publicly he'd continue on course�and President Bush publicly admonished him. Within months, the North Koreans kicked out the inspectors, unlocked and carted away the fuel rods, and reprocessed them into weapons-grade plutonium�in the course of which Bush did nothing. Kerry called for opening bilateral talks with North Korea to solve the problem.
President Bush said such talks would be a "big mistake." If we sat down one-on-one, he said, North Korea would walk out of the six-power talks, which also involve Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China. Bilaterals will accomplish nothing. Kerry replied that just because Bush says they'll accomplish nothing doesn't mean they will.
Point for Kerry. But it would have been a more solid point had Kerry noted that all the other participants in those six-power talks want the United States to have bilateral talks with North Korea.
Regarding the bilateral talks, Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus write:
quote:On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.
But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.
However, I do not recall anyone saying this and found no mention of this in the transcript.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Ah, yes...Poland.
President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland: "They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
There's some controversy regarding that statement in Poland. Apparently it was kinda... mistranslated.
Twice.
What Kwasniewski actually said was: "I think that todays Iraq, without Saddam Hussein, is better place than Iraq with Saddam Hussein, but of course I feel a certain discomfort that we were deceived about weapons of mass destruction."
Some claim that this radically changes the meaning of this statetement.
There's more: After people started asking about the meaning of this statement Marek Siwiec, presidential security adviser said that the one engagin in deception is... Saddam Hussein.
And yeah, GROM kicks some serious ass Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
G2k: Do you work for Fox News, or something? Did you even watch the same debate I did? I didn't see any of what you're talking about. Kerry was making coherent, sensible, consistent statements. When Bush wasn't rolling his eyes or doing the old deer-in-headlights stare, he was mostly repeating catch-phrases.
Seriously, even Republicans are complaining about Bush's poor showing. What's this "by not getting gutter-stomped Bush won the battle"? Isn't that like when someone loses a sports game 42 to 1, and you say "well, since they didn't get shut-out, it was really a victory"?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Well, TSN, Dick Morris seems to agree with him. If Clinton's own Karl Rove says it, I wouldn't dismiss it as too whacky to be believable.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's also in the New York Post, which means one should almost automatically dismiss it out of hand.
Not to mention that the very first sentence proves that he obviously has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Tim, even Fox News says that Kerry did well and Bush didn't.
G2k clearly works for NewsMax...
To be fair, from just listening to the debate, it isn't nearly as a "clear win" for Kerry. Bush sounded much better than he ended up looking. I listened from work and on the way home, but didn't see clips until later that night...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:PRESIDENT Bush's positions on the issues aired in the debate last night are so sound and John Kerry's so contradictory that the Republican could not help but win the debate.
Gobels is looking up from hell -with admiration- at this guy's ability to twist the truth.
It's laughable.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jason: Did you mean Joseph Goebbels? He's my all-time demagogue superstar! "The task of propaganda must always be to appeal to the instinct of the masses, not the intellect".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes I did mean Goebbels. I try not to be too familliar with the man as he sickens me.
I may try the SA drinking game come Tuesday's debate...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Ah, so those who say "I don't think there really was a winner, to be honest, but by not getting gutter-stomped Bush won the battle" are propagandists?
Fascinating.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I was referring to (and quoting) Dick Morris of the Post actually. TO say "I think there was no winner" is a far cry from the clearly propoganda piece his little editorial is.
Dont be so touchy! Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
If we have to dismiss everything Dick Morris says in the New York Post, does this mean we have to dismiss everything Al Hunt says in the WSJ as right-wing claptrap?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dismiss everything except the voices in my head: they have a plan. They mentioned you specifically, David. Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I'm glad to know I've enriched people's lives here at Flare. Hopefully for good. If for evil, maybe that's not so bad. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Ah, so those who say 'I don't think there really was a winner, to be honest, but by not getting gutter-stomped Bush won the battle' are propagandists?"
Well, considering that that statement is more contradictory than even Kerry is accused of being...
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I think what he was trying to get at there was that neither Kerry nor Bush had a zinger, but that Bush still came out ahead with only a slightly diminished lead in the electoral vote. (A good site that updates daily, and run by a liberal, is Electoral Vote.) His polls went down some, but considering that Bush was losing the expectations game before the debate (i.e., talk yourself down so you look good by comparison), he did better than bad since he did not lose on every measure of the debates.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:...does this mean we have to dismiss everything Al Hunt says in the WSJ as right-wing claptrap?
In general I'd say that calling what's printed on WSJ opinion page right-wing claptrap, might be too kind.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jay, try watching an episode or two of The Capital Gang and I think you would find that not all members of the WSJ are conservatives or Republicans (or libertarians).
Perhaps I've been shadow boxing too much with what I'm trying to say. Most prominent editorial boards have someone from the other side. Examples are Nat Hentoff on the Washington Times, George Will on the Washington Post, David Brooks on the New York Times, and Alan Colmes on Fox News. Simply because someone like Dick Morris, a known liberal, writes a column for a conservative newspaper does not mean that his message was corrupted or pressured by his coworkers. Therefore, I don't buy TSN's criticism of his column where he said the debate was a draw in aggregate. I wouldn't deny that it's possible, but before someone with as independent spirit as Dick Morris is judged to be coerced, I'd like to see some more evidence.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote: Originally posted by David Sands: Jay, try watching an episode or two of The Capital Gang and I think you would find that not all members of the WSJ are conservatives or Republicans (or libertarians).
I see you've edited.
Anyway...
Come now, you're smart enough to know a caveat when you see one.
And you're also smart enough to know that my post was about the opinion page at the WSJ, so talking about the WSJ as a whole, is a misdirection.
And besides, anything the Capital Gang's only...a sample size of one?...WSJ member, Al Hunt, brings to the table is rendered unintelligible because I'm too busy retching when the camera turn to Robert Novak.
I'll have more to say about your look at editorial pages later...the wife and I have to go shopping for items for the new house...but one thing I find both interesting and illuminating, is that on your list of alleged editorial board equanimity leaves off the WSJ opinion page...the page we're presently talking about.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Yeah, I thought me calling them that was a little unfair. I was thinking of one subset of articles on that board when I wrote it and realized that didn't describe them all. Sarcasm just doesn't come through the printed word.
You're absolutely right, I forgot that Hunt technically isn't on the editorial board. I thought about it and realized he just pens articles for it occaisionally. That was a bad example on my part. I retract it. (As for Robert Novak, don't get me started...)
That said, I just haven't seen any documentation that Morris is being pressured to toe the line at the NYP. So while I cited one bad example, my core objection to TSN's criticism of using material from a liberal columnist employed by a conservative newspaper stands.
I meant to put it in a post last week, Jay, but (belated) congratulations on your house and child. You must be very proud.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I think what he was trying to get at there was that neither Kerry nor Bush had a zinger, but that Bush still came out ahead with only a slightly diminished lead in the electoral vote. (A good site that updates daily, and run by a liberal, is Electoral Vote.)"
I'm a big fan of electoral-vote.com, but bear in mind that it's just based on polls. Even the ones that are very obviously off. I mean, just look at the current projected final map. It's got Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island all going to Bush. Obviously, the numbers have to be taken with quite a few grains of salt, and maybe even some pepper.
Not to mention that even poll numbers that seem to make sense are unreliable, too. After all, we already know that Gallup (self-admittedly) oversamples Republicans. And SurveyUSA has admitted that they do no weighting of parties in their results at all.
So, basically, any polls or data based on polls need to be very carefully examined. Don't just accept the numbers printed in the newspaper.
"...and Alan Colmes on Fox News."
I'm not sure he helps your case. Alan Colmes is pretty much universally known to be a useless twat.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
MOrris doesant need pressure from his Post bosses: all the press has been sniffing for blood for the past month and circling Kerry as the likely loser (if only not to look bad if Bush wins with his polling spread).
If Kerry's numbers rise after the next debate, you'll see many in the press reverse their opinions.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
TSN: Yeah, I looked at the projected total today too. I had a tough time imagining Rhode Island going for Bush. I'm hoping he's going to have that software up soon to average the last three polls.
You're right about Gallup, but even our friend at Electoral Vote has said everyone might be wrong with the large number of foreign Americans voting this time. It could make a difference in Florida. I don't have much experience in polling, but I bet we're going to see some adjustments in how pollsters sample each constituency after November. The last word at this moment is that no one really knows how to get a good snapshot of what people in several key states are thinking. Frustrating to news junkies!
As for Alan Colmes, well, I can't say anything either way on that. Although I did see a respectable argument made that he might be one of the most influential liberals (among undecideds) in the media since Fox keeps bleeding the networks of viewers. I admire his manners too. No shouting guests down like other prominent journals who will go unnamed by me.
Jason: I keep hearing that the press wants a horse race (either way). I'm not sure they want to do the man in yet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
WAtch CNN: they turned on Kerry right after the RNC. It was as though someone threw a switch to "against" in their coverage. The next day they led with "Rumors of a possible shake up in the Kerry campaign in attempt to get back on track".
My jaw was on the floor" "rumors about a possible shake up?!?
Sounded so much like FOX, I had to check the channel.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I meant to put it in a post last week, Jay, but (belated) congratulations on your house and child. You must be very proud.
David, thank you very much.
I am.
Having a wee one alternately excites me tremendously and terrifies me....
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I just checked some of the blogs in my "Right Wing" file ... from RachelLucas.com, on Wednesday, Rachel writes:
"P.S. Tomorrow night, George Bush is going to make John Kerry look like a pure-D, grade-A, first-class jackass. And I am so positively full of delight and anticipation that I can hardly bear my own self right now."
She hasn't posted since ... must've killed herself from the shock.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Taking notes in that situation is so lame, though.
John Kerry: "Guys, check this out! It turns out that Bush is planning on using a 'stay the course' message in regards to foreign policy! Also he has attempted to characterize me as holding inconsistant positions."
Kerry Campaign Guru: "John Kerry you have blown this election wide-open with your fact-finding!!"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think Kerry should have just made a "jacking off" gesture when Bush was giving the same stock answers for the eleventy-billionth time.
Would've been historicaly funny.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Taking notes in that situation is so lame, though."
I'm sure they weren't permanent notes. I expect it was just a list of the points being made, so that they could address each one without having to say "and what was that other thing he mentioned?... um... oh, right".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, OK.
But I have so often taken fake notes it has infected my very world view.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Perhaps he was just writing his groceries list?
[ October 05, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Harry ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)