1st Presidential debate - who won?

Euler · 2004-09-30 21:02:16

I thought Bush was clearly winning in the first half hour, but Kerry finnished strong so I think it was about even.

BWhite · 2004-09-30 21:12:58

Kerry flip-flops?

President: “We won’t succeed if we send mixed signals” FACT: Bush sent mixed signals through his ambivalent approach to Fallujah. Marine Commander Lt. Gen. James T. Conway said, "When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to...not vacillate in the middle of something like that. Once you commit, you have to stay committed." [CNN, 9/14/04]

and

President: "You can not change positions in the war on terror if you expect to win"
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" (President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01)
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." (President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02)
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."([President Bush, 9/25/02)
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." (President Bush, 9/17/03)

Kerry did better.

Now lets see what the talking heads on cable say. :;):

Commodore · 2004-09-30 21:13:00

I agree. Kerry wasn't able to make anything stick, and Bush wasn't very agressive.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-30 21:35:41

good debate, lots happening
Kerry doesn't look solid enough with no real charm, points out many probelms but doesn't give answers, Kerry with no strong personality
Bush avoids questions and humms and errs like a school-kid, he was a bit shaken by some facts, Bush will use his old plan with no real outlook or new plan for dealing with the growing problems

http://www.jibjab.com/]http://www.jibjab.com/

' This Land '

The only way to look at an election that's going to get messy

BWhite · 2004-09-30 21:38:40

From http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php … 738]Andrew Sullivan:

No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash. That's all.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 22:16:08

Kerry spoke well about nothing, and Bush spoke poorly about substance. About even. Kerry did manage a few in-debate flipflops, like talking about Iraq being a mistake and then not a mistake, then later with the North Korea (bilateral or multilateral? How can you force me to choose!) He came off looking indecisive. Plus, there was the 'give nuclear fuel to Iran' thing, which was just... WTF.

On the other hand, Bush looked like his normal crappy public speaking self. He hit his points and occasionally tormented Kerry with past positions, but not often, and he mostly mailed in his performance. If Bush were a better public speaker, he'd have eviscerated Kerry, but he's a HORRIBLE public speaker.

So I call it an overall draw.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-01 05:17:03

Yes, about even. Both got in some hits, both performed utterly inline with expectations.

First question, Kerry is informed he has two minutes to respond, wastes half of it thanking everyone present, then gives a vaporous response "I believe I can make America safer..." Great plan John.

Bush kept refering to the same "mixed signals" examples over and over. First time it was a good hit, after that you just look like you're stalling for time, George.

Both are poor speakers and both have a bad stage presence, it was like watching Lurch and a monkey trying to sell... whatever substance was underneath it all.

Of course the Kerry people will see Bush's mistakes and think Kerry won, while the Bush people think Kerry's lack of details and generally poor showing make Bush the winner. I wasn't impressed with either, but about ten minutes into I got an idea that thanks to the wonders of modern technology quickly started making the rounds on a Naval base on the other side of the continent. A debate drinking game!

The simple rules are this: Everytime Kerry contradicts himself, do a shot. Everytime Bush makes up a word, shot. New cues were added since, but I've not yet got the complete list back from the drunken sailors.

smurf975 · 2004-10-01 05:30:14

Wouldn't it be better for the USA a president that doesn't do to much? I mean he will just manage (executive power of the federal government). And let the people and businesses do their things.

I think someone who just does his job and doesn't go into all weird and unsure endeavors is as good as anything else.

Palomar · 2004-10-01 07:43:26

First question, Kerry is informed he has two minutes to respond, wastes half of it thanking everyone present, then gives a vaporous response "I believe I can make America safer..." Great plan John.
Both are poor speakers and both have a bad stage presence, it was like watching Lurch and a monkey trying to sell...

:laugh:

My husband and I watched the entire debate. I thought Bush actually presented himself better than usual. He has some enunciation difficulties (as I'm sure we all know), and seemed to work harder to enunciate more clearly and I was surprised he managed to keep the pauses and ummmm's to a minimum. Big mistake, though, in some of the facial expressions he used. Bush should have worn his reading glasses and kept a straight face; he does look sharper and more Presidential when he wears his reading glasses.

Kerry was pretty much as I expected. An old friend of mine probably would have dubbed him what she dubbed Gore in 2000: "The wooden Indian."

--Cindy

P.S.: If Kerry does win the election, it's too bad we can't keep Laura Bush as First Lady. Teresa Heinz-Kerry may be fabulously wealthy, but she's frumpy and ackward. :-\ Laura is pretty and poised. Wonder which is smarter, though. :hm:

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-01 08:28:02

Some will look down on Bush now...don't mention the French
kind of a shame having a president who speaks worse English than me.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-01 08:55:48

It is to bad that during the primaries that we are left with only 2 terrible candidates only if we could invent the wildcard as a non party candidate, kind of like an independent to liven things up.
I guess it is time to do a write in vote.... or to chose the lesser of the two evils in this case..

clark · 2004-10-01 09:27:54

I don't know who won, but I know who lost... us.

smurf975 · 2004-10-01 09:32:16

It is to bad that during the primaries that we are left with only 2 terrible candidates only if we could invent the wildcard as a non party candidate, kind of like an independent to liven things up.
I guess it is time to do a write in vote.... or to chose the lesser of the two evils in this case..

Hey there is always Nader!!

Martian Republic · 2004-10-01 12:12:18

It is to bad that during the primaries that we are left with only 2 terrible candidates only if we could invent the wildcard as a non party candidate, kind of like an independent to liven things up.
I guess it is time to do a write in vote.... or to chose the lesser of the two evils in this case..
Hey there is always Nader!!

Now why did you make it the three stooges?

I thought two were bad enough.

Larry,

Palomar · 2004-10-01 13:11:28

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 50]Experts weigh in

*Kerry needs to work on his smile, needs to be more "engaging" of the public by looking into the camera (come to think of it, he didn't look at the camera once, that I saw)...and (most unflattering) one expert in body language criticizes Kerry for swaying like a horse! :laugh:

And Bush's smirk...no-no. Also faulted for becoming emotional.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-01 13:36:47

And Bush's smirk...no-no. Also faulted for becoming emotional.

That actually could be good for him. I've talked to several people today who liked that Bush didn't respond in a totally refined manner to Kerry's "global test" comment, and beginning a response with "that's just absurd" really sat well with some people, oddly enough.

I just thought it was funny.

clark · 2004-10-01 14:01:00

So what do you all think about what they said?

The end is nigh when it's more important to talk about how they said it instead of what they said. [sigh]

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-01 14:12:41

Bush said what he always says, failures and mistakes be damned and Kerry as always said next to nothing, but with nuance.

We've heard it all before...

clark · 2004-10-01 14:16:39

So it is just light soap opera then?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-01 14:25:29

So it is just light soap opera then?

Certainly not, it's our future on the line.

But I must confess that given some things that have come to my attention and educated projections ahead based on them, it really doesn't matter all that much. We're dealing with secondary variables now, the general course is set barring some unforeseen dramatic shift. Some will be good, some will be bad, but all that's at stake now is the details and the timing. How bad will the bad be, and how good the good within a narrow range? It's all tied together and cancels out in the face of developing trends.

It's gonna be quite a show, regardless.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-10-01 23:14:27

It seemed to me that Bush got hammered during the debate. Or perhaps nailed, it's diffuclt to tell, but bottom line is it was a pretty dumb move for him to agree to do the debates in the first place. Kerry's job is to get up in front of the senate and debate; Bush just really doesn't stand much of a chance against him because he doesn't deal with this sort of thing regularly. Does anyone know how many times Bush said "How can you call this the wrong war, wrong place, righ- wrong time?" I counted five.

Throughout the debate Kerry made better points, defended himself well, and kept his composure. Several times Bush was caught off gaurd and was left pounding his podium stammering to come up with a decent response. It seemed to me that Bush never actually defended himself against Kerry's attacks, he just made it look like he did while sputtering off on a different tangent. For example, when Kerry accused Bush of mishandling the war in Iraq, Bush brought up that Kerry approved going into Iraq in the first place. So what if he approved going there in the begining? Things were a lot different then, we had bad intelligence and thought that Bush had some kind of exit strategy, just because you're pro-liberating Iraqis doesn't mean that you have to blindly approve of how Bush has dealt with the war.

One of the things that Kerry is often accused of is not having a concrete plan for the war in Iraq. Quick question, what about Bush? When asked, Bush acts like the good little wind-up woody doll he is responds that he has the greatest faith in our ability to win in Iraq. That's great, George, I'm glad you're confident, but you haven't answered my question, what are you actually going to do? Bush is far more evasive on this issue than Kerry is, why hasn't anyone seemed to notice it?

One thing that I thought was particularly interesting was how, at the end, Kerry said that the greatest threat the US will face in the next four years is nuclear proliferation. Not Al-Quida, not the middle east, not the economy, but nukes. Nobody has seen nuclear proliferation as a serious issue since the fall of the Soviet Union, but Kerry is picking up that baton now. He did back himself up, however, saying that Iran and North Korea could pose threats to the US, and he may actually be right. Spooky, if nothing else.

DonPanic · 2004-10-02 04:01:13

LO
I don't know if Kerry will be able to restore mistrust between most of Europe opinion and USA, but whatever Bush diplomatic initiative is, first reaction is "what the hell that new trick is ?"

Palomar · 2004-10-02 07:48:02

LO
I don't know if Kerry will be able to restore mistrust between most of Europe opinion and USA, but whatever Bush diplomatic initiative is, first reaction is "what the hell that new trick is ?"

*Europe and the U.S. will likely only grow further apart based on other considerations. I don't know where Canada will fit in...

Anyway, based on what I've read in news reports and what European New Mars members have said, you guys have many immigrants from Middle Eastern lands -- especially France. Their roots obviously aren't European. Sure, in a couple of generations the immigrants' offspring will have assimilated, but not after changing the host culture. And certain traditions, observances, values, etc., will likely be retained. This is simply human nature and most people have a tendency to "look back" at the roots of their ethnicity and ancestors' background. Theirs isn't founded in Europe.

In the US we have a burdgeoning Hispanic population. Yes, some roots can be traced to Spain...but most Hispanics I know look to Mexico or Cuba or Puerto Rico as their cultural identity -- not Spain.

The Asian population is also swelling in the US. Obviously there is no "looking back to Europe" on their part, understandably.

99.5% of my ancestors were European. I view Europe as a "homeland" of sorts...but only vaguely; I've never been there, etc. When I look in the mirror I see a gal who looks Scandinavian, yet I completely identify myself as an American.

Added to the changing makeup by ethnicity in population, there's also the factor of the native European population seeming to be dwindling, i.e. low birth rates. I don't know a percentage comparison between native European birth rates and that of the US, but I am aware of a trend over here currently of people having 3 to 4 children. Especially the white folks back in the Midwest; it's not unusual for couples to have 4 or 5 children nowadays.

I see Europe and the US continuing to drift apart, by natural means mostly. Am not saying I want this to be; I just think it will happen. And politics will have little to do with it, nor Presidents, etc.

And that's a bit off-topic enough.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2004-10-02 09:11:54

There is also the political difference. As an example the kyoto accords Europe has for the most part ratified this treaty and now so has Russia it is beginning to leave the USA out on a limb about it. Actually most European countries are well on there way to actually meeting the targets that are needed or are taking alternative means to ensure compliance. Holland as an example will be building power infrastructure in lesser developed nations to pay for so called carbon credits.

We seem to have forces causing the two sides of the atlantic to be pushed apart politically and it is likely with the Nations of Europe becoming more centrallised and closer linked this will certainly be the future trend. How can this be resolved I dont know and with the USA already showing its eyes turning towards the Pacific rather than the atlantic it is likely the answer wont be found there.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-02 09:35:08

It seemed to me that Bush got hammered during the debate. Or perhaps nailed, it's diffuclt to tell, but bottom line is it was a pretty dumb move for him to agree to do the debates in the first place. Kerry's job is to get up in front of the senate and debate; Bush just really doesn't stand much of a chance against him because he doesn't deal with this sort of thing regularly. Does anyone know how many times Bush said "How can you call this the wrong war, wrong place, righ- wrong time?" I counted five.
Throughout the debate Kerry made better points, defended himself well, and kept his composure. Several times Bush was caught off gaurd and was left pounding his podium stammering to come up with a decent response.

Kerry started off dull and without any material
while Bush started off fine, talking about getting Saddam out, all the usual catch phrases 'fighting the war on terror and making Iraq free'. But later into the debate Kerry had shaken him with some points about the lies on war, cost of instability in the middle East , over-spending and body-count in Iraq. After this Bush started to stumble , err and stutter.

I also counted Bush using the term 'you can't send mexed missages ' about twice
yes that's not a type-error it was Bumbles Bush saying 'mexed missages' and fighting vociferously !
now we have some more Bushisms to add to the list

He's done funnier blunders with his words in the past
old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once....
...he forgets the ' old saying ' and Bush comes up with a new eminem / snoop-dog impression to hide the verbal stupidity.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library … olbush.mov
It was a big political mistake for him to have a live debate because his English is worse than mine.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-30 21:02:16

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#2 2004-09-30 21:12:58

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#3 2004-09-30 21:13:00

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#4 2004-09-30 21:35:41

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#5 2004-09-30 21:38:40

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#6 2004-09-30 22:16:08

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#7 2004-10-01 05:17:03

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#8 2004-10-01 05:30:14

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#9 2004-10-01 07:43:26

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#10 2004-10-01 08:28:02

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#11 2004-10-01 08:55:48

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#12 2004-10-01 09:27:54

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#13 2004-10-01 09:32:16

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#14 2004-10-01 12:12:18

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#15 2004-10-01 13:11:28

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#16 2004-10-01 13:36:47

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#17 2004-10-01 14:01:00

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#18 2004-10-01 14:12:41

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#19 2004-10-01 14:16:39

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#20 2004-10-01 14:25:29

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#21 2004-10-01 23:14:27

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#22 2004-10-02 04:01:13

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#23 2004-10-02 07:48:02

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#24 2004-10-02 09:11:54

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

#25 2004-10-02 09:35:08

Re: 1st Presidential debate - who won?

Board footer