The First Debate - Page 3

i think that, for many undecideds, they definitely do not want to vote for bush. however, the media and spin-machine have constantly made them doubt their support for kerry. they were desperate to see ANYthign smacking of professional steadfastness that the bush team says he doesn't have.

last night may have been all they needed.

Seems like the Political Outsider 'GOP' diehards have gone 'Missing in Action'

Follow in the footsteps boys!

Spaghetti Western Extra versus a Real Leader

When I hear Bush speak, I feel like I'm watching a spaghetti western: he is reading from a script in a language he doesn't understand. As soon as he strays from the script, or forgets his lines (or how to pronounce them), he reveals himself to be the mindless parrot he is.

And as far as Kerry flip-flopping? He evaluates new data and revises his analysis to take into account a broader range of knowledge. Lord I hope my doctor uses that same level of wisdom when he tells me what to do with this bottle of Vioxx.

Choose wisely.

I just love your post here.

You hit it.

Fellows

*rips self-imposed duct tape from mouth*


Shocking! I CAN"T believe GWB is inarticulate at times, just SHOCKING -- and in public too. I think this has got to be the first time this has been brought up on these forums. Time-sensitive information, indeed.

I didn't watch the debate, but it is riveting to watch this forum fall to the same death as nearly all others that dicuss GWB even tangentially.


Parrot.
Dunce.
Greedy Cracker.

Kerry? What's the choice? Rich or Richer?


Well, folks, (you Americans rather) wake up, put down the prescription meds, and slide the frisbee back under the couch -- because the two candidate are not addressing ANYTHING that really matters in America's future. Their respective parties and other power brokers simply want control to the White House, and giving you a Dog and Pony Show in return. Let's review:




One way or another, Iraq will solve itself, Kerry's being on all sides of the issue, and GWB on only one side, nothwithstanding. Iraq is a done deal, crying over it will not improve math socres in America, nor will it address the fact that Social Security is almost broke, and that America, without substantial immigration, can't maintian the stable increase in population growth needed to support the Baby Boomers that are, even now, beginning to retire en mass. Health care costs? What health care costs? Nursing shortage? What nursing shortage---hey, isn't Fear Factor on?

--hell, maybe you guys should pull that frisbee back out.

Whaht Buish relly sid:
"I wnat nucular war It's haerd wrork end funn"

Sad reality:
Saddam, Osama, vegetables, slugs and sea urchins are smarter than Bush.

Students across all states are extremely anti Bush, indeed there are no republican voter registrations on campuses. Everybody with just a small amount of education and brain has to be anti Bush after this debate. Bush is STUPID!!!!!!!!

Or maybe I am too stupid to fully understand his superior intelligence. It's hard work to be that stupid, showing intelligence and knowledge sends mixed messages to our uneducated youth.

Kerry does flip-flop. Even during the debate he proposed both bilateral and multilateral talks with North Korea AT THE SAME TIME.

He chastized Bush for using our allies with North Korea and chastized him for using Afghan troops in Afghanistan. Then proposes exactly the same thing as a better solution in Iraq. It isn't even different factors that leads to these different actions, it is nothing but the politics of convenience. He may have said this nonsense more clearly, and looked more rested, but the reality is that when people look at the actual statements and policies surrounding themm the result is almost always bad for Democrats. This is why the results may start out strong for the instant response, but as time goes on, and something besides the thinking of how tanned someone is, or whether he slotched kicks in, the result is always worse for Democrats.

I can love the look of the car. I can love the smell of the car. I can enjoy the test drive. However it is when the numbers are sitting on the table that the thought process kicks in.

Here is a perfect example of something that probably sounded great and was well delivered but the ramifications behind it are terrible and terrifying.



Hey, if we can convince the world, then it is okay to actually protect the United States, but if they don't buy into it.... well I guess that is just too bad for us.

Nick

"From: California"

enough said

two words: arnold schwarzenneggar

Doesn't it even raise one iota of self-reflection to have just come onto a thread about the debates, immediately taken a stance that is tantamount to critiquing Kerry's presentation (with a pslight pretence towards also critiquing Bush) and THEN admitting that you didn't EVEN WATCH THE DEBATES-?!?!?!?!?

How do you know that Kerry did not address "anything that mattered"?

I think maybe you should crawl back under that rock now . . .

I don't remeber that

But, I wouldn't say that it is impossible . . . . and not even a bad idea . . .
in fact, it is a rather good idea.
More talks . . . we talk with NK about everything that is a real issue with regards to them and SK and the world
and then
Get this one Trumpt . . . let's see if its possible
We also have a 6-way talk that includes other nations, such as China

Seems to me that China would want to be in on talks in some capacity, while at the same time not being bogged down with the minutia of dealing with DMZ issues and repatriations and SK visitor rights issues . . .

hmmmm?!?!

Seems like you don't know what you're talking about.


No, politics of convineience is using ragged bands of near thugs to do our mountain fghting for us . . . hell, the people are fondly reffered to as "Warlords"!!
As far as NK, he was chastizing Bush for breaking off relations then much later, after it was revealed that Bush's 'hard-line' stance (which, unfortunately, sounds good and tough, but is really just stupid) pushed them further into developing weapons, he opened multilateral discussion

Weren't you paying attention to the crisis in NK?!

Don't you remember the length of time when Bush was playing some strange Fantasy Poker Hold-Em and refusing to even acknowledge NK, and even went as far as humilating envoys that were supposed to come for talks?
What were you doing during that time?
practicing scales on the trombone?


I will attemnpt to translate this:
Just because Kerry looked and sounded better and did a better job doesn't mean that I won't spend the next two weeks trolling freeper sites and Hard-core NeoCon blogs that will tell me how good Bush was and reinforce my forgone-at-all-costs-conclusions about the minor-diety-known-as-GWB


You know what, when I heard Kerry say that and Bush's retort, I knew one thing . . . I said to myself, the GOP will use that against Kerry (in the manner which Trumpt just did) BUT that is all that it reveals . . . kerry left himself open to a rhetorical trick . . . it means nothing and you know it . .
You post it as some kind of problem with Kerry, but it isn't at all, it is only a chance for you to swing that dead-cat rhetorical malarky . . .

The difference between being diplomatic and open to a world of other nations, working alongside and with and sometimes against
and being beholden to them for your own pretection is night-and-day
and if you believe that Kerry intends the latter than you are willfully believing lies.
How could a man who has pledged to strenthen, both physically and strategically, the US military be giving away the control of the government

That is an empty GOP 'principle' issue . . . its like allegience based on voice and posture . . .

If you didn't watch the debate, then how in the hell do you know what the candidates did or did not address??? Kerry addressed a hell of a lot that matters to our future. Watch the debate.

Simply not true. Watch the debate. Here, it's on the C-Span front page: http://www.c-span.org/

How is that a flip-flop? The both aren't mutually exclusive... you can have multilateral and bilateral talks at the same time. He even said it would work because China has a big interest in North Korea, and so resuming bilateral talks wouldn't make them pull out, because regardless, they have a big interest in North Korea.


Wrong, he chastised Bush for ending the bilateral talks with North Korea, not for using our allies. Afghanistan: our troops should be going after Al Queda, not the Afghan troops who were on the other side of the fence just a little while before. And it is a better solution for Iraq - we made the wrong choice in going to Iraq how we did, and now it's a mess. Bringing in our allies will only help to improve the Iraq fiasco.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that it's not possible to have bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time. Oddly enough, China, one of the participants in the current multilateral talks, has been trying to convince Bush to enter bilateral negotiations.

Now, maybe such simulataneous negotiations would be impossible for Bush to grasp and deal with, but we can solve that little stumbling block easily enough.


You continue to labor under the same false assumption here that multilateral and bilateral talks are mutually exclusive. They aren't, therefore your "flip-flop" claim doesn't stand up.

Looks like we we're working on posting pretty much the same thing at the same time.

well, bob novak gave kerry the lowest scorecard score of a "D" for content. everyone else had him at B level vicinity. then again, i guess the onyl way kerry could get an "A" from novak would be to name at least three CIA operatives by name in his answers...

Or promise to lower Bob's taxes.

Fact is Kerry won the debate and George showed his true colors. George struggled and continued to stumble on Saddam, Bin Laden should have been his focus as Kerry said. Having served in the military if i had to choose from these two guys it would be a no brainer i would want Kerry leading me or my son into battle not chickenhawks like George and Dick. Chickenhawks find it easy to send others to die for their bullshit. Iraq is a mess and Bush has no idea what to do.Kerry has some good ideas. Sure Saddam is in Jail but he isnt the one who was behind 911 George. George is out of touch with reality. it was very obvious watching the debate. we need a Democrat in the whitehouse to balance the Republican congress anyways so im voting for Kerry. my first time voting for a Democrat.

I am registered as an independent and have previously voted for libertarian candidates. Last nights debate restored a bit of my faith in democracy. As much as I dislike how our country is currently being run, at least the system isnt a complete failure. A real challenger was given the chance to directly challenge our president in a public forum. Let us hope that this never changes.

Now for my analysis:
-------------------------
I'm glad to see that many others share my perception of what went on in the first debate.

Kerry articulated his stance on foreign policy, specifically stating what he would do in a coherent manner. Bush seemed to stumble along, harping on his steadfast nature but never really explaining how his policies differ from Kerrys.

As an American, I am embarrassed that our president is unwilling or unable to present and justify his views. Instead, he thinks its more important to convince people that he never changes his mind, even when presented with new evidence.

Scariest of all?

Bush was explicit in stating that he is unwilling to discuss anything with North Korea. A country on the verge of becoming a nuclear power and Bush wont even talk to them. In fact, thats his entire foreign policy. Just do whatever the he wants with complete disregard to the new intelligence and the other six billion people on the planet.

In general, refusing to talk to others and refusing to consider new evidence is a foolhardy way to make any decision. When the decision is to invade and occupy another country, I prefer someone with a clear and analytical thought process. Instead, were stuck with someone who thinks its more important to appear resolute than to make correct decisions.

Id rather hurt troops feelings then alienate and enrage the entire planet by continuing a failed invasion and occupation. Which is worse, to make somebody feel bad or to perpetuate a situation in which tens of thousands of people are dieing? Bush is destabilizing the entire planet, and in the process, breeding a whole new generation of USA hating terrorists.

Hopefully, others who watched the debate will come to similar conclusions.

dfiler i agree about scariest of all, George can not admit he ever does wrong. this isnt a good trait.

iam independent so just wanted to say that though i have usually backed the republican side more so.

+1, can anyone think of a time when he has ever taken responsibility for anything that went wrong?

Frankly, I think the alternative - not caring a whit about how the world sees your actions - is even more terrifying. There's a fine line between "pre-emption" and "naked aggression". The only difference lies in the motivation of the two parties, not their actual actions. To bring up an obvious historical example, Japan pre-emptively attacked the US in 1941 because they saw us a short-term (embargo) and long-term (fleet size) threat to their power in East Asia. They were right, on both counts. I don't think anyone, however, would cite Pearl Harbor as an example of the Bush Doctrine in action. Why is that?

Kerry's point is that if you're going to wage aggressive war, the bar for evidence supporting the idea of an imminent threat has to be set very high. If you can't convince anyone else in the world that such a threat exists, well, first of all you ought to begin to doubt the strength of your own evidence. Second of all, if you go to war anyway, you'll end up creating more enemies than you destroy. Going to war for no good reason, or a reason no one else can understand, is almost the definition of a rouge state. I don't want my country to fall into that category. I can imagine no more dangerous world to live in than one where the United States of America's only source of influence is the barrel of a gun, and war is the only tool we have left for protecting our interests.

Some of you are so out of touch . The President did a fantastic job. He was strong and resolute and spoke to the people. His popularity can only rise after the debate.

Bush 55%
Kerry 45%

Moe

haha, common man, that's funny

anyway . . . this from Salon:

This is so perfect that I had to post it for you Commoner:

I don't agree. All I've heard from the Bush administration up to this point is Kerry is a flip-flopper, we need to get those darn terrorists, we're doing a great job in Iraq, etc, etc.

Last night the president had a real chance to talk to the American people, to explain what the hell we're doing in Iraq, provide an exit strategy, to explain why we aren't going after Osama bin Laden, to explain a lot of things. But I don't feel that he gave us any specifics. Well, I guess he did give us one thing specific: keep training the Iraqi police/military/national guard; he said 100,000 Iraqis have been trained thus far... but NBC news has been reporting there aren't that many but just under 50,000 (citing the Iraqi prime minister on this number).

Bush tried to discredit Kerry on his Iraq policy by saying he's disrespectful to the troops, you can't get anything done when you talk like that, etc... but what is Bush's Iraq policy? He hasn't laid anything out and I'm disappointed in him.

I love reading all of your posts on this board. So typical in your hatred for Bush that you immediately go after his delivery and his so-called unintelligence. As Kerry says, its just more of the same. Bush has heard these same criticisms most of his political life, and all he does is win; Ann Richards, and Algore most recently. I mean, all Kerry has ever done in his 20 odd years in the senate is debate, thats what senators do. Of course his delivery and presentation will seem better. The difference in all of this is that Kerry, like most elitists in the Democratic party, is a thinker. He thinks he has all the answers, he thinks he has the plans. What are they? How will he implement them? And what happens when thinkers are leaders? They end up sitting around at a summit of some sort and talk and talk and talk, and nothing ever happens. Bush on the other hand is a believer, he says what he means, he means what he says, he talks the talk, walks the walk, he acts. He believes what he believes. Kerry believes what you want him to. Bush doesn't change based on the audience.

Listen, we can sit and argue all day long about politics, and never come to an understanding, let alone an agreement. But for Christ's sake, don't nail a man to the wall because he seems arrogant, or aloof, or monarchistic. The message is what matters. Bush's message is clear, understandable and consistently principled. He is who he is, he wears his heart on his sleeve. All I know is that you can think that 9/11 was a one time deal, to be dealt with in a old-fashioned police manner. Go on living your life like its September 10th, you'll feel better. But here in reality, you have to take the fight to the terrorists before it ends up on your doorstep again. A September 12th mentality is what it takes to lead this nation, and Bush has that.

End rant.

Here are some links to check out also here and here.

We will have to see how the polls respond. but I suspect little or no change. The President is telling the truth. There is no time table for this war. There can't be. We are in this for the long hall and he admits it.

Where's that blinders image when you need it . . .

I do have to say that for all the comments about the debates lacking substance, last night was the most substance from either side that I've seen the whole time.

That's rich!

"Don't nail a man to the wall because he seems arrogant, or aloof, or monarchistic"...Hm...I'll have to remember that...for next time Cheney opens up his dour piehole for the next round of repugnant anti-Kerry character assassination.


That's just silly and actually scary!

http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=1727


Chronically Biased has a nice analysis of the debate.

Right and so is Bush, worst of all.

Mr. Bush, bilateral and multilateral talks ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

From my prespective it's akin to putting the manhole cover back on the sewer.

Because they want to be elected, not address serious issues. That third rail will have to wait until after the election.

This bugged me. WRT diplomacy vs. force in Iraq, he kept repeating the same talking points he used in the run-up to the war: Saddam will never voluntarily disarm, inspections have failed, diplomacy will never work, the only way to disarm him is by force, etc etc.

Except for that niggling little detail that's come to light since the war: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had already been disarmed.

Yet the President resolutely fails to even acknowledge that fact. Not only does he say he'd still have gone to war, knowing everything that we know now. He even speaks about it as it we found those weapons and proved him (Bush) right.
1. He had already been disarmed, evidently. 2. See #1. 3. I thought we were officially all the way down to "weapons-related program activities"? That's not "capability".

It's this complete refusal to acknowledge reality that scares me the most about him. Words do not make reality go away.

Towel makes a nice post about Bush and WMDs and Saddam was disarmed by his father for the most part. I dont want a kid of mine dieing for this. ChickenHawks..............

are you kidding?

Yeah, that seems like a good reason to give the round to Bush...

and common man's link:

that came right outa this

comeon fellas, you can do better then that...

No, they can't.