almost convinced me he wasn't full of crap. Go Kerry.
And he made absolute sure that he reminded everyone that he fought in Vietnam. Ok... we know.
For the first half hour, the debates went very well. Each candidate had good points. Bush was doing alright; even used a big word and pronounced it correctly: "flagitiously." Go Bush.
But then the reasons for going to war came up. Everytime Kerry cornered Bush, instead of defending himself, Bush brought up the trite "flip-flopping" of Kerry. It was quite ridiculous. I hope Bush-supporters can at least see the "dodge-and-spin." No doubt his advisors told him to do that if ever he couldn't answer a question. Well it's better than stuttering for 90 seconds I suppose.
Jim Lehrer was a very good moderator. But partway in I started to notice a slight bias against Bush. The questions seemed to question Bush's actions. The were objectively worded, but as time went on I noticed they seemed to be questioning Bush's policies more than anything, putting Bush on the defensive.
Is it because, when scrutinized objectively, Bush comes up as a bad leader? Maybe. Then again an incumbent President obviously is going to have to defend his actions.
Then the question came: Lehrer asked for specifics on Kerry's plans for Iraq. To my suprise, Kerry actually had a plan. Concentrate first and foremost on sealing up Iraq's borders. Put pressure on trouble spots. TRAIN THE IRAQIS TO FIGHT. Now I'm not a war expert but it sounds like Kerry has an idea of what he's doing. The allegations of being "unfit to command" seem more like propaganda than actual truth.
Now I have often worried about what Bush would be like as a lame-duck President with nothing to lose. A very dangerous thing. Acting so gung-ho on your first term, one can only imagine what it's going to be like if reelected. But to my great, great relief, Bush seems to have learned from Iraq. Although his pride prevented him from admitting (or perhaps the stakes of his political career, Bush-supporters don't want to hear him admit that he made a mistake, though you can tell he knows he does), I think he has grown. His heart seems to be in the right place, he's just a moron. But perhaps he won't act so rashly if reelected, he now seems to understand the importance of having allies, and more importantly, having a plan.
"All-volunteer army" -BUSH THANK GOD ALMIGHTY!
And thank God I don't live in Russia. America will not collapse into a police state.
No, it will happen more slowly than that...
Well my faith in America went up a little bit. Kerry's ratings will certainly go up after this. It's going to be a tight race.
Bush kept trying to remind everyone that among our NUMEROUS allies is Great Britain. From all the statistics I have heard over the last several months, about 70% of the British citizens have opposed the war. And who can blame them, having seen George Dumbya Bush blunder into it, lie about the circumstances that got us into it, and refuse to admit he was wrong?
Now come the debates on the economy, where the very same jerk will try to convince the nation that it makes sense to give a huge tax cut to the rich while we are pouring billions and billions into a war that should never have been started and could have been dealt with in a much more economical and less bloody way. All the while, Americans are out of work, without health care, and their old age security threatened.
"But it's getting better."
Let's get it much better, much faster! Vote for yourselves! Vote for John Kerry on November 2.
It seemed to me that Kerry had the questions or at least some of the questions ahead of time. We noticed that as Jim was reading the question Kerry would start nodding before he finished the question like he recognized what was going to be asked. Then most of the questions were geared to put Bush on the defensive. Very few if any to put Kerry on the defensive. Bush clearly was not prepared for some of the questions which seemed to take him by surprise.
Then at the end of the debate, Bush's closing statement which was prepared was much better.
Now when it was over, the protocol is to walk over and shake Jim's hand before doing anything else. Kerry didn't do that in fact seemed to go out of his way to avoid Jim. Was he feeling guilty because he got the questions ahead of time?
It seemed that all the questions where to get Bush off balance and on the defensive which is exactly what happened.
Many are saying that Kerry won the debate. I think Kerry was more articulate but Bush had more substance. Kerry flip flopped again about Iraq right in the debate.
Does anyone know what Kerry believes and what he will do in Iraq?
Kerry says (not necessarily in this debate) that Bush and the US went alone into Iraq but yet said he would handle N. Korea alone.
I agree Ron, that the questions seemed to put Bush on the defensive, but to say Kerry had the questions ahead of time?!
Just admit it: Kerry is a better speaker than Bush.
You can have your opinion on how he will do as President, because good speaker does not equal good leader, but Kerry is quite clearly a better speaker.
not that any of that matters, the issues and substance of the debate is what matters; but don't start coming up with some conspiracy theory hooplah just because Bush isn't a good speaker.
I didn't watch it, not sure if it was even broadcast here (probably was on cnn or something), but Kerry's nodding could indicate he understands where the question is going before it's finished being asked. A lot of good speakers do this. He could have guessed many of the potential questions and prepared, but knowing them ahead of time, to me, seems far fetched for this kind of high-profile debate.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
I don't know how far fetched the idea is about giving Kerry the advantage of knowing the questions ahead of time. It's been pretty obvious that there has been a media bias against Bush throughout this entire year, so it wouldn't surprise me.
But I have to agree with Dekka, I think overall, Kerry is a better speaker...or rather a better speaker as politicians go. Bush still has that down home Texas good ol' boy persona and that presence has always been a part of his demeanor. Categorically Kerry did much better at speaking, however both made very good points.
I remember Bush bringing up the flip-flopping in the beginning, after Kerry had made comments about Iraq. However one time the flip-flop issue was completely relevant to Kerry's previous statement: Kerry was commenting that he'd met with the parents and loved ones of soldiers in Iraq who were buying protective military gear over the internet and sending it to their active duty son or daughter overseas, because the soldiers were not properly equipt over there...and that was wrong. Good point...great point..BUT... Bush later retorted about Kerry voting for the war in Iraq, but against the $87 billion surplus for the soldiers, that would arm them with the weaponry and protective gear for the war. Which was true. In other words, how can Kerry shift blame to Bush for our troops not having the proper gear to protect themselves, when he himself voted against it?
Personally I'd rather have any two other nutjobs running for the presidency besides these two idiots. Sorry if I offended any supporters by referring to their candidate as an idiot.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
He may be a good speaker but he was still lying during it.
1.) Diversion of troops from Afganastan to Iraq. Not true. We increased the number of troops from 8000 to 9000 in Afgananstan at the onset of the Iraq invasion.
2.) Defered funds from Afganastan to Iraq. Not true. 700 million was alotted to Iraq and 800 million alotted to Afganastan.
3.) Bush let Korea build Nukes while attacking Iraq. Not true. Koreas had nukes before Bush was elected.
Just a sample of untruths presented to the nation last night by John Fonda Kerry.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
3.) Bush let Korea build Nukes while attacking Iraq. Not true. Koreas had nukes before Bush was elected.
Just a sample of untruths presented to the nation last night by John Fonda Kerry.
This is a sample of untruths presented to the nation today by right wing spin-mister's like usa1
Kerry did not claim that North Korea lacked nuclear weapons prior to the Iraq war. His statement indicates that he was referring to North Korea's recent dramatic increase in nuclear capabilities.
KERRY: For two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.
The right wing spin-misters are out in full force this morning trying to con Americans into believing what they heard last night was not what was said.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
gaboman said this in post #6 : I didn't watch it, not sure if it was even broadcast here (probably was on cnn or something), but Kerry's nodding could indicate he understands where the question is going before it's finished being asked. A lot of good speakers do this. He could have guessed many of the potential questions and prepared, but knowing them ahead of time, to me, seems far fetched for this kind of high-profile debate.
I have to agree with Grant on this. It did show that Kerry understood the question. Suggesting that he knew the questions ahead of time is a bit out there. Bush is not as good of a speaker as Kerry is. Kerry did very well. Bush stuck to the same old mantra of "kerry has no plan" or the whole flip flop mantra when he did not want to answer a question.
Lie #3
KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he‘s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea‘s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.
North Korea had cukes before Bush took office.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
USA1 said this in post #13 : Lie #3
KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he‘s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea‘s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.
North Korea had cukes before Bush took office.
North Korea also had Nukes before Bush took office. It's not the point. Kerry never claimed otherwise. Kerry did point out that they now have between 4 and 7 nukes which they didn't have before.
Iran is another example of a country that was and is a bigger threat but Bush turned a blind eye to them.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
Also, in regards to the $87 Billion surplus for the soldiers...If I remember correctly, i thought Kerry had a pretty honest answer. He explained that the vote was a mistake(something Bush does not have the ability to do) and that at the time of the vote, Bush had broken so many promises to America about how we was going to go about handling the Iraq situation that Kerry used the vote as a way to speak politically about how he felt the situation was being handled. People don't have to agree with it, and he said he has learned not to "speak" in that fashion. I guess you can believe him if you want to, but for me, Kerry does not have to be perfect. Nobody is. But being able to have the courage to say when you were wrong is a positive characterisitic IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I am not sold on Kerry yet, although he will be getting my vote. Voting against the $87 Billion was probably the biggest mistake he has made...but this is politics people, and I can understand what he was saying about the statement he was trying to make with voting against it. Not that it makes it right, but I accept his explanation.
As for Bush, I can't understand how any one can watch him last night and actually try to defend him today. I thought Kerry slaughtered him on the international alliance issues and also on North Korea amongs others. I thought one of the highlights for Kerry was when he responded to Bush's remarks on Northe Korea and bilateral talks by saying something along the lines of..."just because this President says something can't work, doesn't mean that is the case". So true...unfortunately for Kerry he is also held to the same standards and I think he needs to be careful about the promises he makes, because who ever is elected has a hell of a job in front of them.
In my opinion it was a break through night for Kerry. We'll see what happens from here, but I think a lot of undecided voters may have been swayed towards Kerry last night.
And by the way...any guesses how many times Bush said..."look, this is hard work" You're right George, doesn't get any harder than President of the USA, let us know if you are not up for the challenge.
10-01-2004 03:35 AM
