Kerry Tanked it?

[no1tovote4]

Wow I went to another site I post at, it is chock-filled with Democrats. They are saying that Kerry is doomed. I was shocked. Everyone here seems to say it was a wash except the Democrats. The Democrats on that site and the Libertarians were all saying that Bush pointed out Kerry's errors effectively and clearly and right after he made them, even though he stuttered through a few answers.

I am shocked.

Did people on this site watch a different debate?

 

[-Cp]

Wow I went to another site I post at, it is chock-filled with Democrats. They are saying that Kerry is doomed. I was shocked. Everyone here seems to say it was a wash except the Democrats. The Democrats on that site and the Libertarians were all saying that Bush pointed out Kerry's errors effectively and clearly and right after he made them, even though he stuttered through a few answers.

I am shocked.

Did people on this site watch a different debate?

What's the URL for that other site? I'd like to see that myself...

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

That's weird. I didn't get to see the entire debate, but from what I did see I thought both had a couple of uneasy moments, but both did great for the most part. No clear cut winner from what I saw. If they think Kerry bombed, far be it for me to change their mind, though.

 

[Comrade]

I copied and pasted this excerpt from the board I formerly condemed before I came to USMessageBoard.Com, which I consider predominately composed of 'informed' leftists:

My feel is that the moderate DEMS on most liberal boards have the same doubts about Kerry as they did before the debate, and that the remainder of the far left is still ready to to Kerry with the same fervour as before without rejoicing over some new victory per the debate.

Here is the section (without linking per rules) I copied from that thread I pulled by revisiting the board I used to frequent before I found my true home here:

Who won the debate?

jokerman Date: 30 Sep 04 19:32 [ Link to Post ]

So the debate is ending even as I type this. Who do you think won?

My opinion?

Kerry was approximately 100 million light years in front. (admittedly the lightyear is an unusual metric to use for this)


Kerry spoke in complete sentences and was very coherent. Bush yammered like an insane hand puppet.

Among Bush's howlers:

75% of Al quieda has been eradicated.

Iraq is going to have a pro-American, democratic government and be a partner in the war against terror.

MissPooh Date: 30 Sep 04 20:03 [ Link to Post ]

Are you kidding? It was almost painful to watch.

Here's this articulate, intellligent, polite straight-standing statesman, very personable and up on all his facts. Kerry.

And as his worthy opponent . . . .Bush? GW slouched, fidgeted, repeated himself and generally came off as an uneducated and stupid good-old-boy.

No wonder the rest of the world eyes America with more than a little nervousness these days.


Demonweed Date: 30 Sep 04 20:25 [ Link to Post ]


As I'm now hearing some pundits already observe (and as was predictable after the convention coverage) C-SPAN was the way to watch this one. I gather on the commercial broadcasts the camera cut between head shots of whoever was speaking. When the debate actually got underway, C-SPAN stuck with a split screen of the two candidates, so it was possible to see Dubya smirking and shaking his head and even having a boggle moment or two. Frankly, I was unimpressed with Kerry, as I expected greater forensic skill from an experienced trial attorney not to mention a man who in the past has delivered some brilliant improvised public remarks. He was clearly far more poised and conversant than Dubya, but at times I stared at the screen and thought, "is the process so far gone that we really have been reduced to a competition between shades of mediocrity?" Admittedly, Kerry was probably heeding advice to remain reserved and avoid visible aggression, and he even got a little bit snippy when the President usurped from the moderator discretion over which questions would be extended by a round of 30 second rebuttals. Still, Dubya's lapses in respect seemed to outweigh Kerry's, especially if reactions during opponent's speeches are considered. I do have one positive thought though -- even though it remain civil and it was clear most of the comments were echoes of rehearsals and prep sessions rather than reactions to the moment at hand, there was still some genuine clash in this debate. Given the restriction of the format, I expected a lot more "two ships passing in the night" than there actually was. With any luck, this will place policy issues above personal attacks and historical nitpicking for the remainder of the campaign.

Regards,
Demonweed

Dubya is always smirking to the eyes of the Bush hater.

Chemboy Date: 30 Sep 04 20:31 [ Link to Post ]

Miss Pooh-

I'll go a step further (and be partisan as hell to boot)-

JK - Focused on where he thinks the real threat of terrorism lies - Al-Qaeda. Makes a point of focusing on hunting him down in Afghanistan instead of chasing a chimerical lead in Iraq (misconception? excuse? does it matter?)

GWB - Sounds like he sees threats everywhere. Speaks of a global "they", and includes Saddam Hussein by proxy. Speaks of shadowy enemies which could be anywhere - very reminiscent of Cold War paranoia. Did we really elect this insecure old lady? (Don't answer that, I know the controversy).

I can't wait for the VP debates. Do you think Cheney will drop the F-bomb again?

Demonweed - that actually was an excellent objective analysis on your part, and pretty much on the mark (although I don't know how much forensic evidence anyone is supposed to be able to recall with a 90-second to 2-minute time frame). I doubt that the media will be so thorough.

All the tired cliches in intact from this poor sap.

shvelt_papala

I got to see the last 20seconds of Bush's closing speech (freaking time difference)... But for those 20 seconds he formed: Zero complete sentances... nice little three... word linked stuff... but no real... coh-here-en-see that i .. could really tell.......

get the picture.

And he closed with G-d Bless America....... oh Lrd.....

papala

"God Bless America" really pisses off the hard left, who refuse to even spell out the "o" in "God" as if the very word is as offensive to them as 'F-ck'.

How can you not pity such people?

Chordata

I had really expected Bush to be on top of his game for the debate n terrorism and foreign policy, since that is his primary stumping focus. Kerry splits his time more with health care and the economy.

Wrong debate.

As noted, though, Kerry was more coherent, and more eloquent in his speaking. Now, there are policy issues I have with Kerry, and others I have with Bush. If I evaluate the debate on the issues alone, I have to call it a wash as far as I'm concerned.

Kerry certainly won the presentation part of this debate, though. Bush looked agitated, um-ed and ah-ed at the beginning of almost every answer he gave, and repeated himself constantly and unnecessarily. Actually, Bush sounded a bit lost at times. I was really shocked with his poor performance. Of course, it was just a performance. It's the substance everyone should be judging.

Fair answer. Rare on this site.

MissPooh

C-Span was the way to watch the debate. It just happened to be the first channel that I ran across on satellite that was carrying the debates.

The constant comparison between the two candidates was glaring.

I noticed that Bush did throw in the old "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" bit to scare the old lady voters.

Fox and CNN did the same comparison, I noticed. Scaring old ladies by saying what?

Bizilbur

When deciding who won the debate, remember that a large part of voting america will go on gut instincts. Therefore, Bush was fidgeting, slouching, what not, but he was still the more endearing candidate, despite Kerry's attempts to try not to be a stuffy college professor (which is why he wasn't as eloquent as he normal is).

So, I dont believe there was a real winner. Bush won the loveable issue, Kerry won the intelligence issue, and about the real debate, they both clearly won a few of the issues. What was accomplished was a solidification of candidate positions, giving the non-decided voters an easier time to decide. Perhaps the town-hall style debate next week will create a clear winner.

My favorite part was when Kerry said "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear, proliferation." in an effort to make Bush say it, and thereby mess it up. Too bad Bush didn't mess it up though.

Calls American's stupid, yet his last observation, is, shall we say, retarded?

Chemboy

In fairness, the in-house responses are mostly on the lib side - I'd sort of like to hear a balancing assessment form a conservative republican on the board. This is an honest and open invitation - you may be argued with, but you should be heard. There's not a lot to learned when a whole bunch of like-thinking people get together and violently agree with each other.

Obviously a cry for me and others which once tried to post fairly, to come back and aim both barrels into the leftist rants on this board. Screw them!

MissPooh

Bush? Loveable?

What were you smoking during the debate?

She loaths Bush!

Coco Solo

A tie. And with a tie Bush comes out ahead with the debate not hurting him.

Bush came into the debate with the public having a low expectation of him as a public speaker. His performence was adequate, not spectacular but he got his points across. Bush did seem to run out of steam about two thirds through.

Kerry was hurt by the format of the debate. He couldn't indulge in his love of nuances within the time limits. So Kerry hammered on Iraq being a colossal mistake and in the next breath have us believe he'll get the French and Germans to join in that colossal mistake. Kerry also came across as too much of an internationist, his global test for US actions will hurt him.

I can't believe Coco is still posting there. He was the token righty before I left.

ttogreh

Coco Solo,

A tie on the perceived strongest issue for Shrub? That is very bad, indeed, for neo-conservatives and the others hoping for four more years of environmental rape, preemptive pointless war, and budgetary plunder. Kerry showed himself to be competent, personable, and able to articulate a cohesive vision for the future.

What I truly fear is the vice presidential debates. Dick Cheney will eat John
Edwards alive.

Coco has a thankless task, poor soul.

MissPooh Date: 30 Sep 04 22:24
Hominidae
Posts: 2,651
Since: 18 Jan 2003

Oh, I don't know. John Edwards has a good head on his shoulders and should be able to debate well. He's an attorney and they're usually good at arguing.

If I were John Edwards, I'd go for the throat with the Halliburton ties.

Ties being specifically something which enriches Cheney despite his full divestment.

Scooter Date: 30 Sep 04 22:29 [ Link to Post ]
Primates
Posts: 1,969
Since: 27 Nov 2001

The veep debates mean nothing. Lloyd Bentsen ate Dan Quayle for lunch and it didn't help Dukakis one bit. And any attempt to paint Edwards as an ambulance chaser will just open the door for accusations that Cheney is letting his old friends make profits on the blood of American boys.

It will be nasty, but it will mean nothing.

True enough.

shvelt_papala Date: 30 Sep 04 22:32 [ Link to Post ]
Chordata
Posts: 318
Since: 1 Apr 2004

If I were Edwards... I would hit up the Halliburton ties for sure...

But why not poke a little bit at the fact Cheney is the #2 guy ina party who would treat his daughters as un-equal (inferior?) human beings? Or how about

If I were Edwards, my primary goal would be to make Cheney angry. Make him blow up. It'd be tricky, but I think Ed could do it.

I'm not too worried about the meat of the debate. Ed seems to be a good speaker, and Dick is capable. Should be mostly on par.

papala

No swing voter there.

Au79 Date: 30 Sep 04 22:36 [ Link to Post ]
Stardust
Posts: 40
Since: 7 Sep 2003

I must say that I thought Bush won.

How you may ask?

Well....Bush stayed right on message throughout the entire debate. Every topic (not literally but mostly) Bush came back to....

"You don't know where Kerry stands on the issue of Terrorism and Iraq...He's for it and against it!"

and

"I will defend the US no mater what the world thinks of us."

What is interesting is that Bush does this in such vaired ways and so easily....well after he spends the first 1/3 of his time hemming and hawwing....I suppose he is trying to figure out how to get back to his point.

Now it would seem that all the hemming and hawing would hurt Bush, but so many people have come to expect it from him that people pretty much ignore it. Especially the media.

Kerry's ideas (good or not) are multi facited (or nuanced to use the media word of the week) that over the course of the debate the feeling is Bush will keep us safe even if the rest of the world doesn't like it and Kerry's a flip floper; and, Kerry is for something but now I don't remember what he said.

We will have to see when the next round of genearl poles are released to see who got the upper hand.

Voice of reason interjects.

MissPooh Date: 30 Sep 04 22:42 [ Link to Post ]
Hominidae
Posts: 2,651
Since: 18 Jan 2003

Strange. That's not the debate I watched at all. What channel was yours on?

Did you catch the subtle references from Kerry that Bush himself has flipped and flopped on a few issues?

I do have to agree that Bush "stayed right on topic" . . . . by repeating his tired comments over and over.

As for insinuating that "we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" and that Bush is "keeping us safe from terrorism", well both those topics have been included in recent debates on this board ad nauseum. IMHO, both are false statements and intended on scaring the American voter into keeping Bush in office.

I thought Kerry made his points quite clear where he stood on terrorism and Iraq . . . .and handed George Bush his ass in the process.

Edited by MissPooh on 30 Sep 04 22:43

Voice of reason quashed.

Au79 Date: 30 Sep 04 23:06 [ Link to Post ]
Stardust
Posts: 40
Since: 7 Sep 2003

"subtle references"

Yes, and that's my point. Kerry has good points but he doesn't stay on message. He's all over the place. I don't like Bush, but in a debate such as this, you need to be right on message and you need to know what you want to have remembred when it's all over. Bush did that and Kerry didn't.

"repeating his tired comments over and over"

They may be tired comments to you, but if you analyse it, Bush is good at finding a way to get back to thoes lines...after spending 1/3 of his time trying to figure out how to get back to his point. People say oh he just sat there and looked lost or that he repeated him self and stumbled over his words. If you look at it, usually he does that for the first part of the answer until he comes up with the way to get back to one of his two main points. Once he gets one of the two main points accross, if he has time he spends a few moments more looking dumbfounded until he comes up with a way to make the other of his two main points.

Since people are use to him hemming and hawing the first 1/3 of the time is ignored.

See how Bushh cheated by crafily delaying his responses?

FTJ Date: 1 Oct 04 01:55 [ Link to Post ]
Primates
Posts: 1,436
Since: 17 Apr 2003

"My favorite part was when Kerry said "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear, proliferation." in an effort to make Bush say it, and thereby mess it up. Too bad Bush didn't mess it up though."

He did as far as I could tell. I'm almost positive I heard him say, "Nuke-u-lar".

Self-fulllfiling wish in action!

Bruce Date: 1 Oct 04 02:16 [ Link to Post ]
Primates
Posts: 1,603
Since: 27 Nov 2001

So what you seem to be saying Au79 is that people smart enough to understand Kerry's subtelties will swing Dem and theose too stupid will swing Rep? No change there.

Always the accepted thread ender on this board... Bush supporters are dumb and backing Kerry is only what smart people will do.

Pretty standard stuff, no real debate, barely any references to the actual debate, rather, simple affirmation of their beliefs without complication.

This same kind of affirmation on the left dominated debate threads is what I expect Internet-wide. And understanding that nothing of any concrete importance is forwarded here, one can safely assume the left hasn't really considered this exchange a favourable one, worthy of dissection.


I came out to call the election for Bush's favor weeks ago, the day after the Republican convention, and these debates don't change my original assessment at that time. I still think the fat lady sang then and that Bush will win this election regardless.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow I went to another site I post at, it is chock-filled with Democrats. They are saying that Kerry is doomed. I was shocked. Everyone here seems to say it was a wash except the Democrats. The Democrats on that site and the Libertarians were all saying that Bush pointed out Kerry's errors effectively and clearly and right after he made them, even though he stuttered through a few answers.

I am shocked.

Did people on this site watch a different debate?

Surprises me. I guess they had some very high expectations for Kerry. I personally found it boring with both candidates continually returning to talking points that we've heard over and over. I was disappointed that Bush missed so many chances to challenge Kerry and yelled what he should have said from my living room but he apparently didn't listen to me. A summit? What the hell is that gonna do. Our troops in Korea and Viet Nam sat around and got blasted while the politicians argued what shape the table should be! Bi-latereal talks in N.Korea ? Whats this double standard??--Go it alone in N.Korea but have summits regarding Iraq?
The problem Bush had is that he plans to stay the course and was forced to simply repeat his answers, while Kerry had to convince people that he had one so appeared as though he had a lot to say. Unfortunatley, He AGAIN never said how he intended to get foreign help. I guess he thinks he's a nicer guy or something?
I was yelling " BLAST THE UN " but that fell on deaf ears too. I guess both of em just tried to stay outta major mistakes. I was bored and disappointed
(oh ya--where is kerry going to get these 2 extra divisions that he wants to send to Iraq? I thought he said we were already spread too thin ! )

 

[NATO AIR]

apparently kerry wants to add 40,000 troops to the army (something pres. bush is quietly preparing to do as well sooner than later)

 

[dilloduck]

apparently kerry wants to add 40,000 troops to the army (something pres. bush is quietly preparing to do as well sooner than later)

Are we talking draft here ?

 

[NATO AIR]

i hope not.

i think 400,000 americans would answer the call if pres. bush asked for them to join up. dunno know about a pres. kerry, but i hope he would be able to unite the country to some extent (just as i hope pres. bush can in his 2nd term to some extent)

 

[dilloduck]

Guess it's up to the spinmeisters now. While I think Kerry was a smoother debater, nothing really new was introduced into the mix except Kerry wants a summit. Basically we still have Bush not wanting to suck up to the global comunity and for the US to maintain it's independence and Kerry wants to make sure everything we do is ok with the rest of world. Lot's of small soundbites that can be exagerrated for spin purposes. Did you notice that Kerry basically said that he wanted to share the spoils of war with other countries? He wants to split up Iraq like it's a pizza.

 

[Comrade]

Surprises me. I guess they had some very high expectations for Kerry. I personally found it boring with both candidates continually returning to talking points that we've heard over and over. I was disappointed that Bush missed so many chances to challenge Kerry and yelled what he should have said from my living room but he apparently didn't listen to me. A summit? What the hell is that gonna do. Our troops in Korea and Viet Nam sat around and got blasted while the politicians argued what shape the table should be! Bi-latereal talks in N.Korea ? Whats this double standard??--Go it alone in N.Korea but have summits regarding Iraq?
The problem Bush had is that he plans to stay the course and was forced to simply repeat his answers, while Kerry had to convince people that he had one so appeared as though he had a lot to say. Unfortunatley, He AGAIN never said how he intended to get foreign help. I guess he thinks he's a nicer guy or something?
I was yelling " BLAST THE UN " but that fell on deaf ears too. I guess both of em just tried to stay outta major mistakes. I was bored and disappointed
(oh ya--where is kerry going to get these 2 extra divisions that he wants to send to Iraq? I thought he said we were already spread too thin ! )

I agree, I was also bored and underwhelmed by both sides in the debate.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/...html?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Bush:
On Iraq:
"It's hard work!"

11 F*CKING TIMES?

"Wrong war, wrong...etc"

Repeated 7 MORE TIMES?


Kerry:

"KERRY: I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life."



I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force."

Eureka. Now that force has been used and the threat is diminished, what say Kerry?

"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat."

"And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror."

But still a threat?

"You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need."

Which Kerry voted against, not Bush, strangely.

On N.K., however:

"Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.

Mixing Iraq and N.K. isn't he?

"We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too. "

We'll 'get' China? WTF?

"Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein."

But,

"We had Saddam Hussein trapped."

Yet,

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances. "

However,

"KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing. "


I was irritated with Bush repeating his coached statements 7&11 times each and couldn't lay into Kerry on his in-debate flip flops, but it doesn't concern me, given Kerry's performance either.

 

[Said1]

Annoucers on the radio here this morning said he did pretty good last night.

 

[dilloduck]

Annoucers on the radio here this morning said he did pretty good last night.

Which he? LOL

 

[Said1]

Which he? LOL

Ooops, Kerry did pretty good last night. :coffee3:

 

[dilloduck]

Ooops, Kerry did pretty good last night. :coffee3:

I would think that to the uninformed , Kerry did do better on style but still didn't explain anything.

 

[Said1]

I would think that to the uninformed , Kerry did do better on style but still didn't explain anything.

To be honest, I didn't get a chance to watch it last night. I think I saw some live feeds posted somewhere, plan to listen later.

 

[no1tovote4]

Wow I went to another site I post at, it is chock-filled with Democrats. They are saying that Kerry is doomed. I was shocked. Everyone here seems to say it was a wash except the Democrats. The Democrats on that site and the Libertarians were all saying that Bush pointed out Kerry's errors effectively and clearly and right after he made them, even though he stuttered through a few answers.

I am shocked.

Did people on this site watch a different debate?

This was last night, and is no longer true of course.

Now that they have listened to the pundits that thread is lost to the backend. And on that site you cannot ressurect old threads like you can here. You can post in them, but most will never go back to it and it won't return to the top after posting.

 

[Bonnie]

Surprises me. I guess they had some very high expectations for Kerry. I personally found it boring with both candidates continually returning to talking points that we've heard over and over. I was disappointed that Bush missed so many chances to challenge Kerry and yelled what he should have said from my living room but he apparently didn't listen to me. A summit? What the hell is that gonna do. Our troops in Korea and Viet Nam sat around and got blasted while the politicians argued what shape the table should be! Bi-latereal talks in N.Korea ? Whats this double standard??--Go it alone in N.Korea but have summits regarding Iraq?
The problem Bush had is that he plans to stay the course and was forced to simply repeat his answers, while Kerry had to convince people that he had one so appeared as though he had a lot to say. Unfortunatley, He AGAIN never said how he intended to get foreign help. I guess he thinks he's a nicer guy or something?
I was yelling " BLAST THE UN " but that fell on deaf ears too. I guess both of em just tried to stay outta major mistakes. I was bored and disappointed
(oh ya--where is kerry going to get these 2 extra divisions that he wants to send to Iraq? I thought he said we were already spread too thin ! )

Dillo I have to agree with everything you said, I thought Bush could have hit Kerry harder but did okay. I have heard spinners say Bush looke tired, but I have a different take on that, I thought he looked relaxed taking a more in command posture, maybe even over confident, whereas Kerry looked like he was just overly ready to chomp at the bit looking like a walking factoid very rehearsed and stiff.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo I have to agree with everything you said, I thought Bush could have hit Kerry harder but did okay. I have heard spinners say Bush looke tired, but I have a different take on that, I thought he looked relaxed taking a more in command posture, maybe even over confident, whereas Kerry looked like he was just overly ready to chomp at the bit looking like a walking factoid very rehearsed and stiff.

My take on Bush was that he appeared pissed that he had to respond to the same BS over and over. It was as if he were saying--"You mean I gotta go over the same bs again ? "

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My take on Bush was that he appeared pissed that he had to respond to the same BS over and over. It was as if he were saying--"You mean I gotta go over the same bs again ? "

I think many of us here are familiar with this emotion. Why do we do it? Are we mental? nevermind.
:scratch:

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's be honest.

Bush sucked.

Bush is a good man whose mouth and brain are often disconnected.

Kerry is a lying rat who covers his incompetence and cynicism with glibness.

To borrow a line from a Clint Eastwood movie, "A man's got to know his limitations". George Bush should have recognized his inability to debate. Matter of fact, I think it was the height of stupidity on the part of the Bush campaign to agree to a debate. Nothing good could come of it. Bush would give kerry a boost simply by sharing a podium with the sleazeball, thereby adding to kerry's credibility. Kerry is a glib fast-talker in the Clinton tradition. Bush is slow, halting, often almost inarticulate. If I were GW, I would have refused to debate kerry on the basis that he has conducted a dishonorable campaign of lies and distortions and I would refuse to besmirch the office of the President of the United States by being in the same room with kerry.