I think Kerry was the clear cut winner last night. He was much more poised and made many more clear points than Bush. It was very telling how Bush made the same mistake that his father made in 1992. The elder Bush made the mistake at looking at his watch when Clinton was talking. Last night, Bush repeatedly looked disinterested in what Kerry was saying. He also asked for more time on several occassions only to repeat the same lines that he had used already. Bush also avoided many of the questions, such as:

Question 2: Would the election of John Kerry make another terrorist threat more likely?

This was the perfect opportunity for Bush to distance himself from that ridiculous comment by Cheney, but he didn't do it. Instead he avoided the question and started talking about Iraq.

If Kerry made one mistake it was that he didn't call Bush out more on avoiding the question.

Overall, this was a clear win for Kerry and with a domestic issues debate looming, Bush better get back to the drawing board, as this debate on foreign policy was supposed to be his strength. I don't see how he can defend his record in the last four years on the economy, health care, jobs, etc.

It is important to remember that this is not an administration experienced at answering questions about what they have done the past four years. This election will go down to the wire!

VanHaulin,


We don't need to go there with Bush, do we? 4 letters... AWOL. If you're going to talk absences, that's a pretty big one.



Another distortion of the facts. Yes they had the same information. And Kerry stated, based on that intelligence that Saddam was a threat. But you can't leave it there. Kerry then went on to say that the administration needed to do more diplomatically before going to war. War was to be a last resort. Bush did not use it as a last resort. The result of his jumping the gun? It turns out that Saddam was not the threat the intelligence suggested. The intelligence, in fact, turned out to be wrong. If Bush hadn't jumped into a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, we wouldn't be talking hindsight.

Bush's manner during the debate illustrated the way he tackles such situations. He jumps... he speaks before thinking about what he is actually saying. This seems to be the way he deals with policy as well.



Well, we turned it into a hotbed of terrorist action.

And please, should other countries have to listen to us telling them how to defend themselves? We do it all the time. The United States of America is NOT the be all and end all here. It is time we realized that.



I believe Kerry talked about rebuilding those relationships destroyed by Bush. Not an empty promise.


jennx,


No, Bush is the rich kid who constantly gets in trouble because he opens his mouth and says something stupid and has mommy and daddy there to back him up.

While it is true that you can't deal with Al Qaeda -- you remember them? The people who ACTUALLY attacked us -- with diplomacy, Iraq and Al Qaeda were not connected -- another point Kerry brought screaming home after Bush put his foot in his mouth. And I'm all for rooting out and destroying Al Qaeda. So... when are we actually going to start doing that? The only thing Bush reiterated in the debate was... that "his opponent" was sending mixed signals -- a charge that Kerry clearly and eloquently shot down every time. Bush, showing his trademark blind stubbornness, just wouldn't give it up though.

Ok i didnt read any responses in this thread so i will give you my shake on it.

Kerry was better than most expected of him. This was Bush's thing and Kerry performed and spoke very well. However, when it comes to substance...i dont think Kerry had the right stuff.

Both candidates made mistakes and missed valuable opportunities. Bush stuttered and paused a lot and i think we all know that being president is 'hard work.' But i liked Bush's response to a lot of questions. They were optmistic and relayed the message he wanted to. Kerry didnt answer many of the questions with a concise response...but as to what he did say...it was said well.

Some issues i liked and didnt like. Bush should have hammered Kerry on the 'global test' comment...but he didnt. I cant believe kerry said that and it would be smart for him not to do it again. I dont think the american people would like a president who asks other countries for their suggestions on how to keep america safe. But Bush didnt hammer it and missed the opportunity.

Furthermore...the n.korea was quite interesting. Kerry was taking the approach that we should have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il and leave China out of it. (by the way, the comment he made that China wants bilateral talks is either wrong or a lie) I think Kerry agrees with President Bush that China should be involved with the talks with N.Korea..but he has to take the opposite position of Bush and i think it hurt him.

Next, on the issue of Homeland Security (which wasnt discussed enough)...kerry said he would do a better job than Bush in protecting the nation. But how can he do a better job han ZERO? No attacks since 9/11...how can you do better?I do not think Kerry should have made that statement... and the statement that really made no sense was the one about the subway during the RNC. The subway wasnt closed or rerouted because of lack of funds for Homeland Security...it is because the subway was to be used as an escape route for the president if a major event occured at the RNC. Bush said a lot of things that arent so true as well...so dont think it was only Kerry.

Bottom Line...Kerry did better than accepted and it will tighten the polls. But as people replay the speech over and over and look at the actual substance...i think Bush will pull away again.

Here is a point i wanted to make. This is not Bush v Kerry...but incumbent v challenger. In these debates...the incumbent cannot divulge information that affects national security. There are some things that the president cannot say and the challeneger knows what things they are. So the challenger is able to take advantage of this since he can make a point knowing that the president cannot answer it. It makes the incumbent seem like he doesnt know the answer. For instance, when Kerry made the argument about Osama Bin Laden and all that..it may seem like Kerry got him on it. But the truth is that it is possible that Bush is not able to say what the truth really is because it could put people and this country in danger. So keep in mind when watching these debates and future debates that sometimes the challenger has a somewhat unfair advantage over the incumbent.

\

If you remember correctly, the President of the United States didn't understand what was said. How in the World do you expect him to be able to HAMMER anything with his ignorance?



I agree with Mr. Kerry. We should be talking to them. Sure beats going to war with them. But you probably see it differently.



It can be done much, much better. It can be done without the Patriot Act, I know, your beloved document. It can be done without the loss of civil liberties. That would be getting it done better. We keep hearing about the PLAN from Bush. Hello!!! It has been 3 years since the attacks. PLAN? Who cares. Let's see some results. The results that Kerry mentioned. Inspecting Cargo on airplanes and inspecting more containers at ports. It can be done much better.



You're on. 10 bucks.



The reason Bush can't speak the truth is that it would put his JOB in jeopardy, not the Country. Bush kept saying, "What kind of message does that send?" MESSAGE? MESSAGE? Kinda sounds like propaganda to me. We don't need a "message" Mr. Bush, we need the truth. Bush lost last night because he had to face the truth. Never has he had to answer for his actions, remember, he is the President. He doesn't have to explain himself. Well last night he did have to, and was unable to. He acted, sounded, and looked just as he is, a beaten man. Tough job my foot. If he can't stand the heat............

Actually if you look at what Kerry said about the global test Kerry was not saying so much of the rest of the world but our country.



On your part of your answer of the incumbent cannot divulge information is laughable because neither should or did Kerry. That is a weak arguement that only shows excuses for why Bush did not perform better.

Let's all be realistic... Kerry was more poised and President Bush seemed to be repetitive and off target. Mr. Bush repeated himself on numerous counts, didn't have his thoughts well presented, and seemed to allow emotion to dictate this debate. He was hunched over, loud and boisterous, and even brash at times.

However, I'm confident that Mr. Kerry didn't gain any ground w/ the swing vote. He mentioned numerous ideas about what needed to be fixed, but never answered the following looming questions:

1. France and Germany already stated that they were not going to intervene in Iraq regardless of the President. What would make any nations that have not previously assisted in Iraq change heart? What makes you the "international diplomat"?


2. Why would breaking stride and intervening in the N. Korea situation make a difference? They are an impoverished nation on the verge of social discord, what makes John Kerry the key ingredient to stabilizing this situation? (of course that's tounge-in-cheek... )

3. What did the sanctions in Iran have to do w/ anything? Most people didn't understand that Iran had been sanctioned long prior to GW being elected. Their nuclear capability is pertinent, but why were the sanctions ineffective?

4. Why was Liberia not a victory in terms of international safety? This was another impoverished nation with nuclear capability.

5. If you didn't see Saddam as a threat/don't see him as a threat, why did you say on numerous occasions that he was? (he vacillated time and time again on this...)


Mr. Bush isn't the strongest republican candidate, and coming to work this morning was nearly embarassing in the face of last night's performance. However, I believe that John Kerry has no real idea of what he is going to do. He hasn't outlined;

1. Any realistic plan to change the course of Iraq.
2. Any plan to persuade N. Korea to ditch the Nuke programs.
3. Any plan to make our borders more secure.
4. Any plan to get UN involvement/the approval of Western Europe.


I can't wait to see how Mr. Kerry debates same sex marraiges, abortion issues, what he'd have done different w/ the economy, etc. He has had NO public plan for such issues.
In order for John Kerry (lovingly known among the republican ranks as "Lurch") to make any headway with moderate voters, he will have to be more persuasive, better organized, and less like...well... a politician. We want more meat and less potatoes...

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then it's obvious why the U.S. is in trouble in Iraq and Bush fizzled in the first debate. The problem for Bush in the first debate is there is a thin line between being confident in the correctness of your position and being inflexible and unable to change a policy that isn't working. Bush being unwilling to admit to a mistake in policy does not mean the policy is therefore a success.

The president has been insulated by speaking only to friendly, handpicked crowds where he will only hear applause to his favorite stump-speech lines. But by being so insulated from any negative response to his initiatives, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Bush became so obviously irritated by Kerry's withering critiques. He's used to cheers, not jeers.

As a Kerry supporter, I'm encouraged by a strong showing last night after a really rough two months. With a month to go you want your candidate to have the wind behind him for a final kick to cover the last few weeks. I'm certain the Bush campaign, despite the happy faces they're wearing today, know Cheney has to take Edwards down a peg at the Vice-President Debate next Tuesday so Bush can follow-up in the town hall meeting next week. That's where Bush will have a better chance to play on his supposed "ordinary guy" schtick to his advantage.

Bush will probably do better the second go-round. His problem is, what if Kerry does too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...debate-poll.htm

Here are some interesting statistics that many in the chat room last night noticed about the speeches:

Personally, I think they missed some.

I've just GOT to address this, since no one else has.

Wow! There's been zero attacks on American soil, if you exclude the largest one, 9-11, that happened on President Bush's watch! What a record! How can you do better than zero attacks (of course, not counting 9-11)???

Come on. September 11th happened on BUSH'S WATCH. If he couldn't protect us from the first, I see no logical reason to believe in his ability to protect us from another. Of course there are zero attacks on American soil under Bush's watch, if you conviently leave out the biggest! That's like me telling my parents "well, I got a hundred on my exam, if you don't count the ones I got wrong." This reasoning is absurd. One of the biggest terrorist attacks in American history HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH. You simply cannot work your way out of this fact by saying "well let's exclude that one so we can say that none happened in his four years in office." If we're supposed to judge our presidents by the number of terrorist attacks that happen on our soil, well then you should think Clinton a better president than Bush. Bush = 1 attack in four years, Clinton = 1 attack in eight.

The bottom line is, Bush couldn't protect us from September 11th. I'll be damned if there's any reason to believe he could protect us from another.

Kerry won. Bush was defensive, his posture was strangely out of whack. He clearly was out of his element and not ready for an actual debate.
I think Kerry was very good at defining his position and refuting the charges of the Republicans.
In response to some comments made in this thread.


this one was very funny. Bush is the obnoxious rich kid who knows daddy's money can "fix" whatever he does wrong--Regardless of the law and who was hurt.



This urban legend is wrong. As President, Bush has much better intelligence reports and Intel than Kerry would have access to.
The President gets intel on any dirty little secrets the CIA is aware of. People outside get only that intel that has been vetted and cleaned and considered OK if it somehow leaks.
In the end it is the Presidents call and he --and we -- obviously had no clue as to what we were sending our troops into.



I don't think you understand. In the end an election is a popularity contest. Very few people really research the issues--and we are all here on debate forums.
Most people will choose who they are comfortable with. Nixon was smarter than Kennedy, but Kennedy looked good and sounded good, Clinton won his second term because the republicans under Gingrich were basically jerks and people LIKED Clinton. Neither one was all that interesting, but Kerry looked more Presidental, Bush seemmed uncomfortable.



aaand 1 2 3 streeeetch!
Give me a break. If Bush had any intel he would have used it already. It would be THE top story on every news channel in existence. The Drudge report would already have posted references.



I thought it a great point. we as Americans need to have faith in the decisions of our government. As for the rest of the world I don't really care, but it doesn't do us any good if our actions turn everyone against us. Even we cannot live without allies.

Obviously Kerry won. Although I did not get to see the debate until later today when I watched it in sections.

I did see Hannity and Colmes last night and I can't believe what a joke Sean Hannity is.
His actual words about Bush during the debate where "clear" and "articulate". I know I have accused some on the left of being cool-aid drinkers, but it's obvious Mr Hannity likes his the color red. Pretty amazing.

"Please tell us where you got this figure."

Thank you for welcoming me in BoF; and I'm not at all surprised that you do not agree with my opinion of this debate. I have looked around this site and see the company that you keep. This isn't meant to be a snide remark. I choose this site for that reason-it's simply no fun talking to those who constantly agree with you!
In response to your question, however, I cannot recall the exact news station (or God forbid- TALK RADIO STATION) from which I got this figure. I do try to watch and listen to many mediums. There was a segment in which undecided voters were being interviewed off of the street, and the undecided vote was quoted as being 18%. What you have seen in respect to "a few key states" is being suggested of electoral vote. The 18% that I quoted was being suggested in respect to the individual. After all, suggesting that only a few key states have 10% or less of their registered voters still undecided also suggests that 100% of the people registered in the remaining 48 states had decided. That's not a very likely scenario.
As far as my rosy depiction of Bush, and sour depiction of Kerry-I feel that I gave Kerry kudos on his strengths for the night: he was quite stylish. Also, I feel that I was fair in saying that neither really launched rockets(nothing new was put out there by either candidate). However, I am not one of the undecided. I knew that I would be voting for Bush before the debate. I simply stated my opinion of the better candidate, as did many others posting on this site.

Who won tonight's Debate? Bush or Kerry and why?

First of all, I thought that this debate was pretty boring. Nothing exciting happened, no good "zingers" nor memorable missteps on either side. I kept losing focus on the debate.

Kerry did a good job of putting the heat on Bush. Bush did an average job of defending himself. In terms of style I think that Kerry won. In terms of policy I think that Bush won. Bush's policies are simple and clear. Kerry's policies are complicated and unclear.

Cheap shot...lets get serious here



Bush said we should talk with N.Korea as well...but he said that we must include China in the talks. Kerry wants just the US and N.Korea. All day we here Kerry talking about how we need to get our allies involved...and not he wants the US to go it alone?..plz...




Ya know, keep coming with the personal trash...makes it easier for me. Since the Patriot Act has been implemented, there have been NO terrorist attacks on American soil. I dont think i need a link for that one. But i think it would be good for you to know that without the Patriot Act, the Brooklyn Bridge would no longer be a bridge. I see that as results. I do not understand what you are objecting to. It has been three years since the attack as you mentioned and there hasnt been another. What more could you want? 9/11 wasnt solely Bush's fault as outlined by the 9/11 Commission's Final Report. There were many problems in the system and after 9/11 they were fixed and they are continuing to be fixed. Furthermore, how can Kerry affect the way cargo is inspected airports and ports? I mean come on this is the FBI and local law enforcement's job.



Kerry said that our actions must pass a 'global test' to ensure that those actions are 'legal'. Kerry just shouldnt have said that. I dont care what other nations think and neither should anyone. They are all looking out for their own best interests and could care less about our national security.



How is it laughable? This had nothing to do with Kerry or Bush but had to do with incumbent vs. challenger. I dont care if the president is repblican, democrat, independent, white, black, orange or whatever. The president has knowledge of sensitive material that is vital to national security. There are some things that the president just cannot say. I am not making excuses for Bush...i dont have to.



I guess it is strange to think that it is possible that there are extenuating circumstances to some of the events that have unfolded...well forever! The public doesnt know the whole story on everything. The president has sensitive information that is vital to national security. Is that difficult to fathom? He cannot say some things. For example, if there is a top agent who is in Al Queda's network and is close to getting OBL...and after hearing this Bush goes on national television and says...we have an agent in Al Queda about to capture Osama...that would jeopardize the entire operation! Lets think for a sec.

My question to everyone is what allies is it that Kerry wants to help us? Take out your globe...give it a spin and look. I guess the most obvious choice would be France, Germany, and Russia. But here is the thing...there nations are not our allies. Along with our friend Kofi Annon...these crooks were getting rich off of the Oil-For-Food Program. People think that these nations opposed the war because of our imperialism or their pacifism...but it doesnt take a nuclear scientist to see that France, Germany, and Russia had very special economic interests in Iraq and to top that off it was all illegal. Thats why they didnt want us to invade.

Haven't seen the full thing, but on the basis of the edited debate that has run on our rolling news channels here in the UK, I would have to narrowly give it to Kerry. Personal politics aside, I felt that Kerry was more composed compared to a hesitant and irritated Bush. On the whole, they both made good points but neither really went for it, and as a result they just came off as very boring candidates. Hopefully they will spring to life as we move through October, this election is too important for the USA for the candidates to be as mundane as Bush and Kerry were in this debate.

Come on Steamboat Suzie, with your reasoning we should believe that Eisenhower was incompetant because of what happened at Pearl Harbor! Also, good ole "Slick Willy" should be held responsible for the 1st trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma bombing! NO THEY SHOULD NOT, NOR SHOULD GEORGE BUSH!

You can view it in it's entirety at cnn.com or cspan's website

Hello entspeak-nice ta meet ya. jennx here.

First, let us not delve into the choices that Mr. Kerry has made in his past. According to John in last night's debate:" When I voted to go to war I thought that I was voting to give the President the authority to go to war as a 'last resort'". Funny, everyone else seemed to know what they were voting for. Then, after he voted to go to war(he knew that's what he was voting for; if not, he's too incompetent to hold any official seat) he voted against funding the war (was that before or after he voted FOR the funding?), and has the nerve to use the "lack of supplies" point as a debating rebuttal???? Com'on now-really. We(you) should really stay with the issues, and not choose smear tactics to get your point across (your AWOL statement). That, thank goodness, is what George Bush has done. He never took the opportunity to smear Kerry on the SwiftVet issue. Instead, he took a higher road and denounced all of the 527's. Kerry's response to the swiftboat ads: HE BACK TRACKED! IMAGINE THAT. "Maybe I spoke too harshly about the war..."
Second, in reference to your remark about John rebuilding an alliance with France as to convince France to donate on behalf of the good ole Iraq fund. That is a stretch. Let me throw a little bit of information your way: France wants nothing to do with this war, even if it's being "sufficiently supervised" by the likes of Mr. John Kerry. I guess that's just a little fact that he(oh, and you) has overlooked. Or is that just Kerry "making mistakes in talking about the war" again,
hmmmm?
Last, but surely not least, your response to my comment. George Bush has all but forgotten about Al Qeada. Have YOU forgotten about the deck of cards with pictures of wanted terrorists? If I'm not mistaken, quite a bit of those pictures were men from Al Qeada. If you were to play 52 card pick-up with the cards of those remaining free, it would be a severely short game.
The Bush administration inherited a lack of good intelligence from the Clinton administration when they stepped into office. Clinton should've already been dealing with Al Qeada long before he left office. After all, it has been proven that the chatter and all of the planning started during Clinton's run. So, why don't you just waive that little finger of yours in another direction.

I am glad I wasn't the only one that saw the debate this way.

I keep asking myself if either candidate REALLY wants to be President. Neither seemed passionate about the prospect.

I think that "on base" Kerry was the more composed of the two, and that Bush became defensive when he wasn't being overtly pushed into a defensive posture.

Both appeared overly practiced. It reminded me more of a Soap Opera, and less of an important political event.

Still, Kerry wins the debate, but gains little if anything by it. My veiw is that, winning a yawn fest is not much to brag about.

I don't think either candidate "won" the debate, but - key point - Kerry didn't lose it. Had Kerry come off badly, the election could have been sewn up. Instead, he acquitted himself reasonably well and managed to look a lot more "presidential" than Bush.

The president, on the other hand, came off pretty badly - too many confused-looking pauses before his rebuttals, too much stammering (which disrupted the flow of the whole thing), way too much harping ("'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time'" - "this is a hard job" - "mixed meshages") and, in the cut-away shots, he looked far too peevish most of the time. In Kerry's cut-aways, he tended to look patiently amused (a much more telegenic reaction than Gore's exasperated sighs).

There was little (if anything) that was new in the debate and Kerry missed a lot of opportunities to decisively set Bush's misrepresentations straight - though that could have made him look "too aggressive" in pundit-land - but at least he wasn't embarrassing (as he could have been). Is this the start of the "strong finish" we keep hearing about? We'll see.

Anyway, I think there will be increased interest in the rest of the debates, which is probably a good thing for Kerry: this was supposed to be Bush's "strong issue" debate and he really made no substantial impression at all and what little he did emanate leaned toward the defensive - not a great attitude for a "steady leader" who's supposed to be on the offensive.

In short, because of the debate, the result of the election is still up in the air. Advantage: Kerry.

Um, last time I checked, the only deck of cards mentioned in this context is the Iraqi Most Wanted set. A quick check of this page reveals that ALL 52 cards are of Iraqi government officials. Not a single member of Al Qaeda is listed. I did a quick check to see if there was a terrorist version of the deck (not a bad idea, imo) but could not find one.


jennx, I realize you are fairly new (welcome btw), but this is really beginning to take this off topic. The focus of this thread is on the content of the debate last night.

I, for one, was really happy to see a discussion on the opportunity cost of the Iraq invasion vs. our ability to focus on the real War on Terror. I believe this is a very effective approach for Kerry if he can stay on it consistently. I'll be curious to see what, if any, play this gets in the town hall meeting next week in St. Louis.

Doc

Kerry was very clear at the time of the vote as to why he was making the vote and what he understood were the intentions of the President. Perhaps you should take a look at the speeches made at the time of the vote before dismissing the argument. As Kerry has said, once Bush got the vote, he quickly changed tactics and moved to a war footing. The resolution was not geared towards an immediate attack on Iraq, nor was presented as such. The entire resolution was premature, if you ask me. If we were indeed under imminent threat of attack from Iraq, the President would not need to ask Congress for an authorization for the use of force.



Again, I think you should actually read the resolution before attempting to comment on this.



Perhaps, if you knew the facts you might realize that there was a good reason not to vote for more funding. At the time Bush asked for the 87 billion, the budget for military spending in Iraq was 4 Billion dollars a month. This was with the money Congress had already agreed to give them. Of that 4 billion only 2.5 billion could be accounted for. The Bush administration could not provide an accounting for what happened to the other 1.5 billion each month. Would you give $87 billion dollars to an administration that can't seem to account for almost half of their monthly expenditures -- 1.5 Billion dollars a month in expenditures? Doesn't sound like a smart move to me. Did you also know that committee members added funds for other countries in that bill? Countries that had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq -- 255 million dollars for Liberia, for example. Perhaps you should read the recent report outlining the results of the audit performed on the group that was setup to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq. More importantly, and more directly relevant to your comment, you should take note of the fact that the Bush Administration is sitting on 16.8 Billion of the 18 Billion dollars in "emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan" appropriated almost a year ago... funds meant to supply the troops -- this is exactly what Kerry was referring to and the issue Bush tried to slide past in the debate.



When someone discusses the importance of what someone has done in their lifetime, and specifically mentions absences, the AWOL issue is relevant. It was a response to VanHaulin's comment about Kerry's absences from meetings. It is a valid response.



This is what France has stated at this point, yes. Kerry is simply stating that we need to sit down with France to discuss the possibility. It is then up to France to make a decision. So, yes, now they are saying they won't help, that could change. I mean it's not like France has never changed a position regarding their foreign policy, is it? Bush really did not give an effective rebuttal to this argument.



Wow. Well, i regret to inform you that the deck of cards were the 52 most wanted Iraqis (abridged from a list of 55), and none of them were members of Al Qaeda.




So, why don't you get a little more informed before you start talking down to others.

As I said, I thought Kerry won. Bush looked inept and strangely unlike any of the Presidents I admired in previous debates. One of the litmus tests for any debate is to fact check and then to see the how the candidates spin the debate results and talking points the next day. Today cinched it for me.

I can truthfully add to our own debate that the opinion shared by world leaders of the United States has suffered a great deal in the years since Bush took over.

I've had a day to mull over my impressions of the debate and to see how the candidates were spinning the results. THAT day of spins showed me we have an integrity gap under Bush's characterization of Kerry's stance.

As far as Kerry WAITING for U.N. or 'International Approval' as Bush intimated at EVERY campaign stop today, it is simply NOT what Kerry meant or said. It struck me as a blatant and politically motivated distortion of the truth.

Does anyone here think Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis poorly? I doubt there are any who think averting WWIII was poorly conceived or poorly orchestrated by John Kennedy.

News Flash: He did NOT do that in a vaccuum. Among the people he called was Prime Minister Charles De Gaulle of France. Kennedy asked if De Gaulle needed to see pictures of the silos or missiles and De Gaulle told him, "If you say they are there, that is good enough for us, Mr. President." Kennedy chose not to invoke the somewhat inperialistic "Monroe Doctrine" but instead used an "Act of War (A Naval Blockade) to make the Soviets blink first.

It was tense. It was dangerous. It was gutsy. It worked. It was done with allied backers and it pushed as close to nuclear war as we've EVER been since the Enola Gay.

The point is, he used the telephone to both inform and solicit the backing of our allies. It wasn't a "Summit". He didn't have time for a summit. Kerry, too, understands that difference. Bush, along with others in the adminisrtion, PUSHED the war.

Do you think France or anybody save Tony Blair would say what De Gaulle told Kennedy when speaking to George Bush today? Unfortunately, they've learned not to trust a man who says he won't spill American blood unless it is a last resort and then fails to keep the focus on the 9-11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda!

Just weeks after 9-11, this great country had the sympathy and support of almost every country in the worls and our leader chose to misdirect his focus from Al Qaeda to Iraq and in the process, he single-handedly chose to squander and otherwise fail to respect those relationships.

Both parties have made their share of attacks on the other candidate but Karl Rove has the Bush Campaign holding a commanding lead in the Dirty Tricks portion of the campaign in the last six months.

9-11 happened on Bush's watch. If I'm not mistaken. Condoleeza Rice spoke of a mid 2001 Security Briefing that mentioned Bin Laden by name, and later, the 9-11 Commission positively confirmed its existence. Further, it noted that Bin Laden intended to attack WITHIN the United States in the very near future. Add to that, the fact that George Bush took office in January of 2001 and had the report in July of 2001 and you have something FAR from "The Eisenhower Analogy" offered in another post.

Terrorism is UP throughout the world with more attacks occurring in more places in the world in 2004 that in 2003. Our borders are not protected with some 10,000 illegals crossing our southern border each month.

As far as the vote for the 87 Billion, Bush's resolution differed in that it wanted to leave the tax cut in place and borrow to fund the 87 Billion, the one Kerry supported used a cancellation of the tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers to fund the body armor and Hummer armor - hardly a vote AGAINST supplying our troops.

I am no longer undecided as to the Presidential race. I had my doubts about Kerry and I had my doubts about Bush but this debate and THE STUMPPING by Bush today has cinched it for me. His attacks today were simply verifiably untruthful because I SAW and HEARD what Kerry said.

I still want Nader as a safegaurd somewhere in our government to guard against corporation dominance but I'm ready for Kerry to be our President and for him to make sure Nader has a Cabinet position.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but given some of the posts in this thread, I felt that any other vote would be ignoring the chance that certain of the more illogical forces would create a world and a country in which I wouldn't enjoy nearly as many rights as our founding father intended for me.

I'm not certain how Kerry's plans are complicated or unclear, from what I gather, they are pretty straight forward,



O.K.-reach out to Pakistan and othe rnations like that, increase military spending, re-tooling intelligence collecting capabilities, nothing too hard there.



Pretty clear on that one, just a restatement of the first item I quoted



O.K., rescind the tax-cuts in order to provide for funding for more cops and first responders. Not too cerebral here I think.



From this, I gather that he is not for cutting and running.


I understand that you may disagree with his plans, but how are his plans complicated?

Newsweek poll is in

I'm skeptical on this point. While I was watching the debates, I was bothered by the policies presented by both Bush and Kerry because they sounded as if they were designed just to be reducible to four-second sound bites. I feel that something like foreign policy can withstand the inconvenience of a little complexity.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

I do not mean to imply that deerjerkydave was referring to this particular part of the debate, but I think it's an example of the less-is-more philosophy on policy that Bush seems to endorse. Kerry hints at some moralistic outline of a policy that takes him 80 words to explain. Bush responds by pretending not to understand and gives his own policy in only 24 words. Their sentiments on protecting America are identical, except that Bush leaves out the justification part. Obviously, Bush realizes there's accountability with waging a war, but, instead of arguing why he was justified, feigns ignorance and implies that Kerry is over complicating things and not putting the Americans first.


The issue of Kerry voting for the authorization of force and subsequently disapproving its actualization has been covered in this thread as well. If there exists no difference in the authorization of force and actually using force, then yes, Kerry changed positions; but that is a grossly misleading "if." I supported Congress's decision to authorize the invasion as well as the threats Bush made at that time because I thought they had value in applying pressure on Iraq. When Iraq allowed weapon inspectors back into the country and Bush launched the attack anyway, I realized I was mistaken. Again, Bush feigns ignorance on Kerry's position, as if there is no way to conceive of the political and diplomatic purposes behind a bill. I felt Bush's response, repeating that Kerry "changes his positions," didn't even attempt to address the issue.

It's probably obvious that I chose Kerry as the winner of the debate, although I have my apprehensions about the entire format. I have trouble seeing any value in the cute sound bites the nominees saw fit to throw at us like illiterate school children at some pep rally. I would prefer to have the nominees argue their positions in writing. Although I suspect the results would still be censored of any content, it would at least give them a chance to show they've given the issues some thought. Bush, in particular, is not as mentally disabled as he pretended in the debate and he could have been vastly more informatitive if he chose.

Though I agree Kerry "won" in the conventional sense, which is mainly an evaluation of who looked better and was more articulate, and certainly did himself some good by generating media buzz and firing up the base, I'm not so sure he actually won any arguments on substance or changed many minds.

Here's the results of the Gallup poll on the subject of the debate:

Gallup says most people think Kerry "won" the debate, but look at the internals:

Expressed himself more clearly -- advantage Kerry 60% to 32%
Had a good understanding of the issues -- tie, 41% to 41%
Agreed with you more on the issues you care about -- advantage Bush, 49% to 46%
Was more believable -- advantage Bush, 50% to 45%
Was more likable -- advantage Bush, 48% to 41%
Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job -- advantage Bush, 54% to 37%

Interesting, no? I'll be interested to see how this shakes out in more reliable polls than Newsweek's. In particular I'll want to see Rasmussen's and Zogby's after a few more days.

I thought what Dick Morris had to say in his most recent column was interesting too.

There are a very few people on American political spectrum I despise and dislike more than Dick Morris - to me he is a perfect definition of a political <REMOVED PROFANITY>. In his article he employs the oldest trick in the book - he presents a perfectly debatable point as though it's an axiom. "Unquestionably, Baltimore is the best city in the world. Clearly, New York has the best restaurants", and so on.



Somehow free Turkey (or Israel) didn't send a signal to Iran and North Korea, but Iraq will.
So, unquestionably, his point that "Bush won on substance" is highly debatable as well.

I'm not sure how anyone could objectively conclude that Bush "won" this debate. Bush's simple task was to defend his record. He couldn't do it. Our commander-in-chief had to explain to America that he knew Osama Bin Laden attacked us. He got busted big time for attempting to blur the Iraq/9-11 issues - again. If the purpose of a lie is to deceive, what's the difference in attempting to mislead?

Anyhow, the biggest hypocritical subject I witnessed has not been discussed by anyone. Kerry was firm in his belief that there needed to be bilateral talks with North Korea to start eliminating the threat of nukes. Bush rejected that with a flat out lie. China has asked the US to have these types of talks - counter to what Bush implied during the debate.

But the hypocrisy is, he took Kerry to task for wanting the UN involved in the global war on terror as (para-phrasing here) "putting our security in the hands of a third party", but wants China and 5 other countries to deal with the North Korea issue.

CHINA?? Please...this makes my stomach turn. It is unbelievable to me that Bush rejects the UN and puts our fate in the hands of China.

Really? China asked the US to engage in bilateral talks with N Korea, rather than include them in the six-nation talks? Link please.

This is one area I won't fault Bush on, though he certainly didn't drive the point home as he should have during the debates. Why are bilateral talks preferable to six-nation talks? I fail to see how including China, the DPRK's largest creditor, in these talks, places "our fate in China's hands".

Edited to add: I decided to start another thread on this topic here, so as not to derail this one.

Who won tonight's Debate? Bush or Kerry and why?

I think that it is pretty clear that Kerry won that debate, and in my estimation it wasn't even close.

- If you look at the appearances of each candidate Kerry clearly won here. Kerry maintained his composure the entire time and actually looked and acted presidential. Bush on the other hand was clearly rattled and was show on camera numerous times making sour faces, shaking his head, looking steamed and confused.

- As far as shots against each other Kerry clearly won this battle as well. The only thing Bush did was come back with the whole tired flip-flopper thing. Kerry on the other hand nailed Bush on basically every single point of his foreign policy.

- As far as actually talking about the issues, Kerry yet again. Foreign policy is supposed to be Bush's strong point and all of his points basically came down "Iraq and Afghanistan are free". Kerry had some good answers to tough questions.

Probably the most important outcome here though is the fact that Kerry has his momentum back now.

It should be noted this is from Gallup, which has consistently given Bush a larger lead than other polling firms. From the link provided:

- Gallup poll

. . .and the margin of error is 4%. So if you poll 4% more Republicans than Dem, you mysteriously get 4% or so more Bush supporters than other polls (showing Bush with about a 4% lead, not 8%).

My point- Bush was outside the margin of error here on only three of the points cited- believability, likability, and toughness. He had a 3% lead on the "agree with" criterion despite having 4% more Repubs and 8% more supporters in the sample. Kerry, universally recognized as slightly more warm than Al Gore, was 7% behind Dubya in likability.

The "toughness" rating should definitely give the Kerry camp pause, but it doesn't manage to transform Kerry's victory into a merely rhetorical or technical one. The President's recitation of talking points can hardly be hailed as a triumph of substance over style.

Absolutely. Try here starting at paragraph 5. Joseph Biden was on TV immediately after the debate and brought this up. He said it was a FACT (he emphasized the "fact" portion) that this was the case.

My point is (as well as many others - including Kerry) is that we cannot fight this war on terror alone and NEED allies. Bush believes relying on the UN is putting our security in another nation's hands and rejects that notion.

Conversely, he claimed bilateral talks with North Korea is a problem when we have China (among others) helping. How is this a problem? China is a communist nation run by a dictator with an entire laundry list of human rights violations. North Korea has missiles that can hit our west coast and now has nuclear capabilities. North Korea is the biggest proliferator of WMD technology.

Bush claims the world is safer with Saddam Hussein, but we haven't found any hint of a threat since invading Iraq. North Korea can nuke us and currently supplies the world with WMD technology, but we need to get China involved.

What am I missing here?

It is hard to believe that there are 7 individuals on AD that believed Bush won the debate.

There is no possibility of ever debating or convincing someone if that mentality is substantial.

It was almost mind boggling that Bush would try to say that he invaded Iraq to punish Al Qaeda network for the deaths of 9/11. Then Kerry replies that Osama was responsible for 9/11. Then Bush acting like a "boy with his hand caught in the cookie jar", say I knew it was Osama. I didn't know whether to laugh or say "oh me oh my".

Then towards the last of the debate, the moderator tells Bush he has a 30 rebuttal answer and the only thing Bush can say is "I don't know what else to say" or a phrase very similar to that.

And his answer most of the time to a question was "I was right and it was the right thing to do". What kind of an answer is that to a debate question. Come on this is not what I would want to hear from the leader of my nation. I would be curious to what other world leaders thing about him when they are involved in serious talks.

When Bush keep making the facial expressions I knew he reminded me of someone that I had seen somewhere. Now I finally realize where I had seen that face.

Remember the picture of the boy on the front of Mad Magazine. Yes they bear a very close resemblance.

One specific instance where I thought Kerry won the debate was on decoupling the war in Iraq from the war on terror. In fact, I think the election itself may come down to whether the two issues are seen together or separately.

David Broder had this to say in this morning’s The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opini...erdavid/?sub=AR



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Edited to add Meet the Press quote.

Pretty ironic... but the administration did this very thing just a few months ago. LINK.

I find it odd that people dissect the debates in the manner that they do. The value of such an event is to measure how a Presidential candidate conducts himself. A President needs to be articulate (as one of the most visible speakers on behalf of the country), able to think on his feet (he can't always rely on a pre-planned response; 9/11 being the perfect example) and he has to be able to to control and process a vast amount of information (which can be seen in the way the candidates prepare themselves.)

The fact is that I didn't see Bush dominate or even come close to Kerry's effectiveness in any of these areas. His political views should have no bearing on how you interpret the debates; not if you want them to matter. Kerry I see as kind of stiff, with some major gaps in his politics; but in spite of that he won hands down.

That all being said, the debates were a farce. If a candidate behaved the way Bush and Kerry both did (although Bush was again the more egregious rule violator) in a Canadian political debate, the moderator would have put them down in a heart-beat. About 1-in-3 responses had little or nothing to do with the questions posed, and Bush's interruptions demonstrated that the man has no patience for either rules or codes-of-conduct (take your pick as to which.)

For all those in this discussion whos say that Kerry won, but it won't help him, the latest poll says otherwise, as Kerry has now pulled about even with Bush. This really says a lot about how Kerry did with the swing voters in the debate.

New CNN/Gallup Poll

Good Poll to bring up. Let's dive into it.

Everything in the poll is about 'who is more likable' so forth and so on and Kerry leads. Kerry leads as a contender. However is he a leader?

The polls say: "And when it comes to who they think is the stronger leader, those polled favored Bush by 56 percent to 37 percent for Kerry."

When it comes to poll day who will they vote for? A leader?

Thus is the genius of Karl Rove. Bush is not a strong leader by factual reality. He is an exalted figure, placed in a position of pwer and grandeur that he is completely undeserving of. The only reason that Bush is viewed as a "strong leader" is because that message is engrained in everything Bush says and does. "Strong Leadership" is on every flyer, every time he opens his mouth he belittles Kerry for flip- flopping while boasting his own ignorant consistency. The results of this poll show the ability of the public to digest sound-bytes and talking points. If Bush is a strong leader, then the english language lacks a powerful enough adjective to describe the likes of Malcolm X, Mandela, Martin Luther, and other such heroes of leadership. The job of presedent of the USA was an acting job for Reagan, and it still is now. Strong leadership... my left foot.

He is a strong leader because everything he does is an example of strong leadership? Or forced to be? Then how come people don't think, he isn't a strong leader? I mean if Bush is really Jerry Lewis of the Rat Pack and not Frank Sinatra, then why do people see him that way? Maybe people think that Bush is a strong leader?

President Putin of Russia (who was so tenderly (and borderline disrespectfully) referred to as "Vladimir" by Bush during last debates - made me chuckle) is a strong leader - even his political opponents admit that. Would you vote for him, yehoshua?
Stalin was a strong leader as well. Being a strong leader doesn't mean anything.

As for people and their voting patterns - unfortunately people have a mob mentality and make irrational choices. Remember when George Bush Senior looked at his watch during the debates too much and that supposedly spelled the end of his reelection campaign? You would think that people form their opinions on things more important than who manages to perform the best during 90-minute circus called "Presidential Debates".
I despise Bush and I think he is a lousy leader, but in no way do I form my opinion based on 90-minute performance during the debates. In fact, even if Bush have mopped the floor with Kerry last Thursday, my opinion of him wouldn't have changed a bit.

As EH said, "strong" leadership is an arbitrary term. Good leadership, productive leadership are entirely different. I think Bush could be considered a "strong" leader if your definition of strong is: "Unwilling to consider new information, or re-consider past decisions." This is certainly and undeniably the case with Bush. You can define him as strong all you want, but it won't make Bush a good leader or a productive leader. People think he is "strong" becuase that particular talking point is infested with every reference to Bush. The public mind is easier to sway than you might think, I mean Daddy Bush lost because he looked at his watch... since obviously that means nothing, the media must have had some serious impact on public opinion through their commentary.

Yehoshua, doubtlessly you consider Bush a strong leader. Why? Actually, I'll make a thread, we can talk about it there.

Churchill was a strong leader, and the list goes on. Being a strong leader in a country without checks and balances like Russia is different then being a strong leader in America's two party system. Do really think congress would allow Stalin to rise to power?



I do agree. People are stupid. That is why land owners use to be the only one who could vote, because if you own land, the dumb thought goes, then you must be intelligent.

This is a bit harsh, but I've heard it put in cruder terms.

I've long heard lack of intelligency as a reason or "excuse" for not having vote registration, you know--get out the vote. It's strange conservatives accuse liberals of being "eletist" while they themselves call people stupid. What's wrong with this picture?

Why? How does the actual definition change? Certainly different circumstances dictate different outcomes, but how does "strength" of candidacy differ in a democrat setting to a non-democratic setting? I of course don't think that an American congress would have allowed the eletction of Stalin here, but that's besides the point. Stalin was able to grasp power, so was Bush, the same with anyone who rules a nation. Bush's election as president doesn't automatically qualify him as a good leader, AFTER THE FACT, it must be shown that he has done something worth all this credit. He hasn't shown it so far, and he certainly didn't show it in the debates. Strange this "strength" quality is.
**edited to add:

Oh, and I agree, people are stupid. That sucks. The difference between you and I seems to be that I believe that people can be eduacated, that people can take an active voice in democracy. The more we focus on war on weaponry and the less we focus on eduacation and maintenance the more diluted our democracy becomes. When you call people stupid, what do you intend to do about it? Are you happy just sitting back and watching people being manipulated? Or maybe you are a subject of the same manipulation?

Guys, can we not yank this off onto yet *another* poll discussion?

I think the concensus among the wonks out there is that Kerry won and apparently he's getting a mild bump in accordance. Polls really don't concern me though either way.

I'm hopeful in the town hall debate he'll spend less time on Bush, though, and more time on introducing himself as the potential next President of the United States. He's started on the canvas Thursday very effectively imo and it has great promise, now he needs to keep painting.

Doc