Someone had to do it... here it is.



1)Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?
Note: This should be a true debate analysis, not a simple parroting of either candidates sound bytes.


2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?

1)Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?

Based on my notes of the debate, I think Kerry argued and debated far, far better than president Bush. Repeatedly Kerry made reasonable logic based replies, and sound argumentation also based on both common sense as well as intellectually stimulated reasoning. Bush was nervous and seemed angry all the way through the debates, he seemed very aggrivated when he was asked questioning things. Bush actual argumentation was rarely based on logical conclusions, instead they were based on party lines and alliances. Bush made many value based arguments that were either unclear or completely based on opinion. One example is Bush's assessment of Embryonic Stem Cell Research where he says that he has funded it, but he will only fund it so far. Bush inferred that he respects life, and yet he supports the electrocution and poisoning of human beings in the name of being "tough on crime." Kerry stomped bush on countless points, he shined time and time again, and Bush failed to impress me, and believe me my bar of expectations is a short one to jump for Mr. Bush.

2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?

This is where I am unclear. I hope Kerry since he was so obviously the winner on debate terms. Bush seemed to come off very aggrivated, whearas Kerry was very calm. I think that might have an effect. It depends on the pundits I guess.

Kerry won IMO, although this time there was no crushing defeat for Bush like the last time. Bush sounded more energetic and engaged and he managed to keep his off-screen little faces to a minimum (with the exception of frequent blinking). I thought Bush's argument regarding small business owners falling into top two percent was fairly strong and probably was his strongest point during the debate; Kerry was very strong during Patriot Act exchange, Partial Birth Abortion issue (to my surprise), and Drugs from Canada issue. Just something that comes to mind right now... I'll add more later.

1)Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?
Note: This should be a true debate analysis, not a simple parroting of either candidates sound bytes.

Bush won on expectations because everyone's were so lowered from the first debate. He also seemed to have an edge on presence, but that might be, again, a comparison from the first debate.

Kerry won on points. He caught Bush in several false statements and Bush was unable to recover from some of them. That's not a credit to Kerry, however, because it wasn't hard to catch Bush in them. He lies well, but he also lies about things that have become common knowledge among the alert: such as how many viable stem cell lines there actually are.

Kerry and Bush were even on stammering. Actually, Kerry looked the worst as he stammered over the stem cell question.

But Bush had Freudian slips in his stammers, such as when he started to say:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...ebate_1008.html





Which is to say, he almost said ...which is where our troops could be brought to justice.


Bush also called Kerry 'Senator Kennedy'.






2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?

Bush was much better on spin, but he had more he needed to spin. To say that he increased wetlands when regulations the administration proposed drastically cuts the number of areas designated as wetlands was pure deceit. To claim to have created jobs was ridiculous. He did it with a straight face, though.

Kerry tried to spin his pro-choice stance. That was a mistake. He should have answered and moved on. I don't know what he could have said, though. And then the way the cameraman kept focusing on the questioner's moist eyes....Kerry definately lost points on that one.

I can't stand the abortion issue because the right uses it so often, and self-righteous people use it, while kids who are already born starve and die in aerial bombing raids, American-sponsored coups, and sweatshops. If Kerry was seriously hurt tonight, it was that question and the stem cell question that did the damage.

Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?

I voted neither as I did for Cheney and Edwards. There was no clear winner. Had Kerry kept the momentum up it would've been a grand slam, but it's difficult staying on the offensive when it comes to domestic issues. Especially on the abortion debate. I was disappointed Kerry didn't flat out tell the young woman he would support government funded abortions for x, y, z reasons instead of drawing out a long, complicated non-answer.

Who was more successful in political spin terms?

Neither. I really, really wish both camps would realize their crap is dissected within minutes of uttering falsities. The two that stick out in my mind is Kerry's General Shinseki being fired for giving a bad prognosis. His campaign has no excuse now for repeating it. And... (paraphrasing): "You could say I'm a steward of the environment"? Is the Texan out of his mind? What the hell does that make Clinton, Captain Planet?

The amount of contempt both candidates hold for the public shines through when they make statements that are beyond the realm of exaggerations and omissions, which are to be expected. We are no longer separated by distance and time, and they should have enough respect for the people they are asking to vote for them to give the public the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being informed. This isn't about five syllable words weighted down with nuance. They can effectively communicate without five syllable words. This has to be one of the most controversial, most closely watched, most scrutinized White House and presidential election. These idiots should act accordingly.

Click here for the first debunks.

kerry- I think he discusses facts, whereas Bush discusses the bizarre world in his head.

And so I anticipated, and composed my answer off-line...

According to most of the pundits, the President was coming in to this debate as the underdog, needing a strong performance to offset his last debate with Kerry. I don’t think that he provided it.

The fourth question asked, the second one directed to the President, was:


The President then went on to talk about Ronald Reagan, and about unpopular decisions that he has made as President. I judged that answer to be totally non-responsive.

After a few questions, when Kerry had responded, the President would rush at the moderator demanding a chance to respond… and ignoring the fact that he had already been asked for a 30 second response. He was supposed to be debating Kerry, not arguing with the moderator.

When he was trying to defend the Patriot Act, the President began his answer by stuttering, and said “I don’t think your rights are being watered down.” (By the Patriot Act) That’s funny, most people that I know feel threatened by it. I can’t remember the last trip I made to the Library.

W criticized Kerry for insulting the alliance on Iraq with “Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place.” He used the mantra more often than his challenger, using his limited time to reinforce Senator Kerry’s point.

The President made frequent allusions to bills he had not succeeded in getting through the Senate because Kerry and Edwards were not there to vote for them. I fail to see how two less Democrats voting in a Republican controlled Senate should make it harder for a Republican President to get his legislation passed.

“Most Liberal Senator, and that’s saying something about that bunch.” is one of the President’s recurrent remarks. Doesn’t he realize that inferring the entire Senate is Liberal, likely won’t make it any easier to work with them? It was one of many memorized “talking points” I have heard too often in the President’s ads. I almost expected him to close some of his responses with, “I’m President George W. Bush and I approved this response.”

The President’s body language was peculiar; he was constantly blinking his eyes. If it were my child, I might take some hair and urine samples…

I was watching this on CNN. Perhaps the other networks did a better job of tracking him, but I found that frequently while he was speaking, he turned his back to the camera and spoke to a dozen people seated behind him. Did he forget that this debate was nationally televised? (I haven’t spent much time in front of a TV camera, but it is common knowledge there is a red light on the working camera.)

W asked the moderator at one point, “Is my time up yet?” The negotiated rules for the debate included a lighting system, the familiar Green Yellow Red sequence of a traffic light. They were visible to the television audience at all times, and according to debate rules were supposed to be mounted on the cameras as well.

George W. Bush was quoted in April, responding to a question as to what mistakes he had made as President:


Asked tonight if he could name 3 mistakes he had made as President, W waffled about the question. I can’t find a complete transcript yet, but he said something to the effect of; “I’m certain historians will find mistakes I’ve made and I’ll accept the responsibility.” and “I’ve made mistakes with appointments that I’ve made, but I wouldn’t want to publicly embarrass them.”

An Internet search for “Bush + mistake” returned 3,400,000 pages… He’s had at least six months to think about the question, and he still can’t think of any mistakes that he has made. He’s right, he’s not as quick on his feet as he needs to be if he wants my vote!


The only cogent argument the President seems to be able to frame is, I’m an experienced leader, so you should follow me.” The reasoning reminds me of a Western movie where the wagons are circled as they attempt to fight off the Indians and hope for the cavalry. I can imagine George W. Bush saying, “We’re making progress. We need to straighten out these wagons and head West. That’s what has gotten us this far, and that’s what is going to help us reach my goal…”

Kerry held his ground, responded in large part to the actual questions asked, sounded intelligent and thoughtful; and remembered the names of the people who had asked the questions, referring to them by name when he referred back to their questions at later points in the debate.

The Pundits will argue they debated to a tie. I would give it to Kerry by a TKO at a minimum, and if he shows up for the fourth debate, I expect him to win hands down.


The commentators have said it will take three - four days for the results of the polling. I would predict a 5 - 10 point slip in the polls for George W. Bush, falling to something less than 40% of likely voters after the final debate.

The final decision of course will fall to the Electoral College...

I imagine that George W. Bush has probably promised to contribute to their scholarship fund, purchase a sweatshirt, and build a new dormitory in return for their support!

Well, I suspected the same thing, mostly because of the change in his demeanor. I remember that JFK got shots of what was essentially meth for his back problems. But it might have been a large dose of caffeine. Bush seems rather ADD in a way, easily irritated, distracted, and prone to freeze up when the unexpected happens, yet also prone to aggression and impulsivity. Caffeine (for the ADD person who doesn't consume it every day) will often bring about focus (while leaving that alert look and aggressive tendencies Bush displayed).

Or maybe someone should snip a bit of his hair and send it to the lab...

I voted that Kerry won, though not by the margin he did in Coral Gables. I think Bush claimed a small victory in that he acquitted himself far better than he did in the first one but I don't think he succeeded in keeping the focus on Kerry's record and did a less than average job of defending his own.

I think both gained spin points. If I were to average I'd say 3-2 in favor of Kerry. I was more disapointed because I think he had some windows of opportunity that he didn't seize. The polls will be a few days away but I'd expect maybe a 1-2 point momentum continuation for Kerry. Polls will be all over the place between now and 11/2 though.

Doc

1)Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?

Bush is Bush is Bush is Bush’s own worst enemy when confronted with hard question or disagreement.

First, I think Bush came off as too aggressive. At exactly 31 minutes into the debate Bush had a confrontation with moderator Charles Gibson. The ugliness of the moment cannot be captured on a transcript.

Tom Brokaw has talked about the winner playing out in the next two or three days around the water cooler. I think this may be the defining moment in that it showed Bush tendency to be confrontational.



<snip>

Second, Bush resorted to labeling or name calling on several occasions. This somewhat echoes his father’s labeling Michael Dukakis a liberal in 1988. Bush one, in fact, couldn’t even bring himself to say “liberal,” it was the dreaded “L” word. I looked for Bush II to resort to reducing liberal to a letter. The following exchange is when Bush labeled Kerry a “liberal” the second time.



<snip>



Third, Bush reinforced the caricature of being bullheaded. When asked by Linda Grabel to list three mistakes he had made, Bush couldn’t, as was the case in his April news conference, even think of one. He did make a general reference about appointments, but didn’t name any. My guess is he was talking about Treasury Paul O’Neill, who I think was one of the best. Note in red bold type below how Bush almost became confrontational with Grabel, but quickly turned “you’re” to “they’re. More confrontation from Bush. It's amazing how Bush changes when he doesn't have Republican filtered audiences.



<snip>



Link to transcript:

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/</a>

Here’s something interesting. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, a former sportscaster, does his take as if the debate were a boxing match.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?

I've heard every possible spin on this tonight, so I guess the answer to that depends on who you are listening to. I don't think the spins tonight changed hard support for either candidate.

Edited to answer question 2.

I'd say that yet again, Kerry won the debate although not by as large of a margin as the first one. Kerry presented strong, consistent and logical arguments backed up by facts and quotes (whether or not they were accurate and without spin is a post-analysis thing, but having them earns you points) and Bush rarely did this.

Overall I'd have to say I was highly surprised by the questions that were asked, they seemed to me to be very good (and tough) questions for both sides. I guess I just expected them to be more watered down.

But, the main reason that Kerry won was once again intangibles and Bush's inability to control his temper, body langauge and speak in an impromptu fashion.

The entire time Bush was speaking, and especially during the foreign policy section at the beginning, he was defensive and bordering on raging anger at times. I felt that he was harsh on the audience (there was one time I think the woman that asked him a question looked about ready to cry because his answer and tone was so harsh). When he finished a question he always had this "gee I done good" look on his face and a little smirk like he just lied through his teeth. Kerry on the other hand maintained his composure and didn't lose his cool.

At one point Bush was about ready to march over to the moderator and have it out with him when he was simply trying to give him a chance to respond to the answer. I fully expect that by the last debate, Kerry will be able to goad Bush into storming off the stage if he continues this way.

The shots they showed of Bush when Kerry was speaking were priceless too, he was noticeably irritated, fidgeting, etc although not quite as bad as the first time. There was one shot though, where his eyes were wide that was very familiar. Those of you that have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 will recognize it, Bush looked exactly the same as when he received news that the second plane had hit and he just sat there. If you don't believe me go rent it and watch that scene

Bush clearly lost on the intangibles, you can't really look more unpresidential than that. He came off looking like a stropy teen.

2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?
I don't think we are really going to know until Monday, but I'd say that Kerry was. Kerry will maintain his momentum here, Bush didn't make up any ground. We were watching Fox News (for entertainment purposes) and they were trying to say Bush did a good job, I was wondering if we watched the same debate or if their expectations were just so low that he did do a good job.

Going into the domestic debate, I don't think Bush will pick up anything because that is clearly his weakest area and I wished Kerry attacked him more on it. His answers on all but a few questions here were an elaborate dance or non-answers.

Edited to Add: Here is the Blow-by-Blow analysis from MSNBC. I won't quote anything for now, but it is an interesting read you should check out.

Also, to let you know how the spin battle is going, these are some quotes from various news personalities.

I am so glad this is over. It has been painful to witness the leaders of the once free world duck and dodge the facts that have been played to absolute death over the past few years. It has been painful to hear the President express so much poor thinking in such bad English. I guess that's being down-home.

Who won? Maybe we won in seeing a little more the reality that we live with.

Who spun better? I don't care. Just happy it is over.

I voted that Kerry won. It was really man and boy stuff. Kerry, as you would hope from an intelligent potential president expressed his views in a way that did not patronize the electorate. He made it perfectly clear that caveats are very important in politics. Legislation is not Black and white and legislating certainly isn't. Notice how Kerry explained that he was against "partial birth" abortions but that there should have been a provision in the relevant legislation to provide for the life of the mother so that they may be permitted exclusively to save the mother's life and that was the only reason he didn't vote for the bill as it stood.

But Bush - even after Kerry's explanation - restated that Kerry didn't vote for the Bill and that's that. He was saying that clearly Kerry was all for partial birth abortions because he voted against a bill about those abortions. No caveats allowed in his world. This was simply a lie. We heard the truth about Kerry's reasons just seconds before Bush railroaded over that and simply claimed Kerry was for those abortions! What's wrong with the man?

If you think a bill should be amended for some fundamental reasons you, as a responsible senator do not vote for it. That's how politics works. If I was a Senator and a bill came up to give everyone an everlasting life serum except blacks I would vote against it but that does not mean I was against ever lasting life, it just means I am against the clause blocking blacks from receiving it. It's not complicated to understand this sort of thing but Bush doesn't want these nuances in politics. That is abundantly clear.

But overall, my impression of Bush was whiney, deeply annoyed that he has to defend "obviously correct" policies - and did so without giving any cogent reasons whatsoever - and very defensive. I also couldn't believe how rude he was to the moderator. Kerry, on the other hand, had many facts in his head, many Republican quotes you have to deal with and a very statesman-like demeanor. He properly described Bush's approach to the likes of Kyoto - he didn't negotiate or participate, he just pulled out and that was that - and didn't let Bush get away with his economic failures.

Bush claimed that the whole downturn started 6 months before he came to office yet what did he do about this downturn? Nada. The only thing he did was after the recession was in full flow and then all he did was give the top 1% $87bn in tax breaks. He promised 5 million jobs with this tax cut and delivered less than 2 million.

In short, Kerry won by a margin (I still disagree with many of his policies) but I fear Bush's people may yet out spin Kerry. The fact that Kerry has bolstered his campaign team with ex-Clinton people may help him more than we can yet predict.

I caught part of the debate live (from about 2-3am local time) then had to retire to bed, dog tired.

Having read the analysis on here and elsewhere about how close the election is, and how the first debate was won by a short nose by Kerry, I expected a pretty evenly-matched contest.

Frankly, I was surprised how much better Kerry was than Bush. He answered the questions on points of principle first, then (where appropriate) pointed out policy differences with the President. Bush on the other hand seemed keener to draw attention to percieved weaknesses in his opponent, often not saying anything at all about his own position.

In the segment I saw, this was most noticeable in the answer to the question on what to do about the defecit. Kerry answered the question, and got in a few digs on Bush. Bush got the digs in all right, but didn't talk at all about what he was going to do about the defecit. For me, this was where it would have been good for the moderator to intervene and ask the President to answer the question posed, or to refer back to the questioner to see if they were happy with the answers given. Better still, I think it would have been a big blow for Kerry to say something like "The President has taken the time to outline the weaknesses he perceives in my defecit policy, but can I respectfully ask him what he is going to do about it?"

Also, Kerry engaged with the audience in a way Bush didn't seem capable of doing - all the President seemed to do was wink at someone I couldn't see on the front row as he returned to his seat, which may or may not have been intended, as he was blinking like someone with new contact lenses anyway. He gave every impression of someone who didn't want to be there, who found it insulting that anyone should ask him hostile questions or that should disagree with him..

This was the first time I have seen President Bush speak formally in public with out a teleprompter, and I am very surprised that he holds any kind of political office, let alone the highest on the planet. Actually, shocked and disappointed would be a more appropriate expression of how I felt watching the debate last night.

Bush does not come across to me as a politician in any way that I recognise or respect, which Kerry does in spades (or at least, he did last night). But perhaps that is why Bush has the support that he does - he seems almost anti-political.

A worthwhile subject, Hero, but alas, based on a faulty premise.

What the American people and those around the world are seeing are not a true debate as much as televised joint appearances. True, freed from the podiums it allowed Bush and Kerry a bit more physical ability to move about, but I remain unconvinced that any forum with mulitiple pages of agreed-upon rules created by a entity that belongs to the two major political parties is truly a debate.

Not that the "debate" with warts and all doesn't have some value.

I'm actually more interested in what the ratings for the 2nd presidential "debate" were than arguable variables such as who "won" and who "lost." I mean let's get serious here. Despite what the polls, blogs, spin-meisters, talking heads and experts say, nobody knows what the voters are going to do next month.

Bush, coming off a horrendous first debate, had to follow-up Cheney's salvage operation and came off less mechancial, repetitive and uncomfortable. He was just as programmed to get his talking points out, but for Bush I'm not sure the goal is to "win" the debate so much as it is to put Kerry on the defensive and raise doubts about him. Bush had nowhere to go but up after the first go-round. The only thing he could have done to be worse were to drop his pants and moon both Kerry and the audience.

Kerry needed these debates far more than Bush. I agree with something yehoshua said in the chatroom that maybe Bush should have only agreed to two joint televised appearances. As most posters have so far written, Bush is such a painfully inarticulate man. He tells you the sky is blue when it's booming down rain. His disconnect from reality at times is downright scary. Yeah, he might have sealed the deal with a knock-out punch to Kerry last week, but he never delivered it. Now, Bush has to come out agressive---without being mean---and try to top Kerry in a war of words. That's not exactly playing to Bush's strength.

I don't think the St. Louis Smackdown is going to be the turning point for either candidate. First impressions are awfully hard to change and the negative one Bush created in his initial outing can't be purged from the collective memory. Even his most rabid supporters can't rewrite history to turn his defeat into victory.

They'll get their chance in November.

I voted neither. Bush did a lot better in this debate than he did in the first one, much better than I think most people expected he would. There really was no clear winner in my opinion. Obviously Kerry presents himself better than Bush. I agree more with Bush on the issues, but unfortunately the issues seem to take a backseat in televised debates.

Ugh, I can't wait for this election to be over.

The Stats:


POLLS ANSWER:
Overall
Kerry: 47
Bush: 45

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle each of the following issues. How about -- [Random Order]?

Economy (post-debate)
Kerry: 49
Bush: 49

Economy (pre-debate)
Kerry: 44
Bush: 50

Situation in Iraq (post-debate)
Kerry: 46
Bush: 53

Situation in Iraq (pre-debate)
Kerry: 50
Bush: 46

Terrorism (post-debate)
Kerry: 39
Bush: 56

Terrorism (pre-debate)
Kerry: 45
Bush: 52

Interesting ones:
Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
Kerry: 49
Bush: 50

Was more likable
Kerry: 45
Bush: 47

Was more believable
Kerry: 45
Bush: 49

Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
Kerry: 40
Bush: 53

Okay that is enough polls, check out the rest for yourself. What i find interesting is despite the fact that Kerry won the debate, people find that Bush is more likable, tough enough, believable, and people agree with Bush.

Does this mean that people believe Bush? That people think Bush isn't lying?

1)Who won the second debate based on argumentation and debating skills?

Clearly, Kerry won. He came across as a highly intelligent, knowledgable
debater, who had facts and statistics to back up his claims. He did not show
negative emotions, even when Bush was spinning his plates and trying to
make a joke out of Kerry. He behaved professionally and courteously.


2)Who was more successful in political spin terms?

Bush wasn't successful in spinning anything. He tried, but came off looking
foolish, inept and arrogant. He is a functional illiterate. It became very obvious
as he stumbled through the debate. A cocky attitude and a southern
drawl will only get a candidate so far....


As an aside: I happened to be working at the Country Bash 2004 in Irvine, CA.
I've never seen so many Bush/Cheney stickers. A lot of folks were wearing
them on their rear ends (how befitting). So, it looks like he's got the beer-
guzzlin', bull-ridin' cow-people in his corner.

yehoshua,

Thanks for sharing Gallop's poll on the 2nd debate.

The margin of error for this poll was +-5, meaning that, like many polls on the election itself, this was a statistical tie. This, however, is just one poll. An ABC instant poll produced similar results:

Kerry 44%
Bush 41%
Tie 13%

ABC reports that this was within the MOE, meaning another statistical tie.

The "beauty" of statistics is that you can have two totally different numbers that are not totally different.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/st...d=150617&page=1

Other recent polls have also shown "internal confusion." On the issues of "terrorism" and "toughness" Bush won by more than the 5 point MOE.

I really think likeability is irrelevant. Historically speaking, Kennedy was loved while Johnson, especially on the hill, was feared and respected. It was Johnson who rammed Kennedy's civil rights and Medicare proposals through Congress. Gallup and other pollsters should start stressing respect in lieu of or in addition to this have a beer with an ordinary guy mentality.

While watching the debate live it was clear to me who appeared more Presidential, less excitable, more civil, more willing to cite sources and statistics for his positions, and who was able to remember the names of the audience who addressed the questions to him and his opponent, and it wasn't George W. Bush.

And what was that square thing on Bush's back whose outline was apparent when his back was to the camera? Energizer batteries?

I remember watching the man who posed the environmental question to President Bush, how he continued to scowl throughout Bush's answer. I also remember Senator Kerry calling Bush on trying to label himself an "environmental President" or some such garbage, saying that labels don't mean anything. And he's right.

I remember when the President verbally bowled over Charlie Gibson the moderator, and looked like he was going to physically bowl him over, too. I remember the spin the Bush backers gave, "Well, he's the President," "It shows his strength," and other lame justifications for his lack of decorum.

A few posters have said that style matters little when compared to substance. I disagree. Style matters as well as substance. In both regards, I believe John Kerry looked, sounded and acted more Presidential than the incumbent.

Edit: As of this writing, the poll indicates Kerry has 30 votes to Bush's 11 votes here on AD.

Let's also not forget that Gallup has been over polling Republicans, so they have virtually no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned. They could be predicting a win for Bush 83 to 17 and it wouldn't mean anything.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Debate%20II%20Oct%2010.htm

On the other hand, a non-scientific poll on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Late Edition, had Kerry winning the debate by more than 90%.

I voted Bush.

For one thing, Bush's main objective here was to "stop the bleeding". Kerry's campaign was on a roll. Cheney stemmed the tide a bit, but Bush needed to be Presidential.

I watched the debate with my kids (ages 9 and 5) and even my 9 year old could tell that Kerry was being evasive (she is sharp as a tack ).

She kept asking me "Why doesn't he answer the questions?"

Her conclusion "I don't like John Kerry. I like President Bush."

For some, it will boil down to such a simplistic choice: who do you like?

Bush fared well enough to get his legs back under him, which is a win.

He certainly did not convincingly beat Kerry. He did, however, help himself more than Kerry did.

My ten-year-old daughter (who is also very bright) is tired of the election. But she also recognizes Bush's half-truths on campaign commercials. For that reason she didn't want to watch the debate.

There were also questions that Bush did not answer, particularly when he was unwilling to cite any examples where he erred. Does a strong leader own up to mistakes or not? I'm sure there could have been some way for the spinmeisters to make it sound like he made a couple of errors with the best intentions in mind while being more specific than Bush was.

Bush still has that "I'm the President--I don't have to explain myself" mindset that denies his answerability to the American people. It is arrogance and/or fear of losing the election that compels him to act as if he's above it all.

But it's not a good attitude for winning a debate in a so-called town hall setting.

Okay, so I finally watched the debate last night via Tivo. I have to say that I was surprised that both candidates actually answered some of the questions presented. Politicians in general are evasive and don't actually answer questions in my experience. Unlike Amlord though, I felt that Kerry did a better job answering the questions given. He just didn't do so in a three word sound bite.

I was unsurprised that Dubya couldn't think of any direct examples of where he made mistakes in his presidency except for ambiguous "appointments". He seemed to chastise the questioner for asking it. Dubya did do an adequate job in the debate which did surprise me. Both candidates were fast and loose with the facts available though I found Dubya's interpretation of the Duelfer report to be disingenuous.

While nothing new came out in this debate, it was interesting to see Dubya change from the "flip-flopper" refrain to the "liberal" refrain. Wonder what the next refrain will be? I was all set for the "flipper" drinking game and then he changed on me to "liberal". How can I get drunk when he alters his negative catch phrase of the day?

Finally, the debate seemed civil and had real content. The questions were interesting and varied. Both candidates were aggresive in their positions (Dubya too aggresive). The differences in philosophy were made salient. And though I only grudgingly support Kerry, I felt Dubya made some good points (tax cuts + balanced budget + health care = ?). Anyway, maybe there's hope for the town hall debate format.

I gave this one to Kerry. I thought that Bush had a strong edge on Kerry in the beginning. He was answering questions and giving thorough responses.

Bush started losing when he verbally assaulted Gibson. He lost his cool, and his explanations seems whiney and insubstantial. Kerry picked up some steam on that whole midsection of the debate. When Bush got his first laugh, I thought he was cruising back in a little. But he was still hazy, and Kerry walloped him on medicare. On the domestic policy, I thought kerry only lost on abortion and, surprisingly, the stem cells.

When watching the debate, I was angry because of the laugh Bush got for saying that he never knew he owned a timber business. I'm expecting that he'll get walloped for that today.

Bush was more on the defense, he had more opportunities to spin and thus he did.

William Safire said it best: How Bush Won Round 2



Kerry contradicted himself directly there.

Bush pinned him down several times, fairly effectively in my estimation.

The timberland thing, however, is a mute point to what Kerry was really trying to point out. Factcheck.org puts this quite nicely, so:

Basically, it amounts to the same thing. The definition of small Business is so broad that even Bush qualifies. Odd that wasn't in the NY times article.
Factcheck

I also watched the debate with my two boys (ages 4 and 6). They didn't have the
least bit interest in watching. However, my oldest son seems to think that George
W. Bush is a deceitful person who has mislead the American people. I have no
idea where he got that idea..



It leads me to believe that our kids, whether we realize it or not, do hear what
we say, even if we are not saying it to them. You are a pro-Bush Republican,
and that most definitely will make itself known to your kids. Wouldn't you say?



For most, and that is why I believe GWB is still hanging onto a following. If
people actually looked at what he says during the debates, and how he says it,
they would be left with a big question mark in their minds. Don't get me wrong
here, I'm not supporting Kerry, and I'm not voting for him. But, he comes
off looking so much smarter and better than Bush.





He did better than I expected him to do. But, he still did horribly.




Another example of children listening and following their opinion leaders - we,
the parents.




I was equally troubled by his unwillingness and inability to own up to anything.
He could have scored some points with those who are undecided if he would
have found a tactful way to take responsibility for the mishaps that have
occurred on his "watch." Instead, he isolated more viewers and came off looking
arrogant and complacent.



Most definitely. He lacks the mental fortitude to lower himself to our level,
and speak in a way that makes us believe he gives a flying fish (even though
he doesn't).

I just don't understand how people can give this man and his administration
such blind support, when all facts point to his guilt, and all of his actions clearly
show that he cares not one iota for our welfare as Americans!

After reviewing my copius notes it came out close, but Bush definitely won this round. Kerry had a real hard time staying on subject. Bush's blunder was on the what (3) mistakes have you made. The questions was unfair as was the very first questions against Kerry on "wobbling".

Bush made his points clear and direct. He addressed the audience much better, and got Kerry's record on the table which has been neglected by the mainstream media for too long. Bush also scored some labeling points exposing Kerry as the Liberal that he is.

Bush could have scored a knockout blow had he hit the point that Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. The French, Germans, U.N., were all on board. Yet Kerry could not even support this action. When will he stand up against what is wrong?

Even though Bush missed this shot he did well. Domestically Kerry missed some huge opening and thus has to be penalized for this. He could have hammered on the economy better, and his answer on Abortion was just a bad bad time for him. He tanked.

Report Card:

Bush B
Kerry C+

Later,

That seems like a pretty partisan answer don't you think? The fact of the matter is, Bush didn't do as bad as he did in the first debate, but he certainly didn't knock 'em dead either.

Looking only at delivery and intangibles -

Bush didn't do very well at all in the foreign policy section of the debate (again) and during that time he appeared defensive, unsure and he looked worried/angry when Kerry was speaking and he was shown on camera. I don't know how you can say he did well with the audience, he practically yelled at a few of them when they asked him questions about Iraq. One woman in the audience even looked like she was about to cry. Bush's outburst on the moderator in the middle of the debate is classic, and is one of the reasons why he lost.

Kerry on the other hand was calm, in control, concise, appeared confident, didn't make mistakes when his opponent was talking off camera and didn't have any outbursts.


This is the only part of your post that I'm going to even come close to agreeing with. There were several times during the domestic part of the debate where I wanted Kerry to "go for the kill", but he either botched it or missed the opportunity. However, he did do a good job of hammering Bush on quite a few topics including the deficit, the economy, jobs, drugs from canada, health care and education.

On the abortion thing, Kerry didn't botch that at all, his position is essentially pro-choice. Being pro-choice does not require you to condone abortion, but simply for you to allow others to do it provided they are educated properly.


That is a nearly perfect pro-choice answer, I don't see how you can say he botched that. It is pretty hard to tell someone who is anti-abortion (which this woman clearly was by her question) that they are wrong. I think he gave a good answer.

You are calling others bias.... hello pot this is the kettle. Your quote above is all anyone needs to know about you. There was no Bush that was:

Defensive
Unsure
Worried
Angry
Yelling
Outbursts
Making Audience Members Cry

Your post is hillarious.

Then you say that Kerry was:

Calm
Controlled
Concise
Confident

Kerry waffled, stammered, got waaaay off subject, and blathered off on tangents often.

Dan Rather... is that you?

Later,

First off Kerry uses his Catholic upbringing to support taxpayer-funded abortion and partial-birth abortions.But his 20 years reflects a told different story. One of disrespect for he sanctity of life.

• Last week Kerry called the Catholic Church's teachings on the sanctity of life "extreme right wing ideology."
  
  
• "Abortion need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice."
  
  
• In 1994, Kerry stated in the Congressional Record that he would "vote against any restrictions on age, consent, funding restrictions, or any law to limit access to abortion."
  
  
• Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban six times, despite the fact that the ban included an exception for the life of the mother.
  
  
• Kerry voted 25 times in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
  

To all this Kerry says,

Now I believe that Kerry should distance himself from being tied down to any religion especial as Democrat. Yet I think what Kerry said and what he does are two different things.

Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

While Kerry was talking about action, rather than speech, I'm not sure it's such a bad thing for someone to allow others to do something they themselves don't do or don't believe in. This is called "permissive" rather than "active" libertarianism.

Taking off on the TV show Father Knows Best's name, do we want to say by contrast, "Bush knows best?" Some seem to take this position, but quite frankly, I can't think of many issues where Bush has shown stellar wisdom.

I guess the question is, how do you feel right in your faith, when you "permit" someone to do something you yourself are morally against.

In Kerry's faith, the belief is that at conception, there is human life. Thus, by Kerry's faith, abortion is murder. Now Kerry doesn't support murder, so why this flip-flop?

I guess it is through Kerry's own justification: The poor must be allowed to murder the children. And through this justification, the poor must be allowed to murder for money, food, or whatever else the poor in this country might need or not need.

And as to your comments with regards to Bush, Kerry's Catholic childhood and continued believe in his faith have nothing to do with Bush.