So, the final debate is at hand and the question of course is who won. I started this a bit early because I wanted to make sure the "overall" question was asked, so please wait till the debate is finished to respond

Questions for debate:
1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

Ok..I'll bite.

Bush won. He looked like the guy I voted for. If it weren't for his obsession with Iraq, spending, and open borders, I'd vote for him again.

Somehow, I think Kerry will be looked at as the winner as he basically met expectations.

All in all, I thought this was the best and most even out of all three of them. Both did a good job, but Bush looked like the President for a change.

Is it me, or did they all look like they were patting each other down for wires at the meet and greet at the end?

I voted tie. Bush was on his game much of the night tonight. Several of the answers were fluffy and I was disappointed in the caliber of the debate in terms of really wrestling with issues.

I think Kerry got timid because he isn't way behind anymore.

Overall Kerry benefited most from the debates, but he failed to hit a homerun in the last debate on issues that he is supposed to be stronger.

Bush was unabashedly hammering away at the Massachusetts liberal concept.
Used every excuse to celebrate No Child Left Behind.

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

I voted Kerry. I think Bush is benefiting from the example of his first debate- Kerry was much more composed than the President in this one, but pundits are lauding him b/c he wasn't hunching and scowling. He still seemed cranky.

It should be added that the inevitable defense that the Pres. trumped on substance, not style, is laughable. He stuck to the strategy of relying on talking points (liberal! Massachusetts!) and Bizzaro-land interpretations of Kerry's Senate record (Kerry threw this logic- using multiple votes on one bill- back at Bush by "showing" that he voted many, many tax cuts).

Further, Bush pulled a Cheney on whether or not he'd said he was unconcerned by Bin Laden, which at the very least is equally as fair a characterization of his quote as his use of Kerry statements, which has formed the basis of the entire BC04 campaign in lieu of being able to run on record.

In summary, the President's performance was angry, defensive, shallow, dishonest . . .and exactly what we've come to expect. It's sad that this could be considered close.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

Kerry needed to make up ground for Bush's advantages of the later convention and the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Even absent the gulf in performances, Kerry gets the biggest boost.

My view on the first debate is that it was a tactical draw which at the time led me to believe Bush won the debate. Not that I thought Bush had substance or won off content but because to me he acted as he always does which tends to be what all his supporters expect. I didnt notice the facial features and grimaces.

As for the VP debate I thought from an instantaneous point of view that it was a draw but over the subsequent 48 hours as the facts came out I thought Edwards won.

The second debate I thought Kerry won. Kerry seemed able to rip off a great deal of facts and overcome Bush and Bush's attempts at personal charm. Alot of Bush's lines landed flat.

The third debate I felt Kerry won clearly. The thirs debate was a reiteration of the previous two debates and on a personal level I thought Kerry looked more articulate, appealing and as superficial of a quality as it is....human. Kerry was more respectful towards Bush and laughed at Bush's jokes. Kerry landed jokes and Bush stared puzzled. Kerry seems like a more likeable person to me. If I could havea conversation with either one it would certainly be Kerry.

So I would say Kerry was 2-1 winning debates 2 and 3 and Edwards was 1-0.

What I brought away from everything is that Bush would overturn Roe vs Wade if afforded the opportunity. That Bush has nothing positive to run on which is why he kept reverting to Kerry's senate record because he couldnt vouch for is own choices. That Bush still refuses to admit his mistakes and that Bush's greatest slams come from his mistakes. Like the wood comment about the timber compay.....that he was invested in and the Bin Laden statement that Bush scoffed at and in reality said he wasnt worried about Bin Laden.

I thought Kerry won this debate.

I think Kerry did well tonight in fact I thought he won this one maybe more clearly then he won the others.

I'll chime in.

Bush scored a knockout punch and was outstanding tonight - and I was one who thought Kerry had the better performance in the first debate compared to the President. Tonight Bush was noticeably fresh, confident and hopeful.

Bush hit the nail on the head referencing Kerry's actual record constantly. "His record does not match his rhetoric" was a successful theme. Kerry's votes are the most credible information the public can look to in understanding Kerry's character and policy intent. Kerry's weakness is his record, and no words can cover that up.

Bush also hit the heart of the matter refrencing his defense of the democractic process and opposition to judges legislating from the bench. He exposed Kerry as the one who has a litmus test for appointing judges on life issues.

For me, Kerry does himself in being a divided person. He has said he personally believes in the right of life for the unborn and marriage as between a man a woman, but he doesnt stand up for it in public. To me, saying one thing and doing the opposite is a lie - if he did hold those beliefs, he would stand up for them, but he doesnt.

On taxes and the economy, Bush appropriately pointed out how many times Kerry opposed tax cuts in the Senate and supported tax increases. Kerry also did not show how his plans to increase government run health care can be viable economically.

The only answer I felt Kerry did better on was the assualt weapons ban, and I also give him credit for complimenting the President, which showed good class.

Bush really delivered tonight, simply, clearly, and put the focus back on Kerry's deeds as a senator instead of his words.

CNN factcheck.

One thing this factcheck is missing is Bush's claim that Kerry voted for tax increases 90 something times. One of those increases was on cigarettes and I heard NBC's fact checker say that bill was voted on 6 times, so Kerry had actually voted for tax increases 50 something times.

I voted tie. I have to say I'm fairly disappointed Kerry sounds like Bush on border security. You can outfit the border patrol with the latest gizmos but you won't begin to level the cost of that technology until we drop this ridiculous worker amnesty idea that only serves to encourage people to pile in before the cut off date and wear down our human resources/labor that, unlike machines and technology, do tire. When Kerry brought up extending unemployment benefits I wanted to smack him. I was also disappointed Bush didn't answer the Roe question. I thought of a Braveheart scene at that moment: "The Almighty says don't change the subject; just answer the you-know-what question."

I agree with another NBC analyst who said the debates sometimes sounded like campaign stumps and we provided the candidates with a ready audience to absorb their talking points.

So, if I think smoking is stupid, I'm a liar if I don't support the federal gov't banning it for others? This is a central difference between Bush and Kerry, one I think voters are sophisticated enough to understand. Kerry can disagree with something without thinking the national gov't should ban it. I think real, honest small gov't advocates see these debates and sense that Bush is a false prophet of their branch of conservatism- a deficit-happy fan of large, intrusive federal gov't. I don't think this contrast helps.

DerekPenn,

A limping analogy comparing defending one's right to exist to a smoking habit I feel. But instead of debating that issue, what did you think of tonight's debate?

I think Kerry won. It was the same old Bush many of us have grown so weary of in the past four years--make that 10 if you are from Texas. Here's an example:

At approximately 8:25 Kerry was answering a question when the green light came on. Bush cut him off before he had finished speaking and addressed Kerry directly. Schieffer let it slide, but came back to the question a little later. Letting Bush get away with this is an outrage.



Note: Bush starts this tangent before the moderator speaks. This is just another manifestation of Bush’s arrogance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6243023/

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?
I voted Kerry yet again, he triumphed in almost all of the areas remained as calm and collected as a zen master, cited facts when Bush didn't and kept Bush on the defensive. For your reference a transcript is out on C-Span right now.

Some of the bigger moments:
In Question 1, Kerry clearly won this one but here was Bush's fatal mistake:

Gosh Mr. Bush I'm afraid you did:


Question 2 was about the Flu Vaccination shortage. The first thing he does is blame the UK for our problems (he is the Excuse President afterall). But then he says this:

But I thought you were against bringing Candian drugs into the country Mr. President.

And Kerry really scored a few points on the whole assualt weapons ban with this line:


Kerry trumped Bush on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Social Security and Health Care. Bush still fails on judges, and you would have to be a fool not to believe that Bush won't appoint someone that makes justices like Scalia and Thomas look liberal. Now that may jive with the ideology of some here, but the simple fact of the matter is that it will set America back decades as far as progress goes in civil rights and other areas.

We also have several bad one liners from Bush, an example:

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He might have been trying to refer to "RatherGate" here, but he completely botched it.


2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

I don't think that there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that Kerry has improved his position the most, and Bush has hurt himself the most, by these debates. All one has to do is look at virtually any poll out there and see the huge margin that was made up over the past month. When some polls were calling for a 13 point lead (artificial or not), the conservatives here were dancing with joy and gloating, I kind of have to wonder if they have started sweating a little bit now

Kerry has come out strong, shown he is a better speaker, more knowledgeable, has defined positions and in general has just appeared more presidential. To see the proof here, all one has to do is look at how the attacks have changed.

Before the debates
- Flip-Flopper
- Swift Boat Vets

During and After the Debates
- You are "liberal"

Seriously, is that supposed to mean something? The other attacks have failed because the Bush/Cheny campaign has finally realized that they aren't working because people don't buy them. So now they resort to name calling and labelling.

The fight is long from over, but Kerry is going into the final weeks much better off than he started. There is also the X factor here, I'm predicting that we are going to have an all time high for voter registration and turnout this year. Most of these polls are based in part on previous voting patterns and registration. They cannot and do not consider that the events in this country as well as agressive efforts by both parties will cause more people than ever before to vote. From what I have seen the democratic groups have been more successful in their quest, but we'll see in November if it pays off.

I already posted what I thought above- the fourth post- but I was expanding on it in the post you're addressing. The debate was on domestic issues. Bush has tried to appeal continually to his "traditional" conservative base, while doing very little to show "small gov't" conservatism. The "free lunch" approach of big gov't matched with tax cuts is intellectually bankrupt, even as it makes our nation fiscally bankrupt. I don't think people who identify themselves as conservative in the state's rights or individualist sense of the word can watch this debate and vote for the President on those grounds.

And you also mentioned gay marriage, not just abortion- which is a more legit issue of public concern, carcinogens or the gender of the monogamous, stable couple next door?

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

In strict terms of argumentation Bush looked like a four year old child, as usual. There were several instances where Kerry confused viewers with his arguments, but it scarcely compares to the president's reeling when trying to answer many of the questions aimed at him. Kerry B+, Bush F+

In terms of speaking, Kerry again, Kerry made less obnoxious faces, stayed calm and reasonable and came off intelligently and kindly. Bush continued grimacing and flinching in disagreement, although his speaking has improved measurably since the first two debates. Kerry B+, Bush D+.

The most important terms of all:

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

The polls, however irregular and biased, have shown the result. Before the debates Kerry/Edwards were falling behind by margins of sometimes double digits. Now the race is much closer again. The debates have given Kerry three venues to show off his obvious intellectual superiority over the president.

I didn't catch the VP debate, but who cares about them?

Overall, I think that Kerry controlled more of the debate than Bush. Bush won the first rounds and some near the end, but overall Kerry beat him on style on things such as medicare, minimum wage (though I oppose him on that) etc.

The worst part for Kerry was when He claimed that the votes could be construed either way, then Bush basically said: "no, its because your a waffler." That I thought came close to being a knockout punch, but Kerry really came back.

Clear one for Kerry. Saved his dying campaign and put us back into an interesting election.

CBS Poll: Kerry

ABC: Tie, with more republicans watching

This does not make Kerry a divided person Rip. Kerry is a religious man and his religious beliefs fall on the side of the argument against gay marriage and against abortion.

What Kerry does however, is divorce himself from that and realize that even though he personally would not make those choices (or condone them in his family), he realizes that his beliefs do not apply to everyone. This, is the crux of the positions held by those who believe in gay marriage and the right to chose. This country is not about forcing your beliefs on others, that is why we have civil rights.

Kerry is to be commended for being able to draw the line between his personal beliefs and what should be forced upon the country. George Bush on the other hand wants to do exactly that.

America is incredibly diverse culturally, politically and religiously and I think that if a person fails to realize that and tries to force their beliefs on everyone then they really don't understand what America is about. It impedes progress and worse it divides the country. We simply cannot afford to be divided when there are so many things that we must be strong to accomplish.

First, a reply to rjp2004.

As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Again as on another thread, Kerry was talking about actions rather than words, but the same principles apply. Kerry is actually taking a libertarian position, but more specifically a “permissive” rather than “active” type libertarianism.

What is wrong with being able to accept people who are different than we are or think differently than we do? Is tolerance now a vice? Do we really want people to be the “Little Boxes” described by folk singer Pete Seeger?

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/seeger-pete-...xes-lyrics.html

Finally, Kerry quoted John F. Kennedy's speech to the Houston Ministerial Alliance in 1960. The speech defined separation of church then and the same should apply now.

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/spee...inisterial.html

Here's some other debate news.

On CNN they are scoring the debate on letter grades just like a school report card.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/p...ts/results.html

On MSNBC’s non-scientific poll, Edit update Kerry is currently leading 71% to 29%. More than 800,000 people have voted. If the trend of other debates continues, Kerry will probably end up with at least 60% to Bush’s 40%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

Here’s how MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann scored tonight’s debate in boxing terms.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

BTW: The thing Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are hammering is Kerry’s reference to Cheney’s daughter. According to Buchanan “everybody’s thinking about.” This generalization apparently doesn’t apply to AD.

Edited to add link to John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech.

Edited to add this CNN/USA/Gallup Poll

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/...poll/index.html

My favorite Kerry quote of the evening:



Debate # 1 - I didn't see.

Debate #2 (between the VP candidates) - I didn't see

Debate #3 - Kerry won by a landslide.

Final debate - Bush did the best he could do, but he failed miserably to
those of us who look past the doublespeak. The whole debate was pretty
lackluster. Kerry and Bush both skirted the illegal alien/open border issues.
Kerry gave more in terms of actual information, and he came across in a much
better light, overall.

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?
Zen master? Four year old child? Did Comedy Central run a parody debate with look alikes, and somehow many of our members tuned into that by mistake?

Both candidates were similarly uninspiring, but overall, I give a slight edge to GW (possibly only because he gets the most improved award).

Bush again reaffirmed that he is not a member of MENSA, and Kerry came with his tap shoes on to dance around the questions with his vague 'I have a plan' line.

Neither candidate squarely tackled immigration, Guard/Reserve or homeland security. Both candidates played fast and loose with the truth. (where's that who lied more thread at anyway?)

Once again, after debate polls are meaningless, all but the very objective will tout their candidates success regardless of actual performance and denigrate the opponent based on facial expressions, bad one liners and perceived compassion.

I voted Bush.

Kerry looked and sounded disconnected from the people. He kept saying "listen people" and similar things that just didn't sound inspiring.

Of course, the quote of the night:


His plan is not a government plan .

Kerry's attempt to bring Cheney's daughter into the debate was a fairly low blow.

Bush scored well on the "Kerry has no record of leadership" theme, but could have been tougher on that one, too.

Kerry had some good moments, although he seemed to lack the conviction of the President.

Overall, Bush had a slight advantage.

First let me say that I am glad these debates are over with now--I think the last 2 could have been cut down by an hour, as the SAME things keep getting said, with the SAME statistics.

I know that there are many people who are Bush supporters, as I once was a few years ago. But honestly, watching John Kerry debate George Bush is kinda like watching Albert Einstein debate Beaver Cleaver. Beaver may come off as "more likebale," but it is almost comical. Clearly told that his scowling in the first debate hurt him, Bush has forced the most awkward smiles at the most inappropriate moments these last two debates. He's just trying to come across as more friendly but it really does not help him to seem that awkward.

These debates have CLEARLY helped Kerry the most, as evidenced by his swell of support in the past three weeks. I know the Bush supporters will say that polls don't mean anything, but you were the same people praising W for his jump in the polls after the RNC.

I think Kerry won this debate and the Dems are 4-0 in these debates.

Amlord, I have reviewed large part of the transcript of the debate--what I saw published on CNN, and John Kerry never once uses the phrase "listen people" as you say he kept doing over and over again??

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?
I voted neither. I spent most of the debate trying to figure out which candidate looked like a bigger fool while the other was talking. I would like to say that John Kerry completely lost me when he started sounding as religious as Bush. Bush lost me when he blinked.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign? I don't think either. These debates did nothing to shed additional light on the candidates position. They did nothing to persuade and drive their points. They were a waste of time and money, a sham, these debates were one big commercial for the two major parties and at the expense of the tax payors.

Questions for debate:
1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

Yankees and Cardinals, because of better pitching and hitting, respectively.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

With Schilling likely out, the Yankees are definitely firmly in control of their series. The Astros weren't really expected to win the first two games, so they're still in position....we won't know how that series is really going until after Clemens and Ostwalt pitch, at home.

Oh, that's right....they scheduled another debate that nite too, didn't they . Can't say that I caught it....I was almost certainly not going to hear anything that I hadn't heard before , whereas the Sox vs. Yankees is an event, and the Astros are one of the feel good stories in sports this year. Can always catch the transcript of the debate (which I have looked at, but not fully). From what I read, and saw in the other debates, Kerry has certainly narrowed the gap. The more I watch/listen to Kerry though, the more he reminds me of Clinton--he is certainly very good at telling people what they want to hear, but is unlikely to accomplish a great deal of what he says. I get the feeling that, as with Clinton, his policies/plans are not driven by personal belief or idealogy, but by polls--which is never a process I am in favor of (yes, Bush has done it on certain issues also). However, as with Clinton, you can't argue against the effectiveness of this technique--as with Clinton, you also can't claim Kerry is not both an intelligent individual and a very effective politician. So, he certainly helped himself most in these debates. Before they started, he was on his last legs...one good punch, and he was out. But he has know come back off the ropes, recovered, and is delivering at least as good as he gets.

One other thing that has struck me, throughout the debates....Kerry has been an active Senator throughout Bush's term. Congress is where laws are actually written and enacted. Therefore, when he is criticizing what has happened (orm more specifically, what hasn't happened) over the last four years, isn't he really bashing himself? Homeland security is a classic example of this....constantly bringing up issues that remain to be addressed--(our ports, air cargo, etc). What exactly was preventing him from championing these issues before? Nothing (well, nothing other than funding, which is why this is another empty promise). Sure, Bush, as President, had more power in these issues, but, as a Senator, I think you can only point the blame elsewhere if these are issues you have actively fought for and been thwarted. Kerry did nothing on any of this--so his sudden concern for these issues is solely politically motivated. He had an opportunity to address these issues numerous times in the Senate, as various bills came up, but failed to do so. I am surprised this hasn't been brought up in the debates.

It was just an impression I got...

Kerry did say this:


I guess my impression was wrong...

Kerry did say this:


This line confused me when Kerry said it, but I finally parsed it out as "this is how you gain legitimacy with your own country-people and that how you gain legitimacy in the world..."

I think whoever did the transcript got the comma wrong.

Its a wierd phrase, but it makes sense when you consider the lengths that Kerry was going to court the women voters.

While I am a Kerry supporter, blatant pandering irritates me..

Of course, I could be wrong
Jacabo

Questions for debate:
1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?
I scored this one a draw, with a narrow edge to Kerry. Bush gave his best performance and spoke well to his base. Kerry held his edge and gained a few points here and there. Overall, I liked the tone better, especially near the end when it was less about negative comparisons and more about themselves.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

I don't think there's any question this one goes to Kerry. Bush took a few major steps back in the first debate and spent the next two tring to recover (which I think he did for the most part). While Bush was catching up though I think Kerry achieved what he couldn't in his convention: Introducing himself as a serious presidential candidate to the American public.

Its gonna be a wild race to the finish.

Doc

edit: fixed some formatting issues

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?


I think the Dems gained more from the debates than the republicans. This may be why they probably will not get blown out of the water in the election.....if they lose.

What was up with the spit on the Presidents mouth....hello Kleenex!

As for who won the third I would say neither, although the edge may go to Kerry because of Bush real lame answer to what he would tell someone who just lost their job. it was a very lame performance by both. But the moderator was great.

You do realize that according to the latest reports that both candidates are deficient on this aspect?

According to the Concord Coalition in the report they released yesterday, both plans from both candidates will drive us deeper into the hole at the tune of $1.3 trillion, this includes each candidates so-called plans to pay (tax breaks vs tax hikes).

So to speak as if Kerry is some great fiscal conservative when in all likely-hood, to come through on his promises he's going to have to spend as much if not more then Bush has, further driving up the deficit....

As for inaccuracies, John Kerry, according to the Reuter's article up today, made bigger misstatements then Bush did. Such as in regard to port security, Pell Grants, meetings with minority leaders, and the number of jobs lost (of course, the Democrats in usual fashion don't blame 9/11 one iota for any economic impact).

Debate Inaccuracies Turning Into Classics

I heard this a few times in the chat room last night and a few times on various shows from mostly Republican talking heads now. The question I have is why is this a low blow?

* Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, that is fact.
* The Bush administration is running an aggressive campaign against gay rights at the moment, trying to ensure that we write discrimination into the Constitution (even if they end up failing ultimately). This is fact.
* Cheney is not only part of the Bush administration, but he has indirectly (by not speaking out against it) and probably directly supported their actions. This is fact.

The point here is that Cheney is an incredible hypocrite for sponsoring something like this when his own daughter happens to be gay. I don't consider that a low blow at all, I consider it hypocrisy. If he is going to take a hard line against gay rights, then he should be prepared to explain how his viewpoint is justified given that it effects his own daughter.

If he were simply maintaining the status quo, no one would be bringing it up. When you take a hard line stance on anything, you had better make double sure that you don't have a skeleton in your closet.

So what I think is that people calling this a "low blow" realize that it weakens the argument against gay marriage a bit by putting the people sponsoring it in an awkward position and we just can't have that...

1.Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

If we’re just considering the third debate, it depends on how I look at it. When it comes down to issues, Kerry presented himself well, and I believe he was the true winner. But it can also be seen as a draw because Bush’s performance wasn’t as awful as it usually is (except for those Snagglepuss chuckles, and the quickly aborted, weird statement about the media-those were creepy). I thought Bush’s Massachusetts bashing was over the top and insulting to the people of that state.

From the mouths of babes:

These kids have a clearer view of the candidates than most voters.

Both candidates showed themselves to be excellent at distorting facts and misleading the American voting public. Hey, that’s politics, right? But the winner and champion for outright lying is clearly Bush. I’m sure that somewhere, someone is compiling a list of misleads and lies and totting up which candidate had more, but without the list, I still say Kerry was the far more truthful candidate. He clarified the whole $200 billion issue (yes! ) to Bush’s dismay. It shows that Kerry can admit - and correct - a mistake…and we all know that Bush most certainly canNOT.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

Kerry, definitely. As the challenger, he was still pretty much an unknown quantity until the debates gave the voters a chance to get to know him. I think he acquitted himself well. I was admittedly of the ABB crowd, but now I feel more confident about supporting Kerry, the candidate, rather than just voting for anyone to get Bush out of power. I especially liked the way Kerry answered the question about faith and personal religious beliefs last night. “Don’t make your beliefs MY laws” has echoed in my head every time Bush speaks, and it’s nice to know that Kerry can keep the two separate, as they should be.

Kerry succeeded in making Bush totally lose his cool in the first and second debates, and made him look like the bumbling fool I’ve always believed him to be. And the whole nation got to see it; whether or not they admit is depends on just how stubbornly partisan they are. Kerry performed consistently well, and I believe he got stronger with each debate.

Bush shot himself in the foot many times during the 3 debates. The most beautiful and memorable moment came when he denied ever minimizing the threat posed by OBL. He proved what Kerry and a whole bunch of us regular folks had been saying all along: Bush doesn't (and can’t) tell the truth, he won't admit mistakes, and he refuses to acknowledge reality. Of course, watching Bush "um er" his way through answers is always fun, as are the weird physical tics and mannerisms - it would be funny if he weren't the president and the #1 representative of our country. A close second foot-shot is Cheney claiming never to have said that Iraq had WMD.

Why don't you prove this little statement.

Unless you're telling me the Reuters article I provided in my last post is wrong? It shows Kerry providing more lies (your word, not mine, at least according to your definition) then Bush.

How about taking a look at the analysis on Fact Check.org? According to this, Bush has a slight edge in number of lies and distortions, he told one less than Kerry according to this article.

However, as far as the severity of the lies, Bush clearly told the worst and most blatant ones. Those are:
- His lie about Osama Bin Laden (which I have already covered in a previous post in this thread, go look it up)
- His lie about "most tax cuts going to the low and middle class". This is probably one of the worst ones because some people believe it to be true and think that is a reason to vote for him. His tax cuts were a handout to the rich and they didn't effect maximum benefit for the economy.
- His lie about the Flu Vaccines. He tried to spin this as he was protecting us from these vaccines when in fact the British blocked the shipment and it was only because of "possible" contamination. He also suggested he would work with the Canadians when he is opposed to letting Canadian drugs in. Doesn't sound to credible to me.

Also, to further show that most people thought Kerry won this debate, some of the after debate polls:

I don't mean to take this off subject, but I felt that this sould be addressed.

Dick Cheney is a hypocrite because he supports the administration, yet has a gay daughter?

Dick Cheney is not his daughter CJ. Two different individuals entirely. I think you are attempting to confuse the issue(s).

Though I can't seem to track down a list of minority groups Bush has spoken with (I am assuming they are minority business organizations and the like), it's a fact that he refused to meet with the largest African-American group, the NAACP.

Any questions?

I am not confusing the issue Red. The GOP loves to take the moral high ground and preach "family values" and this stance against gay marriage is yet another example of that. The problem with that most of the time is a lot of the people that support things like this aren't exactly the picture of clean living themselves and many times have problems with the very issues they are railing against. The funny thing about morals is that if you try and legislate them on someone else, you kind of have to follow the rules yourself first or you lose credibility.

Both Kerry and Edwards have said, ok fine you are against gay marriage, but how does that jive when you have a daughter who is gay (and conceivably might want to be treated equally and get married some day). It puts a human face on the issue and that is really the core of it. If you think homosexuals are second class citizens undeserving of the rights the rest of us share, does that apply to your daughter too? That is perfectly valid, and in fact if I were running for president I would have gone for the jugular on this one (as well as many other things).

So if you feel like there is something to discuss here red please start a new thread, but in my mind it is relevant to this thread because both Kerry and Edwards have been able to put the members of this administration in an uncomfortable position with their stance on gay marriage. I only wish they had gone for the kill.

CJ:

Again, where is the hypocrisy. Provide the statement. To imply that HE is a hypocrite, due to the lifestyle SHE lives does NOT prove hypocrisy. A hypocrite is a single individual CJ, not two separate individuals, even if they are closely related.

Some more items of interest in the misleading race:

So now California is a foreign country – huh, I didn’t know that. In most cases, Bush was just flat out wrong by a long shot, while Kerry tends to exaggeration…like being 3 cents off on the minimum wage issue….ooooooooo

More broken promises from Bush on education: Democratic Party

on many other issues: Bush Rhetoric vs. Reality

Well, you know what, I'm probably one of the best to speak impartially in this cause I'm not America, I'm Canadian, but I have many interests in this both social issues, economic, security wise etc....

I really don't see how you can cut it any other way but to state that even if you don't like Kerry, he is the only one of the 2 candidates that has new ideas, or any ideas for that fact on most issues, and he's the only one saying we are going to do XXXX, and this is how we're going to do it YYYYY. Like taxes, education, job creation, etc etc....... and he's listed ways he'll do the stuff and given solid info to support the validaity & had bright financial guys crunch the numbers on the stuff. And when you take into account all of his ideas/plans into account you can see how everything together can make it happen.

Name one time last night where Bush said we're gonna do XXXX and do it by YYYYY. Name 1.... you can't. Theres no we're gonna create job thru........ no we're gonna slow outsourcing thru....... no we're gonna improve healthcare thru....... etc, etc. And what does Bush do to try to counter Kerry when he makes valid points/ideas.... "he flip-flops" is all he says. And he tries to discredit the guys character.....he pulls out vague figures on votes. Well thats nice and all but every President/senator votes different ways on different votes for many reasons -- FEW are ever black & white. But does Bush ever counter with "Instead of his idea, take mine, which is xxxxxxxxxxx, isn't that a better idea?" No Bush doesn't... why? Cause he has no plan.

Bush is 4 years of the same -- period. And it doesn't matter how you spin it, there's been other Prezs that went thru wars, recessions, etc and they've ALL performed better than him, particularly in stimulating the economy.

The classic example last night was on outsourcing... Bush answer, "We'll give u some education funding assistance, go back to school." Well, that real nice but if you don't slow the cycle you're gonna have tonnes of people in that situation...aND what are they gonna do, do that every 3 years once the next job goes overseas??


And 1 other issue I think I can really speak to is the perception of the US in other countries because of the war. I don't think u guys have an idea of how big a black shadow has been castr on the USA because of how Bush went into the war, how it was conducted, how its still going, and how the WMD proving false made that even worse. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? Because the USAs BIGGEST issue is terrorism & safety. Right? Well, that's NOT a war you can win in 4 or 5 years, and its not one you can fight by yourself (or with limited outside support), and you can't pay for it yourself........you need a world wide collaboration of countries working together in a trusting relationship. Bush has totally lost that trust in almost every country in the world because of how he handled the Iraq war.... even the people of England are tired of him. So how's he gonna get the world to help the USA in fighting terror if they don't trust him?? He can't, they won't. Whether Bush supporters wanna face this fact or not, the only way the USA is going to get the global help to fight this battle thats so dearly needed is with a new President -- one who's not comprimised his ability to be trusted on this -- and that's Kerry.

Ah very nice to show debate polls, but what is more important in the term of "who won" then the overal national leading.

I'll uses Gallup Polls: Showdown State Polling.

• It shows Kerry leading the popular vote based on likely voters 48% to 49% with 1% for Nadar.
• It shows in a state by state base Bush wins 312 to 207 with 19 still anybodys game.
• The 19 are divided into the following states:
  1. MN EC:10 - 45 B 45 K 5 N 5 U
  2. CO EC:9 - 49 B 49 K 1 N 1 U

Swing states have become more solid (Larger lead then undecided BUSH:KERRY):

1. NV EC:5 53 B 43 K 1 N 4 U
2. NM EC:5 50 B 47 K 2 N 1 U
3. IA EC:7 50 B 47 K 2 N 1 U
4. MO EC:11 51 B 41 K 0 N 4 U
5. WV EC:5 51 B 45 K 0 N 4 U
6. NC EC:15 54 B 39 K 4 N 3 U
7. FL EC:27 52 B 43 K 1 N 4 U
   
8. MI EC:17 44 B 50 K 1 N 5 U
9. WA EC:7 44 B 52 K 1 N 3 U

Swing states not solid (BUSH:KERRY):

1. OH EC:20 49 B 47 K 1 N 3 U
2. PA EC:21 49 B 46 K 1 N 4 U

Even if Kerry takes OH and PA, Bush wins 271/248

My questions, since not a single debate changed anything for anyone (undecideds are still undecideds, Reps still Reps, Dems still Dems) Then what changes are there? What good were the debates either then to give people a clear choice as to what the difference are about?

EDIT: Fixed quote. -Amlord

You can lead a horse to water...

You are missing the big picture here Red, but I'll try once more. Go ahead and take a look at the transcript from the VP debate. I think that Ifill sums it up pretty well in her question.

Cheny of course flubs around and says that he still believes in that, but that he supports the president. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

You can't say "freedom means freedom for everyone", use it in context of homosexual unions, bring your family into it and then turn around and say "right, lets ban gay marriage because the president says so. I'm on board Mr. President, yes sir!" That is hypocrisy.

I believe that Kerry scored some good points in the debate last night(Wednesday).

I believe the biggest whopper told by Bush was that he denied making the comment that Osama was not a concern of his anymore. Immediately after the debate most of the networks replayed a speech in which Bush said that Osama was not a concern of his anymore.


Also his fake smile and poor attempts at making jokes during the debate seemed to be on the level of a 1st grader in school. He really needs to brush up on appearing more genuine or just drop the attempts of appearing to be just like one of us common people.

And concerning the flu vaccine shortage. I thought I heard Bush say they were thinking about getting some of the vaccine from Canada(I may have misunderstood,if so I apologize). If that is true, then how do we know the vaccine is safe. Bush just told us in the last debate that the Seniors couldn't get drugs from Canada because he wanted to protect us from harmful drugs. Well I don't believe we can rely on the Canadian vaccine either, to phrase his thinking.

I believe the way it was intended and the way I interpreted the phrase when I heard it could be best described in this fashion:

"That's how you gain legitimacy with your own country, (your own) people, and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world."

Bush told the worst lies? Now that's a helluva laugh.

Kerry constantly misrepresented his side with false figures and numbers to bolster his cause, your own fact-check link proves such.

First off, who cares about the Bin Laden statement? Big difference between blatantly using false facts and figures, and failing to remember a single line from two years ago that was said in a news conference. As it is, we're still hunting him and his kind wherever they may decide to pop up, the actions taken by the administration sure as hell don't show a lack in the hunt for terrorists.

As for tax-cuts, so your solution is higher taxes, right? Gee, screw that. According to the Concord Coalition the only difference between the spending for Bush and the spending for Kerry is that Kerry will just spend more while taxing us the American people for it. Both plans basically equate to 1.3 trillion in costs, so let's see... given the choice between expanding social programs by breaking my back with more taxes, or keep the Bush plan, though fiscally not the most responsible it's a far-cry better then JK's plan... I'll take Bush every time, I'd rather have more money in my pocket and the same amount of spending than less money in my pocket with increased amount amount of spending. But in the end, I'll trust Alan Greenspan over your interpretation of the tax cuts any day, and he believes they've been beneficial.

As for the flu vaccine, the fact-check site does point out that the goverment is investigating. I guess in your ABB zeal you're willing to let tainted vaccines into the country rather then let the FDA investigate? As for Canadian drugs, as long as the FDA assures their safety, no problem, which funny enough is what Bush has said.

Oh ya, count your little fact-check website abit better. It's 6/6, both telling about same amount of whoppers (at least according to your fact-check article).

Now to Daffy;



Now let's expand on that statement a little bit more, because like a good Democrat, you failed to provide ALL of the information:



Failed to mention the part I put in bold.

Next Pell grants;



So at least a million MORE people are recieving Pell Grants, and the award amount has risen since 2000. And it wasn't Bush who made the promise, it was his education secretary:

.

At least attribute the claim to who made it, but all in all, more people then ever recieve the Pell Grant. Of course, that was made in a time when domestic concerns were the priority and terrorism hadn't struck the US.



Your own quote states that Kerry mislead the nation ( ) on the number of jobs lost. But, again I point to the million plus jobs lost in the direct aftermath of 9/11. But hey, as usual in Democratic rhetoric, don't take into account the factors of these losses... such as 9/11, the Clinton recession, and so on.

From the Reuter's article:



And now CJ's factcheck link which also disputes the job claim by Kerry:



As for minorities, this whole flap revolves around the NAACP which is now a faux-entity of the Democratic party. Why should he meet with an organization who's very rhetoric is a parroting of the DNC talking points, sometimes even going further. According to them, Bush longs for the times of the Confederacy....

He met the more neutral minority organizations such as the Urban League, the various hispanic organizations, and so-on.

In ending, all I gotta say is:

As much as the Democrats whine about Republican's mischaracterizing Kerry's statements, it's quite amusing to watch Dems such as CJ here (one of JK's ardent defenders of JK's statements) do exactly as they accuse the other side of, taking statements said by the opposite side out of context.

I think Kerry won last night.

The only thing that bothered me about Kerry was the times he would go off on minor tangents, but they were minor and he did manage to answer the questions. Bush, on the other hand did quite a bit of ducking... I particularly enjoyed the one about minimum wage... wow! Way to change the subject and avoid answering the question.




I don't think it was a low blow at all to mention Cheney's daughter. She's gay. Why is it a low blow to mention that fact. Why is it a low blow to talk about the fact that Bush and his running mate do not agree on the issue of gay marriage. I thought it was a smart move. It points to the fact that there are even some people close to Bush that do not agree with him.

Conviction... hmmm... Bush seemed to show quite a lot of conviction while he was denying what he said about Osama Bin Laden. Conviction does not equal substance or honesty. Bush's flat one-liners puncuated by silly shrugs to the moderator only served to show that he was on the defensive the entire evening... yet again. And his comments about spreading liberty and freedom around the world were a bit frightening. I'm sure the communists felt much the same conviction as they were "spreading" communism around the globe.

I really don't think Bush had any advantage.


Overall, I think Kerry took the debates. At times, he worried the people around me with his repetetive comments -- some of which have been proven to be exaggerated. Bush's exaggerations were equal in this regard. So, on the basis of substance -- after wading through both candidates misstatements -- I think Kerry did better overall. I thought Edwards was going to have his hat handed to him by Cheney, but he managed to hold his own and appeared more confident as the evening progressed -- except for the, frankly, silly "don't mention your candidate"questions posed by the moderator.

Who cares? Well to start with this is exactly the kind of statement that has chracterized the entire administration for the last 4 years. It such a blatant lie that Bush must just consider the American people to be complete idiots that won't bother to fact check anything, and it is just insulting. It is one thing to fudge a few numbers using spin (read: not an outright lie, all of these numbers have interpretations to them everyone just may not agree with them), but to tell a bald faced lie is quite another thing.

Secondly, there couldn't be a more fundamental issue to lie about than the war on terror.

Edited to add: In case anyone actually wants to watch the video of this, here you go.


Hmm, an assumption huh? Sorry, but I haven't suggested higher taxes. You still haven't addressed the fact that Bush has continually lied about "being on the side of the low and middle classes" by giving them the biggest tax cut. Repeating the tax cut mantra has been one of Bush's biggest selling points Domestically and it is based entirely on a lie, I'd say that rates pretty big. Compare that to telling a fib about Pell Grants and I think there is a huge difference in magnitude.


If you do a recount you'll see that it is 7 for kerry, 6 for Bush as I said in my initial post.

Guys, I gotta ask you a question and I'll preface it by stating read it with "a grain of salt" as they say because I don't mean to sound insulting but I do wish the convey, what's the right word, "astonishment" at the level naiveness you guys have on this topic... and btw, I'm Canadian. So....

Do you guys think Canada is Mexico or something like a 3rd world country? Because this whole "are drugs from Canada safe?" thing is the biggest "roll-on-the-floor laughing/thats a stupid statement" thing the informed people of the world and your country (and Canadians) have ever heard.

The drugs here in Canada ARE EXACTLY THE SAME DRUGS YOU GUYS HAVE IN THE USA.... EXACTLY! The vast majority of the drug companies in Canada creating the drugs are either US based, US owned, and straight subsiduaries of US companies. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The Tylenol u guys buy in the store is the same Tylenol we buy. The Tamoxifen women buy here to prevent breast cancer reoccurance is the exact same Tamoxifen American women buy...etc, etc, etc.

Is the flu vaccine safe? YES!!!!!!! Canada is not Mexico or Ethiopia or some other 3rd world country. The only difference between Canada and the USA is a border, a national sport, a goverment structure, a dollar valuation, and a national health care system (we have a true one)..... other than that we are exactly the same, EXACTLY.


If you haven't figured out why your gov't hasn't allowed drug imports from Canada, let me tell you.... 3 words.... drug companies profits. THINK ABOUT IT............

If a company has outlets in 2 countries.... one country (the USA) with a population of 295 million and it can sell drug XXX there at $100 dollars a bottle.... and the other country (Canada) with a population of 32 million and it can sell drug XXX there at $75 dollars a bottle (THE EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADA AND USA) where do you think they are going to prefer to do business??

Think......say 25% of the USA population takes drug XXX at $100/bottle, 1 bottles per month. (this are just for easy rough numbers)

25% * ~300 million = 75000000
75000000 * 12 * 100 = 90,000,000,000

now if hsalf those buyers starting buying from Canada at $75 per bottle instead of $100 bottle THE DRUG COMPANIES LOSE 25% PROFIT!!!!

90,000,000,000 * .25% = 22,500,000,000



If you were big business US drug companies would you rather have profits of 90,000,000,000 or 67,500,000,000 ?????


And Bush is the one backing those big business drug companies..........

whoa!!!!!!!

We are on the same side. My remarks were supposed to present a parody or ironic criticism, but apparently I did a bad job of representing my views. Just check the wordsat the bottom of my entry which should tell you my views.

I positively 100% agree that Bush is representing the Drug companies. That can be seen with the Medicare prescription bill that was passed after 3 hours of voting and twisting arms.

If Bush can't trust the Canadian drug companies(I do) then he sure as heck can't trust the flu vaccine.

Hope that clears up how I actually stand on the issues.

I've said the same thing in other threads and several times in the chat last night. "Canadian drugs are dangerous" is just the lamest argument.

As for you, GBA, hasn't anyone ever told you not to assume? I am not, and never have been a Democrat. In your tunnel vision to condemn me as a Democrat because of my views, you neglected to check my profile. And I fail to see how you refuted any of the claims regarding Bush cutting Pell grants, the status of port security et al. As far as giving credit to the right person; as long as Bush keeps claiming HE is the one responsible, then HE is fair game if it turns out not to be true.

YOU completely ignored the second part of the jobs post, which clearly states that while Kerry may be wrong NOW about jobless figures, he may WELL TURN OUT TO BE RIGHT after the next quarter.

And "who cares about bin Laden"???? Why, your very own hero and crusader, George W. Bush did at one time..."gonna smoke him out of his hole", "there's nowhere he can hide", etc. Then all of a sudden (after he'd invaded Iraq and decided Saddam was the bad guy), he didn't care about him and hardly mentioned him . And now he does. Reminds me of a particular type of footwear.....


And by the way, I don't appreciate your nasty tone.

This may be comforting to Bush supporters, but the idea that this data shows the debates haven't changed the race not only conflicts with the general run of national polls, but the majority of state polls. Further, only three of the featured states on the Gallup site have been polled since the debates- CO, NM, and WI. The race is within the 4% margin of error in each, and Gallup is reserving the partisan break down of those polled for it's paying users. Since they have been polling 4% more Repubs than Dems- not reflective of turnout in any recent Presidential election- even these 3 states' results- now over a week old- probably aren't very accurate.

It helps to look at the numbers behind the pretty colors. The debate allowed voters to see the candidates make their claims next to one another, instead of at rallies of suppporters. Bush fans who've been mocking Kerry based on the character attacks that have formed the centerpiece of Bush's argument for re-election got to see Kerry outside of chosen soundbites and the nation got to see how their President reacts to criticism.

Judging from all the evidence of the resulting impressions, I think the biggest challenge for Kerry is making sure people remember the contrast until election day.

The vast majority drug companies in Canada that are Canadian or have roots to other countries make drugs too. Are these drugs FDA tested. You see the FDA does not trust the judgement of Canadian Health.

What I am understanding from your statements is that every drug is the same and has passed FDA standards in procedure of producing the drugs as well as meeting FDA standards for side effects. Yet how come the FDA says something different?

FDA: 'Canadian' drugs not a deal

U.S.: More flu shots from abroad unlikely

Americans trust the FDA and not the Canadian Health to secure the safety of its food and drugs. To suggest any other nation capable of insuring the sanctity of American lives is absurd and pointless. America will regulate its own drugs not sell drugs regulated by other countries.

And I would be hard press to think that an American President would 'outsource' the FDA to another country. I wouldn't trust an American President who would ever open the borders for non FDA approved drugs to move freely through out the country endangering the lives of Americans. It is the job of the president to ensure safety among his citizens.

Kerry slammed dunked this one for me- best quote of the debate as well "GW Bush lecturing me about fiscal responsibility is like Tony Soprano lecturing me about Law and Order" -

Still the stupidest, lamest lie of all the debates continues to be the Canadian drug safety issue- any body that believes that Canadian drugs are somehow less safe than American drugs is just a plain ol' moron- I really can't think of a different word for it- "uniformed" just doesn't cut it - I think GW thinks the rest of the country must be as dumb as him to believe that stuff!

And I also think it is more appropriate NOT to count goverment jobs gained in the jobs creation area- I think the 1.6 million jobs lost is more accurate than cutting that number in half with goverment jobs- simply because it is a better economic indicator- goverment jobs added probably have a high number of them filling slots that would normally be military jobs- such as at Elmondorf hospital here in Alaska- it is now basically a civilian hospital- I didn't see a uniformed or military person the entire time I was there- all staff have been completely replaced by civilian staff. Using those jobs as part of the job increase would be misleading the nature of the economy.