T Nation

Bush Bites It Huge!

Bush bites this one huge! He showed his stupidity in this debate. Everytime he evaded the question and gave a “simple” speech instead. My favorite quoute was “A free Iraq will secure Israel” excuuuuse me the Israilie’s have a problem with the Palestinians’s not Iraq. Over and Over he showed his true stupidity. I can’t wait for the second debate!

Bush burried Kerry.

After two or three days of Fox News and talk radio ripping the debate apart, the election will be over.

I don’t think the polls will move much between now and the election, but I don’t think in the end Kerry will actually get out the ABB vote.

you’re kidding right?

i think both of them presented themselves extremely well…both were well spoken, both had good answers, but the problem still is that Kerry cant articulate a clear policy over Iraq…he cant do it…so no matter how well spoken he is and how much has to say, he cant shake that and thats the only thing he has that can give him headway against bush…and thats why bush will win.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
you’re kidding right?
, but the problem still is that Kerry cant articulate a clear policy over Iraq…he cant do it…

Right…Kerry’s problem is he doesn’t have a clear policy to clean up the god-awful quagmire Bush’s lame ass decision has gotten America into in Iraq? You’re off the planet, dude.

Forgive me if these remarks are a bit scattered and disorganized.

While I don’t think doogie or bilt’s responses are surprising, you won’t find mine surprising either…Kerry killed Bush tonight.

Kerry was concise and articulate, Bush was consistently flustered and confused.

It was said that the short and controlled response times would work in Bush’s favor since speaking in soundbytes and catchphrases is a “strength” of his, but it became apparent that he was speaking in soundbytes because he didn’t know how to appropriately address the questions or respond to Kerry’s answers.

Bush went over on time on a number of occasions, and often called for an additional :30 when he had nothing to say!

Bush didn’t show that he’s learned anything new in the past 4 years regarding foreign affairs, and he’s still hung up on the same, stale, simple ideas. He didn’t show that he’s learned anything new about the english language, either!

Bush was obviously told to continue to push the flip-flop thing, but I think Kerry addressed it directly and put his foot down, making it appear that Bush was reaching at straws…

“It’s hard work…” – How many times did he say this? And, uh, no shit! The presidency IS hardwork and no one will give you points for finally realizing this!

Bush and company are clearly still planning on winning this election with the politics of fear.

Bilt, I think you said that we still don’t know where Kerry stands – I disagree. He stated everything clearly and definitively, he drew his line in the sand, and mapped out his views on Iraq and the President’s handling of Iraq. I believe the right only wishes he was still vague.

Bush could not answer the majority of the questions. Every time, he made a min-speech that had nothing to do with the question. Every time kerry spoke he (Bush) made a “choking” face to the question. I have been a Republican for over 20 years, but this time I am voting for Kerry. Why because I don’t think Bush has a clue. If I was a billionaire or even a millionaire I would definately vote for Bush, but I am not. I make shit and that is what I get. Bush/Cheney is for the rich, they could care less about us “slobs” that make up the middle class. There are an incredible amount of people that make up the “working poor”. These are people the work 40 hours a week and they are rated as poverty. Bush does not care about them, they have nothing to offer him and his rich friends. If you make minimum wage you are nothing but a slave to his rich friends. Kerry is not the best choice but he is better than what we have!

Roadwarrior, that was sad. Is making minimum wage all you aspire to? Do you not hope to better yourself someday by educating yourself and working hard? Sure you do. When that day comes and the Democrats send the IRS to take 60% of what you’ve busted your ass to earn, what will you say then?

Seriously folks, take off the partisan-colored glasses.

I think both candidates did well - but nobody killed anyone. Kerry was well-spoken, as expected. Bush was straightforward, as expected. I’d add:

  1. Bush had numerous opportunities to force Kerry to explain contradictions, like when Kerry flatly stated invading Iraq was a mistake at the end of his time only to turn around and say the the war wasn’t a mistake.

Also, Bush didn’t capitalize on Kerry’s contradictions of “I thought Saddam was a threat” and “what does this war have to do with the war on terror? It’s a distraction”. These positions cannot be reconciled.

Bush let these get away.

  1. Kerry had some very concise points, which was to his advantage. He tends to have really long sentences that wander, and he got a lot sharper about not drifting off into tangents. This was a big step for Kerry in connecting with people.

  2. Kerry did not provide a serious alternative to Bush’s foreign policy, and that was a missed opportunity. The alliance remarks are completely illusory and Kerry never explained how he was going to get these other nations - the several that, had they participated, would have made the war ‘legitimate’, though no real explanation why - on board.

  3. Bush talked policy much better than his critics suggest.

  4. Kerry overemphasized his Vietnam service, as usual. Kerry needs to get in his head that 20 years in the US Congress is much more valuable than 4 months in Vietnam. He has credentials in foreign policy - why not brandish them? Instead, he tries to close the ‘man’ gap. It’s a dead end and he should have learned this by now. If military credentials were the most important factor, Wesley Clark would have been at the podium (thank God he’s not).

I hate to straddle the fence, but I think the first debate was a push. I didn’t see a clear advantage either way - both did well, largely because neither candidate had to answer tough questions reagrding their weak spots.

I would say ‘right on’ because that means I am making hundereds of thousands of dollars. And half of 200K is still 100K. If your argument is that tax cuts help people other than the rich, you didnt make that case. In fact, you proved, to me at least, that your are spewing the same line that this administration is for the average american. When in reality, he has no clue what an average american deals with living paycheck to paycheck.
Go get an education, and get a good paying job? I know way too many people that have graduated college with decent degrees and have to live at home, because the market isnt paying them enough, because there arent the jobs available, and because the cost of living is skyrocketing. Come off your high horse, and realize that just because you may make a decent living, the guy that rings up your groceries has just as hard a day as you. Its this attitude that the republican party exhibits is why even though I come from money and have earned a good paying job myself, I am a democrat.

Jodgey,

“I know way too many people that have graduated college with decent degrees and have to live at home, because the market isnt paying them enough, because there arent the jobs available, and because the cost of living is skyrocketing.”

And President controls this how?

Perhaps this is a topic for a different time, since the debate was about foreign policy, but I am atwitter at hearing exactly - exactly - how a President, Democratic or Republican, can ensure that the ‘market’ pays people ‘enough’.

Bush unleashes every Keynesian and supply-side tool to keep the economy afloat, with the help of the Fed’s monetary policy, and I am curious to know the alternative.

I posted this somewhere else, but i’ll post it here. Conservatives give much more of their own money to charity than liberals do. You tell me who cares more about the little guy. Oh sure the liberals want to take someone elses money and give it to needy people. Remember rosie Odonell trying to get all her celebrity friends to give 1 million each right after 9/11, and how many of them did? Very Very Few

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

The first thing people need to do is ignore the spin doctors. They both did well, and nobody really beat the other one.

Exit polls supposedly show Kerry won, but they also showed more undecided voters moving toward Bush. Personally I think that the winner of a debate is the one who convinced the most people that their side is right. And if more people are persuaded by Bush, then he actually won the debate.

Now you can tell everyone’s bias by how they rate the debate. All the Bush supporters are saying Bush won, while all the Kerry supporters are saying Kerry won. Now why do you think that is? People need to remover their filters, or at least acknowledge that they exist.

Unfortunately people are now being told what to think, and what was important about the debates.

I wanted to post a thread before the debate asking people to watch it, and immediately turn it off, write up their opinion of the debate, including who they supported before, and after, and if the debate could have changed their minds. (Mine couldn’t be changed, I have to admit that.)

Then posting it before reading any other post so all thoughts are uninfluenced.

Then again we could try that for the Vice-Prez debates, if they are important that is.

By the way, if Kerry doesn’t gain a point over these debates, then it is most likely over.

Then again, if he does gain a point or more, then he was the debate winner. If he loses a point or more, Bush won, and if there is no move, it was a tie.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. Bush had numerous opportunities to force Kerry to explain contradictions, like when Kerry flatly stated invading Iraq was a mistake at the end of his time only to turn around and say the the war wasn’t a mistake.
    [/quote]

I do believe on this one issue, that the point was that Kerry believes Saddam needed to be removed and that an eventual significant action to take him out of power was going to happen no matter what. The way that we went into war without a solid plan in place to restore order (as well as the push to link Saddam directly to 9/11) is what he is defensive about. I am seriously not taking a side here. Like everyone should be, the issues and facts instead of biased opinion are what I am trying to focus on.

Vegita, does this mean every celebrity that Rosie Odonnel (like her opinion is even an issue) knows is a liberal? I don’t follow your point.

I think eroding your consumer base by putting them out of work and keeping them underemployed is at odds with Keynes theory.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jodgey,

“I know way too many people that have graduated college with decent degrees and have to live at home, because the market isnt paying them enough, because there arent the jobs available, and because the cost of living is skyrocketing.”

And President controls this how?

Perhaps this is a topic for a different time, since the debate was about foreign policy, but I am atwitter at hearing exactly - exactly - how a President, Democratic or Republican, can ensure that the ‘market’ pays people ‘enough’.

Bush unleashes every Keynesian and supply-side tool to keep the economy afloat, with the help of the Fed’s monetary policy, and I am curious to know the alternative.[/quote]

I agree. Contrary to what people think, neither the President nor the government in general have much control over the economy. Nor should they. They tried an experiment once where the government controlled all aspects of the economy as opposed to letting the free market rule - it was called Communism.

Pro X,

So does Kerry believe invasion of Iraq was a mistake or not a mistake?

My point is, I still don’t know.

He said the ‘invasion was a mistake’, but he also replied to Jim Lehrer that ‘no, American troops weren’t dying for a mistake’ (I’m paraphrasing).

That was a meatball coming down the plate for Bush. He didn’t swing at it.

Kerry will need to clarify his vote and his view on the Iraq war. I think it is crucial to his campaign to get some coherence here.

Kerry can be critical of post-war planning - in fact, even many conservatives are - but there is a difference in being against the war itself and being against how it was handled. Kerry wants to have it both ways, which is fine if your record supports being against both - but Kerry’s record plainly does not.

He wants to see what sticks. I don’t think that is a good strategy.

Bush struggled to form a complete sentence. Maybe Bush is smart, and he just has a problem with public speaking. It’s still an embarrassment to our nation, to have a president who sounds dumb, whether he is dumb or not. What kind of example does this president set for our children? If I had a dime for every “umm” and “uhh” Bush said last night, I could buy myself a steak dinner.

Bush also had some trouble standing up straight. He spent a lot of time leaning on the podium for support. It gave the impression that he is lazy or weak.

This along with his sour facial expressions during Kerry’s answers will be the “sigh” factor that damaged Al Gore, or the look-at-my-watch-is-it-over-soon factor that damaged Bush Senior, during their debates.

Kerry looked like a statesman. He looked more presidential than the president did.

I suppose that a person can’t spend decades as a raging alcoholic, and not expect some mental deterioration later in life.

In his next carrer, Bush will not need to recall more than a few phrases, for example “Would you like fries with that?”

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,

So does Kerry believe invasion of Iraq was a mistake or not a mistake?

My point is, I still don’t know.

He said the ‘invasion was a mistake’, but he also replied to Jim Lehrer that ‘no, American troops weren’t dying for a mistake’ (I’m paraphrasing).
[/quote]

Maybe I am insane, but it does not seem that hard to understand to me. I truly think that on this one issue, it comes down to what you WANT to listen to. My understanding is that he (Kerry) thinks this war ws a rush to judgement. He does not feel that this was fought justifiably, especially when the grounds were based on there being huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction which no one was able to find and also on Saddam suddenly being the focus of retribution for the terrorist attack. I agree on those points. In that same line, it seems he feels like eventually, something needed to be done about saddam, just not here and not now under these terms. HOWEVER, since it has gone ahead, we stick by our troops and see this through. That means they are not dying for a mistake. They are dying trying to protect our freedoms. This is like playing word association games sometimes when it comes to what people want to hear.

Prof X - thank (put in your own higher being here) that someone finally spit out Kerry’s position on Iraq. The obvious problem is that people are still confused about it, so he didn’t make things clear enough for the average person, which will further contribute to his ‘lack of consistency’. You’d think they would have found a better way for him to express himself by now…oh well, maybe by the 2104 election people will actually understand the candidates’ position. Maybe.