Kerry seemed to speak more clearly and without much thinking whereas Bush seemed to take longer to think up his answers and rebuttals. I think I think like Bush because I certainly respond better via e-mail or forums because it gives me time to think, but maybe the generall public doesn't see it that way.
I'm a Bush supporter all the way, but Kerry seemed more poised and prepared just because of his quick responses. I still think he's a skunk and willing to change his mind depending on the pressure of the hour. He belongs in a Waffle House and not the White House if you ask me.
Since they both had copies of the questions, days in advance, I expected a dry "question and answer" session, but was pleased to see some actual emotion, and (what seemed to be) unscripted responses to allegations, that came up during the 1 1/2 hour debate.
MR. LEHRER: Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2004 presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight's will last 90 minutes following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them. The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me. The candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else. ...
Why else would they have each had a chance to "retire for a few days" off of the campaign trail to formulate answers? I don't want to call Jim Lehrer a liar, but were all the reports of them preparing in advance to specific questions erroneous??
--> --> -->
And then again -- many answers tonight came back too quickly (imo) to be "spontaneous".
I thought I had heard the same thing DM, (its not on snopes by the way, as of yet- but worth a try always- teehee you CAN learn!) I suspect the evil right wing media cooked that rumor up too. I doubt that Lehrer would "RATHER" it in the opening debate.
WhiteDove -- I had heard that both had copies of the questions, and had a few days to prepare answers.
Why else would they have each had a chance to "retire for a few days" off of the campaign trail to formulate answers?
David don't know where you heard that. The reason they "retired" was to practice for the debates. With all the advisers,they have a pretty good guess what types of questions will come up. So they just use these sample questions to formulate responses then polish them up. But it's a guess although I suspect as I said a pretty good one.
And yes Hap I don't think Mr. Lehrer would risk his reputation on such a national TV draw by Rathering either. What would be the point?
Bush kept accusing him of changing his mind regarding Iraq.
In response to that accusation, Kerry seemed to reply with a well thought out point of view that accomodated a variety of changing details in a complex situation.
Kerry's response seemed beyond Bush's ability to comprehend or reply to intelligently; instead, Bush just kept accusing him of changing his mind.
Bush, as he always has, scared me with his lack of ability to comprehend intelligent responses to the Iraq situation.
On the other hand, I came away from viewing the debate a lot more impressed with Kerry than I was before the debate. Before the debate, I was concerned that Kerry might be weak as Commander-in-Chief in the face of battle, but my impression is now that he would be stronger than Bush.
I'm sort of a hybrid party-wise - 1/2 liberal/1/2 constitution (ultra-conservative?). I think, & thought before the debate, that attacking Iraq was a stupid, stupid move because there are many, many more countries around with a known Al Queda presence and because there are countries around with more obvious nuclear capabilities than Iraq. Because of that, I do feel like Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror.
Okay, but having gone in there, you don't handicap our troops with tripe about not attacking Mosques, cease fires, etc. I go crazy with Vietnam de javu when that happens.
Okay, this is not about my war strategy, but about the debate. My point is that I understand Kerry's point of view about thinking that the war was a mistake, yet doubling the special forces & letting the intelligence community do its job with regard to Al Queda leaders. Bush didn't just put our troops in harms way; in addition, he is letting them get killed there. That is a mistake I can't live with. Get the job done.
I came away from the debate with the impression that Kerry will do exactly that.
I pretty much had thought before the debate that the pickins were so slim that I wouldn't even vote - or I would vote constitution party.
As it stands now, I'll vote for Kerry as a result of the debate.
The only thing that bothered me was the business of Kerry voting to give the Hague the ability to try our troops. One world government is coming, but I'd rather not speed it on its way. That's a big no no to Kerry in my mind; although, I don't think the Republicans are musch better on that account.
Kerry seemed more like a "candidate" than Bush. Articulate, polished, and a with a great tan and perfect hair.
Bush on the other hand, seemed more like an average Joe. I tend to like average Joes - the tan and hair did not impress me.
One thing Kerry said that really bothered me - that is the thing about passing the "global test" before he would take premptive action. Kerry seems just as concerned with global opinion than with the best interest of the safety of this country.
Also at the beginning of the debate Kerry said that Sadaam was not a threat and then later on he said that Sadaam was a threat. (???)
I think this guy is just saying what he thinks folks want to hear in order to get elected.
Kerry did better than I thought he would - but not good enough to declare a debate victory - which I am sure the democrats and Bush-haters will claim.
I would say this one was a draw as Bush didn't "win" either. he could have done better.
Agreed. As President, Bush may have been a bit busier than his opponent and probably didn't have as much time to prepare slick answers as did his opponent.
Also, it bothers me that Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq and now says it is the wrong war at the wrong time Debate
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with kicking Sadaam's arse. Also, it is documented that Bin Laden's top guy met with Sadaam to discuss purchasing weapons (I'll try to find that article if anyone wants to read it--just pt me).
We tried not doing anything for about 10 years or longer while the terrorists bombed our foreign embassies and even the World Trade Center once before 9/11. To them, that translates into we're cowards because we wouldn't stand up to them so they kept doing it and then 9/11 happened. Maybe Iraq hasn't gone perfectly, but I believe Bush went on the information he had and just made the decision to "start somewhere."
As far as I'm concerned there's been occasions when I've heard 7 year olds debate with more intelligence and clarity then Bush v. Kerry.
It felt like the old argument between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum last night, Kerry's "What is Bush's plan? Answer, four words: more of the same." Bush's "What kind of leadership says it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." I have three words for both canidates describing their debate, Boring and repetitive. Bush can't answer a direct question, niether can Kerry. Both seem like two 5 year olds (no offence to 5 year olds) squaring off in the playground over the right to use the swing, they posture they prose, and niether really wants the swing, they want the whole playground for themselves.
I thought Kerry's opinion on how he would handle N. Korea was off the wall. He was doing ok until then.
First, he wants to build an alliance re: Iraq.
In a brilliant move, Bush actually built an alliance with N. Korea's neighbors (china, japan, etal.). Clinton had done the "bi-lateral" thing and we now know how disasterous that was.
When Bush said, you can't push them away, you'll lose china. Kerry said, just because they're out of the loop, doesn't mean they'll leave. Bush again brought up the leverage China has that even the U.S. didn't. Kerry didn't seem to care and insisted on going back to a bi-lateral conversation with N. Korea - i.e., just us and them negotiate. I thought that was basically, not smart.
Other than that, the debates were a tie. Bush seems to do well in the "town hall" type setting which is the next debate. Curious to see how that goes.
I agree with a lot of the points made so far, that both candidates were too repetitive with their canned soundbites, Kerry looked like a boring salesman, Bush looked like Ol' Joe the Farmhand, Kerry didn't give anything substantive or specific in his plans to build alliances, Bush calls everything "hard work", Kerry couldn't keep his story straight even for two hours, Bush was Johnny One-Note.
Biggest point Bush won: North Korea.
Biggest point Kerry won: Reduction of loose Soviet nuclear material.
Dumbest Kerry move: Long on finger-pointing, short on specific solutions.
Dumbest Bush move: Using nearly the same identical 30-second rebuttal twice. (The "wrong war" complaint.)
Smartest Kerry move: Minimal use of personal Vietnam references.
Smartest Bush move: Warm, friendly manner.
Kerry put on the better performance, but there wasn't any meat to his message. He should have relied on incontrovertible factual buildup instead of empty accusations and Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Bush easily withstood all attacks, but counterpunch was narrow and repetitive. He should have nailed Kerry on his easily-checked voting record on national security.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
9
15
Popular Days
Oct 3
43
Oct 1
24
Oct 4
13
Oct 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
waterbuffalo 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 9 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 3 2004
43 posts
Oct 1 2004
24 posts
Oct 4 2004
13 posts
Oct 2 2004
13 posts
Belle
Kerry seemed to speak more clearly and without much thinking whereas Bush seemed to take longer to think up his answers and rebuttals. I think I think like Bush because I certainly respond better via e-mail or forums because it gives me time to think, but maybe the generall public doesn't see it that way.
I'm a Bush supporter all the way, but Kerry seemed more poised and prepared just because of his quick responses. I still think he's a skunk and willing to change his mind depending on the pressure of the hour. He belongs in a Waffle House and not the White House if you ask me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
I am praying for our country
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
It was better than I thought it would be.
Since they both had copies of the questions, days in advance, I expected a dry "question and answer" session, but was pleased to see some actual emotion, and (what seemed to be) unscripted responses to allegations, that came up during the 1 1/2 hour debate.
herbiejuan -- I'm praying too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Since they both had copies of the questions, days in advance, I expected a dry "question and answer" session
I thought the moderator said in the opening that no one had seen the questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
I heard the same thing as the dove did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Grizzy
:D-->
Good I wasn't hearing things again....
From the Google God's:
MR. LEHRER: Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of the 2004 presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight's will last 90 minutes following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them. The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me. The candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else. ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
WhiteDove -- I had heard that both had copies of the questions, and had a few days to prepare answers.
Is this something I should look into at Snopes??
Why else would they have each had a chance to "retire for a few days" off of the campaign trail to formulate answers? I don't want to call Jim Lehrer a liar, but were all the reports of them preparing in advance to specific questions erroneous??
And then again -- many answers tonight came back too quickly (imo) to be "spontaneous".
(I've been wrong before.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I thought I had heard the same thing DM, (its not on snopes by the way, as of yet- but worth a try always- teehee you CAN learn!) I suspect the evil right wing media cooked that rumor up too. I doubt that Lehrer would "RATHER" it in the opening debate.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
David don't know where you heard that. The reason they "retired" was to practice for the debates. With all the advisers,they have a pretty good guess what types of questions will come up. So they just use these sample questions to formulate responses then polish them up. But it's a guess although I suspect as I said a pretty good one.
And yes Hap I don't think Mr. Lehrer would risk his reputation on such a national TV draw by Rathering either. What would be the point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Hap
Something for you:
:D-->
http://www.campaigncollectables.com/index.php?ad=gd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I was impressed with Kerry.
Bush kept accusing him of changing his mind regarding Iraq.
In response to that accusation, Kerry seemed to reply with a well thought out point of view that accomodated a variety of changing details in a complex situation.
Kerry's response seemed beyond Bush's ability to comprehend or reply to intelligently; instead, Bush just kept accusing him of changing his mind.
Bush, as he always has, scared me with his lack of ability to comprehend intelligent responses to the Iraq situation.
On the other hand, I came away from viewing the debate a lot more impressed with Kerry than I was before the debate. Before the debate, I was concerned that Kerry might be weak as Commander-in-Chief in the face of battle, but my impression is now that he would be stronger than Bush.
I'm sort of a hybrid party-wise - 1/2 liberal/1/2 constitution (ultra-conservative?). I think, & thought before the debate, that attacking Iraq was a stupid, stupid move because there are many, many more countries around with a known Al Queda presence and because there are countries around with more obvious nuclear capabilities than Iraq. Because of that, I do feel like Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror.
Okay, but having gone in there, you don't handicap our troops with tripe about not attacking Mosques, cease fires, etc. I go crazy with Vietnam de javu when that happens.
Okay, this is not about my war strategy, but about the debate. My point is that I understand Kerry's point of view about thinking that the war was a mistake, yet doubling the special forces & letting the intelligence community do its job with regard to Al Queda leaders. Bush didn't just put our troops in harms way; in addition, he is letting them get killed there. That is a mistake I can't live with. Get the job done.
I came away from the debate with the impression that Kerry will do exactly that.
I pretty much had thought before the debate that the pickins were so slim that I wouldn't even vote - or I would vote constitution party.
As it stands now, I'll vote for Kerry as a result of the debate.
The only thing that bothered me was the business of Kerry voting to give the Hague the ability to try our troops. One world government is coming, but I'd rather not speed it on its way. That's a big no no to Kerry in my mind; although, I don't think the Republicans are musch better on that account.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I watched the inside of my eyelids.
Debates are about as realistic as the so-called reality shows and should not be taken seriously by anyone. That goes for Kerry fans and Bush lovers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2life
Ya still gotta vote for one of them def59!!
My question?
Do we really NEED a pres?!! --- Who has been running the country while George has been out there campaining everyday?!
I am so mad at Bush anyway-- just happy that Kerry looked good last night!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Kerry seemed more like a "candidate" than Bush. Articulate, polished, and a with a great tan and perfect hair.
Bush on the other hand, seemed more like an average Joe. I tend to like average Joes - the tan and hair did not impress me.
One thing Kerry said that really bothered me - that is the thing about passing the "global test" before he would take premptive action. Kerry seems just as concerned with global opinion than with the best interest of the safety of this country.
Also at the beginning of the debate Kerry said that Sadaam was not a threat and then later on he said that Sadaam was a threat. (???)
I think this guy is just saying what he thinks folks want to hear in order to get elected.
Kerry did better than I thought he would - but not good enough to declare a debate victory - which I am sure the democrats and Bush-haters will claim.
I would say this one was a draw as Bush didn't "win" either. he could have done better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
Convinced me to vote "GREEN" again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
Kerry reminded me of used (wow mobile) salesman...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
Did you notice Kerry had one sip of water and GWB drank 3 glasses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Goey,
Agreed. As President, Bush may have been a bit busier than his opponent and probably didn't have as much time to prepare slick answers as did his opponent.
Also, it bothers me that Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq and now says it is the wrong war at the wrong time Debate
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with kicking Sadaam's arse. Also, it is documented that Bin Laden's top guy met with Sadaam to discuss purchasing weapons (I'll try to find that article if anyone wants to read it--just pt me).
We tried not doing anything for about 10 years or longer while the terrorists bombed our foreign embassies and even the World Trade Center once before 9/11. To them, that translates into we're cowards because we wouldn't stand up to them so they kept doing it and then 9/11 happened. Maybe Iraq hasn't gone perfectly, but I believe Bush went on the information he had and just made the decision to "start somewhere."
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
OnionEater
Now that is just wrong thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Why is that OnionEater? Seems logical to me to start with their suppliers.
Terrorists are in many locations. Can't go after them all at once.
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
Onion...not only did I notice it, but I'm thinking of buying some stock in water!!!!!
Bush looked very nervous the whole time to me...and very defensive.
I can hardly wait for SNL to do the water take...
I wonder if he was dying to pee?
I'm an independent...and Kerry, right now, has my vote.
Bush reminds me too much of twi...very fixed in beliefs and opinions...his way or the wrong way...no shades of grey.
Bush is a very scarey man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
As far as I'm concerned there's been occasions when I've heard 7 year olds debate with more intelligence and clarity then Bush v. Kerry.
It felt like the old argument between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum last night, Kerry's "What is Bush's plan? Answer, four words: more of the same." Bush's "What kind of leadership says it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." I have three words for both canidates describing their debate, Boring and repetitive. Bush can't answer a direct question, niether can Kerry. Both seem like two 5 year olds (no offence to 5 year olds) squaring off in the playground over the right to use the swing, they posture they prose, and niether really wants the swing, they want the whole playground for themselves.
Al "Grandpa" Lewis for President
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I thought Kerry's opinion on how he would handle N. Korea was off the wall. He was doing ok until then.
First, he wants to build an alliance re: Iraq.
In a brilliant move, Bush actually built an alliance with N. Korea's neighbors (china, japan, etal.). Clinton had done the "bi-lateral" thing and we now know how disasterous that was.
When Bush said, you can't push them away, you'll lose china. Kerry said, just because they're out of the loop, doesn't mean they'll leave. Bush again brought up the leverage China has that even the U.S. didn't. Kerry didn't seem to care and insisted on going back to a bi-lateral conversation with N. Korea - i.e., just us and them negotiate. I thought that was basically, not smart.
Other than that, the debates were a tie. Bush seems to do well in the "town hall" type setting which is the next debate. Curious to see how that goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I agree with a lot of the points made so far, that both candidates were too repetitive with their canned soundbites, Kerry looked like a boring salesman, Bush looked like Ol' Joe the Farmhand, Kerry didn't give anything substantive or specific in his plans to build alliances, Bush calls everything "hard work", Kerry couldn't keep his story straight even for two hours, Bush was Johnny One-Note.
Biggest point Bush won: North Korea.
Biggest point Kerry won: Reduction of loose Soviet nuclear material.
Dumbest Kerry move: Long on finger-pointing, short on specific solutions.
Dumbest Bush move: Using nearly the same identical 30-second rebuttal twice. (The "wrong war" complaint.)
Smartest Kerry move: Minimal use of personal Vietnam references.
Smartest Bush move: Warm, friendly manner.
Kerry put on the better performance, but there wasn't any meat to his message. He should have relied on incontrovertible factual buildup instead of empty accusations and Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Bush easily withstood all attacks, but counterpunch was narrow and repetitive. He should have nailed Kerry on his easily-checked voting record on national security.
Hopefully the next debates will be better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.