Tonight's Debate

IMO both candidates said nothing to strengthen the peoples confidence in them. However, they both did have moments that might work to the opposite.

Kerry had a long moment during his talk on stem cell research where he stuttered and couldn’t find his next word. This could be seen to add to his indecisiveness.

Bush spoke a little more, but he came across to me as a man above the rules. He frequently jumped up to argue with Kerry whenever he thought Kerry did a better job on the topic than he. In doing this, he interrupted the moderator, even silencing him once. This attests to his diplomatic policy... ‘if you don’t listen to me ill talk right over you.’

All in all, seeing as how I’m from another country, I couldn’t help but watch it just to chuckle. Deep down inside I find American politics incredibly amusing. Course, if I were an American, id be more scared by this than amused...

Oh, I just read the "Milli Vanilli President" thread by Rednik. Looked at the Debate video again, and sure enough, Kerry gives Bush a big pat on the back

 

DMC - I agree. But I thought Kerry came across a little better. Bush seems to have a bit of a nasty temper; while Kerry seemed aggressive while staying quite calm. But both guys repeated themselves way too much. Although it was a much closer debate, it appears, at least so far, that Bush just can't beat Kerry outright in a debate.

Splunge - I'm sure you're surprised to learn that Canada is "some third world country."

 

Oh, so we have confirmation on the pat on the back?

 

I am watching it now and it seems to me that they are repeating exactly what they said last week. Bush even manages to deliver rather long sentences which still are exact the same as last week. Oooh, Bush just got a question about the aggrevation against the US around the world. Hmm, Bush actually manages that question rather good, making it appear that he is did decisions which had to be done despite them being unpopular.

 

Another Kerry victory. Perhaps even more lopsided than the first debate. The President was petulant, rude, and incoherent. The moderator was horrible and wouldn't give the polite Kerry as many rebuttals. (Bush pretty much just started talking without even asking.)

Unfortunately, Bush is so deranged he didn't even know who he was debating.

It's also good to know that the President will appoint a Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in slavery.

Bush the environmentalist.

The man is deeply disturbed - in effect, mentally ill.

[ October 10, 2004, 02:44: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

 

@ Tal. Of cause

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/usavalg/article.jhtml?articleID=205300

Choose the option "Se hele tv-duelen" in the box marked video ( second picture, shows some hands)

Edit: if it for some reason doesn't load the first time, just try again.

 

Personally i don't see the use of these debates. Both candidates are campaigning for months now, there is nothing their supporters don't already know, they have been slinging mud at eachother like only Americans can do, there's pretty much nothing left to say or do, except for kicking in a whole bunch of open doors.

The American elections are a freakshow of etra ordinary proportions, and almost just as annoying as reality soaps. If i were in America, i'd probably go nuts, the whole day it's Kerry here Kerry there Bush this and Bush that. I'm starting to hate both their ugly faces, can't they get this over with a little more quickly so i don't have to see, hear, read, and breathe them anymore all friggin day long. As if there's nothing else going on besides elections in the US.

Btw... how many more of these pointless debates are we going to have to put up with ? Did they turn it into a "best of seven " ?

 

just one more pac man, so relax.

 

I chose to watch the Red Sox instead

However, even the notorious liberal Boston Globe is giving this one to Bush.

After first-debate stumbles, president regains footing
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | October 9, 2004

Simple, direct, a little insistent at points, President Bush last night was far more recognizable than in the first presidential debate.

ADVERTISEMENT
Love him or hate him -- and polls indicate that he provokes powerful feelings -- the Bush who took the stage at a town hall-style encounter in St. Louis was the same politician the country got to know over the past four years, laying out his stands and refusing to backtrack.

The difference from his faltering performance in the first debate was evident from the start.

''I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions, because he does," Bush told a questioner about Senator John F. Kerry, in the president's first response.

Kerry, who is not as well known as Bush, came in with a different mission, trying to show that he is personable enough to appear in people's living rooms for four years.

Addressing the citizen-questioners by their first names, staring directly into the camera, flashing a warm smile at moderator Charles Gibson even under tough questioning, Kerry acted like a gracious host overseeing a dinner-table discussion.

But he may have been a bit too genial: He allowed Bush to define the big news of the day -- a report on monthly job gains that most economists agreed was disappointing -- as good news. And he allowed Bush to present the Iraq Survey Group's conclusion that Saddam Hussein had neither weapons of mass destruction nor active weapons programs as a confirmation of Hussein's dangerousness, because the dictator wanted to restart his programs if and when sanctions were lifted.

Bush needed a strong performance more than Kerry did, and he delivered one. In the process he probably won back some of the voters put off by his performance in the first debate.

Kerry probably did not alienate any voters who thought well of his performance in the first debate, but was less crisp, in part because of the town-hall format.

''First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins," Kerry said in response to a question about whether he would use federal funds for abortions.

He went into a long, personal discussion on his sense of responsibility as a politician not to promote his own views and to respect the rights and choices of all people. The answer probably was intended to reassure Catholic voters, who make up a disproportionate number of voters in the most competitive ''swing" states, that Kerry, a Catholic himself, was mindful of religious values. He also probably meant to demonstrate his respect for the questioner and her views.

But in a debate in which Bush advertised the firmness of his stands as a mark of character, and portrayed Kerry as unprincipled, the answer seemed unnecessarily nuanced and diffuse. On this most polarizing of all issues, Kerry offered a nod to people on all sides of the matter. Continued...

Page 2 of 2 -- ''I'm trying to decipher that," Bush fired back. ''My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion."

ADVERTISEMENT
Bush has sought throughout the campaign to portray this kind of directness -- and his characteristic unwillingness to rethink his positions -- as a mark of leadership. In the first debate, Kerry had a powerful retort: It's possible to be certain and be wrong.

This time, Kerry responded that ''it's never quite as simple as the president believes" and explained why he voted against the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions -- because it did not provide sufficient exceptions for the health of the mother -- and why he opposed a parental-notification bill that would oblige girls who are pregnant due to incest to go to their fathers for permission to have an abortion.

Although Kerry's answer came off as reasonable, it was probably too low-key to fully answer the directness of Bush, who declared: ''That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see."

Those types of assertions are what made Bush a formidable debater in his gubernatorial races in Texas and his first run for the presidency in 2000.

Even on issues in which his positions seem to be at odds with his stated values, he seems so sure of himself that few could doubt his sincerity.

Last night, for instance, he reduced his complicated environmental record to ''I guess you'd say I'm a good steward of the land," rescuing an otherwise rambling response that included the lament that forests are not properly ''harvested" due to ''lousy federal policy."

He was less fluid, overall, than Kerry in explaining policies. For instance, he probably left voters scratching their heads after declaring how seriously he took the threat of North Korea's nuclear program and then, a few minutes later, declared, ''We're moving troops out of Korea."

''One of the most important things we're doing in this administration is transformation," Bush said in another head-scratching response, about a possible military draft. ''There are some really interesting technologies."

The draft question gave Kerry one of his stronger moments, decrying the ''backdoor draft" of reservists being forced to extend their tours in Iraq.

But by the end, Kerry's comfortable, gaffe-free, and easygoing performance seemed less likely to strike a chord with voters than Bush's comfortable, gaffe-free, and emphatic one.

With two debates down, voters may now feel reassured about both candidates, impressed with Kerry's ability to stand up to the president and with Bush's return to his comfort zone last night.

On to Tempe, Ariz., and the last debate of the presidential season Wednesday.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

Maybe "liberals" need to carry credentials. Something like: "By official decree, this newspaper has been officailly certified as "liberal" by King George II." Sorry, TGS, I watched the debate for myself, and I would rather draw my own conclusions from what I saw and heard. But I'm sure that there is someone who will be persuaded by that article, because it's by a "liberal" newspaper.

I did want to add that Kerry is no Bobby Kennedy. Now he was a REAL liberal, and a damn fine one at that.

 

This was the funniest debate I've ever seen - John Kerry must have said the word "plan" six hundred times, each with absolutely no relevance to the question he was asked. Every question he used to attack Bush's record without saying anything about what he would have done, or what he will do, with the exception of a little bit about rollbacks of tax cuts and implementation of new ones.

One of my friends was almost in tears laughing at his comment about nuclear proliferation, though. We had just watched Sr. Strangelove a few days before, you see...

 

I think quoting one poll proves nothing, so I found a couple of polls. two polls made right after the debate showed Kerry winning, the first one with 44% for Kerry and 41% for Bush. the second with 47% for Kerry and 45% for Bush (the first is from my link, they doesn't say where they got it, the second is from CNN), Fox says bush won with 53% vs 46%. NBC says Kerry won with 64% vs. 36%
now what does that tell us, that Kerry won? nope, simply that polls doesn't really tells us anything, except in most of the cases, that the election is going to be close. wow big news

 

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company?

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)


Well, according to factcheck.org, he does indeed have a stake in a Timber Company. What a bold-faced liar.

The article is here

 

Seeing as how both Candidates repeat themselves, i found this enlightening:

Quote:
"SHUSTER'S CORNER

The debate by-the-numbers
18 questions: 4 on Iraq, 3 on economic policy, 2 on health care, 1 on abortion, 1 on stem cell, 1 on the Supreme Court, 1 on the Patriot Act, 1 on Iran, 1 on the military draft, 1 on terror, and 1 on the environment

No. of times buzzwords were used:

Pres. Bush
Terrorists—17
Wrong—7
My opponent—7
Taxes—26
Threat—10
Iraq—10

Sen. John Kerry
The president—68
Plan—33
Iraq—11
Lost jobs—10
Alliance—9

*End Quote

 

@Rednik

A quote from your link

So let me get this straight. If .01% of someones income is derived from a limited liability company that owns another company that owns some timber, and that person doesn't know it they are a bold faced liar? I challenge everyone to name all of the companies that their mutual funds are invested in.

@Chandos

Actually I was impressed that the Globe was willing to publish something like that. I think this is related to the first debate where the conservative elements of the media admitted that they did not think Bush won the first debate. Hopefully this is a trend in which we will see less biased reporting. I for one consider it a good thing.

Just to re-iterate I didn't see (from lack of interest) either debate so I can't comment on the merits of who won and who didn't. All I can go by is what I read and see on the television (not that I trust either one of them).

 

Well, we've moved up one spot!

Seriously, I saw the last third of the debate, and as much as I hate to admit it, Bush didn't fall flat on his face. They both did OK, and I can't see too many undecideds making up their minds based on this debate.

 

Anybody who has ever been to St. Catherine's street in Montreal knows that Canada is not a third world country

 

No, the President didn't lie with that comment. He was just too stupid to understand the point Kerry made with how "small business owners" are counted by the Unelected Fraud's administration.