US Presidential Debates 2004

[Vagegast]

I'm rewatching right now... what's up with the smirks and blinking? Kerry's nodding in agreement too much. And I wonder what Bush is drawing when he's pretending to take notes Did Bush really say "huge tax gap?"

Bush outburst: http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/844

 

[Parra Power]

Originally posted by Vagegast
And I wonder what Bush is drawing when he's pretending to take notes

i can confirm this for you:

 

[Vagegast]

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Kerry housed him, plain and simple. Bush repeated the same 5 word sentences again and again. It's good to repeat points, but only if those points have substance. Bush is assuming that everyone in middle america is a retarded hick that relates to another retarded hick. Those two 5 second pauses, deer in the headlight stuff, don't play ANYWHERE. No one likes an inept leader. Being a poor public speaker is one thing, but to not say anything of substance and stumble through that, while Kerry came off as a caring, intelligent man; Bush really should be worried. And honestly, foreign policy is supposed to be Bush's strong point, if this was even a draw (it wasn't Kerry killed him), it's huge for Kerry. The Republican spin machine needs to get to work right now to save this election or else Kerry could take 53% in the election after 3 blood baths like this.

 

[Shiryu]

What about Poland?

 

[Brondbyfan]

Kerry annihiliated Bush. Bush didn't even meet the very low expectations I had for him. He was befuddled, evasive, dishonest, and frustrated. For those of you who saw Wag the Dog, Bush's stance on every issue will sound familiar: "You don't change horses in mid-stream." Sure, you could call that "staying on message." But in light of his disastrous handling of the Iraq War and the war on terrorism, that won't play very well. Kerry brought the facts, he was composed, consistent, and ready to do what the media will not do: shoot down Bush's B.S. Many kudos to him for calling Bush on his weaselly tactic of linking the Iraq War to 9/11 (and look how pissy Bush got when he did it).

No, Kerry trounced Bush in that debate, and Bush must endure 2 more beatings like that, and also the defeat Cheney will suffer at the hands of John Edwards. 70% of people who responded to the MSNBC poll said Kerry won. Whether those results will stand once the media lets the right wing distort history tomorrow remains to be seen. But tonight was Kerry's night, and Bush and Rove have some serious problems on their hands.

 

[Voltaic Borusse]

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

 

[Germain]

Originally posted by Voltaic Borusse
http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

hahahaha, awesome!

yeah me and my roomates are thinking about doing a drinking game for next debate, afterall it's on a friday.

i dunno like, drink everytime bush stutters.... WE GON BE FUUUUUUKKKDDD

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Kerry annihiliated Bush. Bush didn't even meet the very low expectations I had for him. He was befuddled, evasive, dishonest, and frustrated. For those of you who saw Wag the Dog, Bush's stance on every issue will sound familiar: "You don't change horses in mid-stream." Sure, you could call that "staying on message." But in light of his disastrous handling of the Iraq War and the war on terrorism, that won't play very well. Kerry brought the facts, he was composed, consistent, and ready to do what the media will not do: shoot down Bush's B.S. Many kudos to him for calling Bush on his weaselly tactic of linking the Iraq War to 9/11 (and look how pissy Bush got when he did it).

No, Kerry trounced Bush in that debate, and Bush must endure 2 more beatings like that, and also the defeat Cheney will suffer at the hands of John Edwards. 70% of people who responded to the MSNBC poll said Kerry won. Whether those results will stand once the media lets the right wing distort history tomorrow remains to be seen. But tonight was Kerry's night, and Bush and Rove have some serious problems on their hands.

What else would a partisan hack like you say about the debate?


Kerry was strong, but that is only because Bush let him slide way too many times. There is so much ammo to go against Kerry, but he didn't use much of it. I'd say it was more of a draw because they both basically said the same things to each other.


Kerry still loses on November 2nd, and nobody watches the Vice Presidential debates.


Flash from Drudge...


" FLASH: Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)

The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1, even though Penn station was shut for several hours...

Kerry also misspoke when he referred to looking at KGB records in "Treblinka Square" in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square..."


I've seen KGB headquarters in person... Kerry doesn't even know where it is. Dumbass.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
The liberal bias of you people is making me sick. You make it seem like Kerry was god-like tonite.

Bush was going in circles. So was Kerry. Both were unconvincing.

Agreed. That's what you get with scripted debates with 30 pages of rules to follow.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Vagegast
Am I the only one who thinks it was tie or a slight win for Bush? Bush succeeded (with help of Jim Lehrer) at talking about what Kerry said before the start of the war. Why didn't Kerry bring up the current situation more? Nothing on today's bombings, nothing on the beheading and kidnappings. He mentioned once that there were more soldiers killed in July than June, more in August than July, etc.

Bush also succeeded in questioning Kerry's consistency, while Kerry was talking more about Bin Laden > Osama.




Best line of the night... Bush: "You forgot Poland." Nah, seriously he was very, very on message. Which makes him the winner for me. Keeps hammering the same point which is how an incumbent wins.




I'll probably have more to say on this later on so expect for more rants

I'm with you Vagegast. I think it was a tie at best. And in politics, as in boxing, the challenger must make a convincing point in order to win. Kerry just doesn't do that for me.

One example was his little story about body armor for the troops and how they didn't have it... Kerry failed to mention, and so did Bush, that he voted against the 87 billion dollars to help fund the iraq war in which body armor was part of it...

Another example. He whined about spending money in Iraq, but then had some four year plan for Russia and their nukes... where does that money come from? I would guess from the same cops and firefighters he was complaining about losing money.


One more example. He voted for the war using the same rhetoric as GWB. Now he says it's not the right war... he voted for it! Yet he comes into the debate, which Bush rightly pointed out later on, basically saying that Bush "misled" the country on the war using the same intelligence that Kerry used to vote FOR IT. So he is saying Bush "misled", yet Kerry could also be said to have "misled"

It was a draw for me. Kerry was stronger than I thought he would be, but he just didn't score enough points to win the "close rounds" so to speak.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by xxxFLYERxxx
For some reason, i remember "lies" being used in the question but i guess thats the one.

That was the perfect oppotunity for him to tell us exaclty how Bush has lied to us, and he blew it. After that i said to myself, so Bush hasnt really lied (not true). But the average American will believe that.

Here you go Flyer:


"KERRY CLAIMS HE'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)"


Now the truth about Kerry and never saying the word "lied."


"BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)"


And....


"AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, 'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)"

 

[Brondbyfan]

Oh I see, your argument hinges on Drudge, the fact that Bush's homeland security failures caused the closure of part of the subway system, and that Kerry misspoke. When you're speaking on behalf of George W. Bush, bashing someone for misspeaking is like Hitler calling someone a genocidal maniac. But surely considering that you came down on Kerry for those minor "errors," if you can even call them that, you will roundly condemn George W. Bush for the much more egregious offenses of pushing the long-disproven 9/11-Iraq link, and for out-and-out lying when he said 100,000 Iraqi Security Force members have been trained, when in fact the Defense Department says only 53,000 have been trained

Elder, you're the partisan hack if you're actually saying that Bush didn't get his rear handed to him. You and the rest of the Republicans can try and spin it all you want, but America saw John Kerry standing firm with the facts on his side, while Bush lied, deceived, squirmed, stuttered, and huffed through the debate.

 

[Brondbyfan]

He voted for the war using the same rhetoric as GWB. Now he says it's not the right war... he voted for it!

Elder, that's just a lie, and you should know it by now. Repeat it with me . . . Kerry voted for the AUTHORIZATION of force, under certain conditions, assuming diplomatic options were exhausted, assuming the inspections were carried out, assuming evidence showed Hussein was in a material breach which justified the use of force, assuming force was the last resort, and assuming Bush had some kind of actual plan for what to do after the war. None of those were met. So this particular Iraq war WAS the wrong war, and it's completely consistent with what he's said all along.

But you've got to stop saying Kerry voted for the war, it's a lie and it shoots whatever credibility you might have had left.

 

[mhflierman]

When the president of the US, the man who invaded Iraq, the guy responsible for so many death Americans and Iraqi's and Europeans trying to help Iraq, ends his debate with a sentence like this: "We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below and it is a valley of peace." you just can't help but

 

[Germain]

I disagree with those who say Bush got his ass handed to him. Overall, I do think Kerry did a better job at the debate last night, but that's deceiving, because no one expected for Bush to do well in the first place. There was no turning point last night; no republican voters expected Bush to be eloquent, and he wasn't. He however did stick by his guns, which are: standing firmly by what he believes, his faith, and his down-to-earth-ness. People relate to that and it'll take more than polite rhetoric to change the minds of the voters.

It was more of a tie if anything. But I hope that in following debates Kerry can exploit Bush's known weaknesses much more, make it simple and evident that electing this guy in the first place, was a terrible mistake.

 

[PhiLLer]

From what I understand picking between Kerry and Bush is basically just picking the lesser of two evils, which should be a pretty easy choice. Kerry.

And what's this whole "You Forgot Poland" thing? Anyone care to shed some light on that since I missed the debate.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Elder, that's just a lie, and you should know it by now. Repeat it with me . . . Kerry voted for the AUTHORIZATION of force, under certain conditions, assuming diplomatic options were exhausted, assuming the inspections were carried out, assuming evidence showed Hussein was in a material breach which justified the use of force, assuming force was the last resort, and assuming Bush had some kind of actual plan for what to do after the war. None of those were met. So this particular Iraq war WAS the wrong war, and it's completely consistent with what he's said all along.

But you've got to stop saying Kerry voted for the war, it's a lie and it shoots whatever credibility you might have had left.

You don't vote for "the use of force" and then say it hinges on "certain conditions." I'm sorry, but "certain conditions" were not part of the bill. Those conditions only existed in Kerry's warped little mind after he realized he needed to be anti-war in order to beat Dean.

None of those things you listed were part of what Kerry signed, he gave Bush a blank check. I love you how just take everything that Kerry says and treat it like the word of Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Oh I see, your argument hinges on Drudge, the fact that Bush's homeland security failures caused the closure of part of the subway system, and that Kerry misspoke. When you're speaking on behalf of George W. Bush, bashing someone for misspeaking is like Hitler calling someone a genocidal maniac. But surely considering that you came down on Kerry for those minor "errors," if you can even call them that, you will roundly condemn George W. Bush for the much more egregious offenses of pushing the long-disproven 9/11-Iraq link, and for out-and-out lying when he said 100,000 Iraqi Security Force members have been trained, when in fact the Defense Department says only 53,000 have been trained

Elder, you're the partisan hack if you're actually saying that Bush didn't get his rear handed to him. You and the rest of the Republicans can try and spin it all you want, but America saw John Kerry standing firm with the facts on his side, while Bush lied, deceived, squirmed, stuttered, and huffed through the debate.

I guess Vagegast and others who say the debate was a draw are partisan hacks too aren't they?

 

[Brondbyfan]

Originally posted by Elder
You don't vote for "the use of force" and then say it hinges on "certain conditions." I'm sorry, but "certain conditions" were not part of the bill. Those conditions only existed in Kerry's warped little mind after he realized he needed to be anti-war in order to beat Dean.

None of those things you listed were part of what Kerry signed, he gave Bush a blank check. I love you how just take everything that Kerry says and treat it like the word of Jesus Christ himself.

Iraq War Authorization:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Neither of those conditions were met.