US Presidential Debates

[NewsGuy]

The First Debate:

Kerry spoke about the war in Iraq and repeatedly assured the American people that he supported the war based on the same intelligence that Bush was given, but that Kerry would have not made any mistakes at all.

Kerry told the audience that being "certain" and not flip-flopping is not necessarily a good thing. Instead, flip-flopping is preferable to consistency.

Kerry told the American people that America's foreign policy cannot be made in the US, but needs to pass a "global test," i.e., first to obtain a stamp of approval from countries like France.

And, to enlist the help of France and other countries, according to Kerry, all that is needed is to simply hold a conference. Then, Kerry explained, the US would have the necessary approval to defend itself and conduct the war against terrorism.

Kerry repeated the idea that we must kowtow to the Muslim world, which has managed to isolate America, according to Kerry. He was very concerned with America's image in the Muslim world, rather than demanding that the Muslim world be more concerned with their own image in the eyes of America. Kerry completely neglected to mention that the Muslim world is the source of anti-American terrorism.

President Bush emphasized that Kerry's position constantly changed based on politics, and pointed out that Kerry sent "mixed messages" that have harmed America's standing in the eyes of the world.

Bush made the point that Kerry's attacks on the Iraq war and Kerry's statement that this is the "wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons" is demoralizing our troops in Iraq, who would not be able to respect Kerry as commander-in-chief.

Bush also explained that the US is backed by a coalition of 30 countries and that Kerry belittled countries like Australia and Poland whose troops are serving in Iraq, as an example of Kerry’s lack of understanding of international relations.

Overall, neither candidate shined. Those who support Kerry seemed to think that Kerry won. Those who support the President, think that the President won.

I see it as a tie.

But in a tie, the President prevails.

[I am David]

The general consensus is that it was a Kerry win, with Bush coming in below expectations and Kerry above (I.E - Foreign Policy is Bush's strong point, Kerry will add all sorts of sub clauses and exeptions to his answers)

Kerry came across clear confident and presidential whereas Bush came across agitated, annoyed, arrogant. He repeated the same things several times ("Its hard work!").

It's the general consensus that matters and since Bush came in below performance and Kerry above it means a win for Kerry.

[I am David]

Substance:

Bush pointed out that he has more than 30 countries in the coalition, but Kerry counter-pointed that no matter how many countries you have on a list, the costs are still 90% american in both lives and costs. Kerry Score.

Kerry explained that he has never flip-flopped on the war. While Bush accused Kerry of "supporting the war" based on the same intelligence Bush recieved, Kerry counter-pointed that it he DID support holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but it is just that Bush did it in the drastically wrong way. Kerry Score.

Kerry again reinforced the reality that no country can make its way alone in the world, especially when fighting a global war on terror. He explained that if you are going to fight terrorism in Muslim countries, it's a lot easier to do so with support from muslim countries. Kerry Score. He also explained that by reaching out to other countries (not giving them a "veto"), you can enlist their help as well in the global war on terror. Kerry Score Again.

Kerry told the US that he will make Americas Foreign policy in the US, but with help from other countries (as it is after all, FOREIGN policy). Kerry Score Big Time.

Bush Blew it, Kerry Scored.

[minusthejihad]

More Viewers Say Kerry Won Debate, But Voter Preferences Remain the Same

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/p...ll_040930.html

Oct. 1, 2004— John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency, an ABC News poll found. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved.

Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45 percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was President Bush and 17 percent called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed.

Moreover, while 70 percent of Bush's supporters said Bush was the winner, considerably more Kerry supporters — 89 percent — said their man won.

Debate Winners are like French Armchair American Voters

[Mediocrates]

If there weren't mass firings and executions in the Rose Garden the day after the debate I'd be amazed. Bush's handlers failed miserably because Bush's audience, at least the audience that doesn't get vetted to slow golf as his events are beginning to see through the seven or eight buzzwords.

Even Fox News called it a tie which is nothing short of toss grandma out of the lifeboat time. The Republicans seem to have two modes: Zell on Earth, and Fumbling Bush.

[Justcurious]

Interesting to read these views on the outcome of the debate. They concur with what we have seen here.

In fact, I could have watched the debate live on TV here, but it was early morning and I didn't consider the discussion in a foreign country far away that important.

[Olivier]

didn't actually watch the debate, though it was widely aired in france. I read most of it.

I liked this remarks on preemptive wars

MODERATOR: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

SENATOR KERRY: The President always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War, and it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

I posted a paper on that a while ago. The US waging preemptive wars is nothing new. The US waging preemptive wars bound to fail, against the world opinion and producing false evidence is new.

despite what was said preemptive wars are not the central problem.


This one about the credibilty cost for america I already heard, but i was very surprised to find Kerry using it, in the present climate of french bashing

Here we have our own Secretary of State who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his
Secretary of State to Paris to meet with de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, here, let me show you the photos. And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."

so either there is not that much french bashing but since i read this forum I'm quite sure there is still a lot ....or the french haters are lost for kerry anyway and he doesn't care courting them.



Overall, I feel Bush did much better than what I expected of him

[Eugeenie]

The First Debate:



Kerry told the audience that being "certain" and not flip-flopping is not necessarily a good thing. Instead, flip-flopping is preferable to consistency.

If one wishes to paint a certain characteristic in a negative light, it is all to easy, and one tactic employed by Karl Rove, and indeed much of the republican strategists in general, is to paint their opponents as flip flopping or wishy washy or any term useful in creating the notion of indecisiveness and weakness. Effective propaganda, certainly, and if you have read "On The Art Of Speaking To The World", the value of repetition and simplification is certainly singled out as a means to that end. We hear the term "flip flop" a million times over, we repeat it if we are so inclined by the partisan nature of our political outlook, and it becomes a fait accompli.

A similarly partisan characterization of Dubya, and that "consistant" and "certain" become "pig headed" and "close minded". What we are dealing with here is spin with a capital Ess. If we were to hear a million ads proclaiming "George Dubya Bush -- "Too pig headed for America", I'm certain that the term "pig headed" would enter the vernacular of those with strong partisan inclinations opposite yours.

My question is whether the repetition of polemic buzz phrases has much to do with solving the problems of Islamic terrorism? Does this reduction of personal characteristics to notions like flip flopping or pig headed really address the traits we desire in our leaders who hope to solve this problem and reduce the potential for terrorist acts commited against us? The way I see it is that a President can so thoroughly make up their mind about a course of action that they ignore any new facts on the ground, and so be too stubborn for good leadership. They can also become so bogged down in the minutia of decision making that they lack initiative and do become too wishy washy for good leadership. IMO, though, our estimation of these traits depends entirely too much on our party/idealogical identification and instead of thinking that what we really desire is leadership that is clear and desicive *as well as* facile and able to adjust to new situations, we simply focus on one or the other as the needs of the electoral process dictate.

Seems to me that Liberals/Democrats all too often focus on the carrot and Conservatives/Republicans the stick. I think we need both in order to effectively confront the threat of rising Islamism.

[nuttie]

Rasmussen Reports

Sunday October 03, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 49% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 45%.

These results are based upon a survey of 3,000 Likely Voters conducted Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday afternoon. As a result, just over two-thirds of the interviews were conducted following Thursday night's Presidential Debate.

Interviews conducted on Friday and Saturday show Kerry with a one-point bounce so far since the debate. However, in post-debate interviews, Bush still leads 49% to 46%.

The debates did little to change voter perceptions of the candidates' political ideology. However, following the debate, there was an increase in the number who say finishing the mission in Iraq is more important than getting troops home as soon as possible.

Six percent (6%)% of voters say they changed their minds following the debate. This includes 3% who are now voting for Kerry, 2% for Bush, and 1% who are now undecided.

[I am David]

It's the Zogby polls that really count.

[nuttie]

It's the Zogby polls that really count.

Zogby require signing up, which I did not. Could you inform us what they say?

I have found three other polls that give Bush even a larger margin of Kerry than Rasmussen do. I prefer, however, the evidently cautious Rasmussen.

[Mediocrates]

Someone who is truly undecided, I'd have to seriously wonder about. How long does it take them to tie their shoes, or are they paralyzed with fear?

[NewsGuy]

My question is whether the repetition of polemic buzz phrases has much to do with solving the problems of Islamic terrorism?

No, but on this topic, Kerry made it clear that he was very concerned with getting the European and Muslim world's stamp of approval on US foreign policy, including the war against terrorism.

I think that we can all agree that the Muslim world, which is the main source of anti-American terrorism, is not about to give the U.S. permission to wipe out terrorism. And we also can't realistically expect corrupt and hypocritical countries like France, Germany and Russia to voluntarily allow us to overthrow dictators like Saddam Hussein and Iran's Ayatolahs, who put billions in the Europeans' pockets.

So, it's understandable why the Muslim world, France, and Germany much prefer Kerry as president. The bottom line is that he best represents their interests and we can expect Muslim terrorism to thrive if Kerry is elected.

[I am David]

No, but on this topic, Kerry made it clear that he was very concerned with getting the European and Muslim world's stamp of approval on US foreign policy, including the war against terrorism.

He made it clear? How. Post some quotes.

The bottom line is that he best represents their interests and we can expect Muslim terrorism to thrive if Kerry is elected.

And how the HELL did you come to that conclusion.

[NewsGuy]

He made it clear? How. Post some quotes.

Did you watch or listen to the debates?

And how the HELL did you come to that conclusion.

Don't get so hysterical David. I think that I explained that in my previous post. In Kerry's world, the Arabs and their European allies will never give America a permission slip to fight terrorism. So terrorism will thrive as Kerry's America twiddles its thumbs trying to pass the "global test."