Kerry wins the first

If it is one thing that is for certain, this particular American election campaign is a production caught in a cross current between the repetitive drone of daytime soap opera, languishing on mundane issues for far too long, and the mad rush sweeps week to claim the prime time crown. The subliminally imbued prepping to the public by the media, that George W. Bush is an affable fellow whom Americans can relate to, and John F. Kerry is but a staid pretender disconnected from the audience he needs to convince, was very much in evidence tonight. Where Bush comes across as a commoner devolving in presidential posture from his father�s days, and his predecessor, Kerry seemed caught in the mirthless demeanour of Nixon.

In this rather serious time, the rest of the world watched from a singular different perspective to the American citizen, looking to discern which of the two would present a case more representative of stability, peace and the mending of fractured relationships, not continued war and enhanced global unrest. There is no doubt that Bush according to the pundits would win the affability award, and expected to be clearly evident with his continued invocation of motherhood statements; repetitive empty rhetoric intended to drive the point home to the don�t ask, just nod in agreement if it sounds good mind.. Alas, there was nothing new behind the door to the future and certainly nothing that would suggest he embraces an ideology even marginally different to his previous compulsion toward hegemony. I counted 7 times where he referred to his notes and verbatim read off his talking points. The American people however should not be second guessed, for there is more than one reason why Bush Sr. a man whose son mirrors his affability, fiscal, social and military policies, was fired.

Kerry himself makes one wonder whether his abject commitment to Israel would prove any less a disruption in the Middle East, than is Iraq, but such was not the case tonight. In fact, Kerry seemed to almost relish the almost collegiate atmosphere of the debate, while Bush evoked a �Mad� magazine like face throughout. Where I would have expected Bush to score his points based on affability, and Kerry to relinquish some on stuffiness, I find that I was completely off the mark, Bush discarded his appeal in return for losing commonality, while Kerry managed to pull off exactly the presidential demeanour one expects to witness when confronting the rest of the world.

Of note was the number of times Bush depended on his notes to repeat the talking points so prevalent throughout his presidency. If winning re-election is based on never changing your mind whether right or wrong, then the points go to the incumbent, but Kerry seemed resolute, never looking for a thought to enter his mind. He was certainly well prepared to place Bush on the defensive and keep him there.

It is obvious that the international community will not attach themselves to Bush�s side until he reassesses, bends and acknowledge that the United States, no matter how powerful, cannot accomplish what history refuses to hold in perpetuity; an eternal ruler.

I thought this contest close, but I give it to Kerry.

Haha Bush snorted during the debate . There was also the time when he was silent for 30 seconds just...thinking. How can we possibly have a president so illiterate?

Originally posted by Blackout
Haha Bush snorted during the debate

. There was also the time when he was silent for 30 seconds just...thinking. How can we possibly have a president so illiterate?

Uh...you sure you know what that word means?

I don't think he behaved like an illiterate during the debate. He just felt, very strongly, that Kerry was wrong.

I turned my attention to other things when Kerry called Bush on sending troops to Iraq without body armor. I scratched my head thinking, "Didn't he vote against fixing that error?"

When the rest of Kerry's debate was concerning his fixing Bush's errors, I simply couldn't bear to pay complete attention to it.

Well...

You have to remember that likeability is more important than winning the rhetorical battle. Kerry HAD to win this debate to survive, considering how his campaign is imploding in several key states. If, even while winning the rhetorical end, he fails to pick up any steam... he will have effectively lost the debate.

Why? Because his numbers are crumbling in several battleground states. If they stay where they are -- even if his debate 'win' shores up what he already has -- he will still have 'lost'. that's because he had to make up ground tonight.

Keep in mind that the next few debates are on social and domestic issues. Bush will have all the advantages when it comes to the social stuff... so kerry will have needed to have scored a BIG win here to survive.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I turned my attention to other things when Kerry called Bush on sending troops to Iraq without body armor. I scratched my head thinking, "Didn't he vote against fixing that error?"

When the rest of Kerry's debate was concerning his fixing Bush's errors, I simply couldn't bear to pay complete attention to it.

It might best serve to understand Bush's veto threats.

im biased towards bush but i thought bush was more effective. he kept to several simple ideas that the masses can understand and hammered on the idea that kerry cant make up his mind...

Kerry is the man. Kerry obviously won. Hands down. No doubt about it.
And he'll win the other 2. watch out now for TERROR THREATS since Bush didnt do so well. Or should I say, he did well for him? Outside of having to take time to think about his answers, the irritated arrogant smirk, his simplistic answers (duh) the bobbing head, and the "I did it because Iwanted to" answers, he did ok for himself. One thing I can say about Bush, he's honestly telling you he damned well did things the way he did BECAUSE he wanted to do it. no thought behind it. no thought behind it, though.

Yep, this was Kerry's debate to lose. He had to be concise and direct which he did for the most part. Bush has a record that can only be defended by bombast and stock answers he's been repeating for the last 6 months.

In many ways this was the most important debate and while Kerry didn't hit a home run I feel he went a long way towards consolidating the Democratic base and possibly even convincing many fence sitters to lean his way.

We shall see.

[edit on 113030p://444 by Weller]

Bush may have had many silent moments. but I do not believe they were due to illiteracy. I think they were meant to stress his points. I got bored with the debate cause honestly I saw Kerry saying or doing nothing that overwhelemed anything Bush said. I am not big on politics but Bush's silent moments made me more focused on what he was saying not the crap Kerry was trying to get out of his mouth.


And before anyone bashes me for my opinion. I am not a registered voter nor ever will be due to my beliefs and criminal background. I support damn near any decision our president makes. And all bullsh*&ting aside. These wars have made my job that much busier. So I may be a bit biased.

Originally posted by Chuckster
These wars have made my job that much busier. So I may be a bit biased.

Well, they say there's always someone profiting from any war! I appreciate your honesty.

I posted this on the main debate thread here on ATS, but I will add it here as well. CNN reported a little while ago. That a post debate, Zogby poll of 650 registered voters found.

53% felt Kerry won
37% felt Bush won

I am no fan of either candidate. But I completely agree with the polls findings. Kerry won hands down, it wasn't even close.

Tom Sawyer

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I turned my attention to other things when Kerry called Bush on sending troops to Iraq without body armor. I scratched my head thinking, "Didn't he vote against fixing that error?"

When the rest of Kerry's debate was concerning his fixing Bush's errors, I simply couldn't bear to pay complete attention to it.

It might best serve to understand Bush's veto threats.

Oddly enough, I don't give two flying flips about politics when it comes to protecting our troops.

Considering Kerry wants to fix Bush's errors, the issue for me is: "Did he or did he not vote against the bill that would fix the error that he called Bush on tonight?"



[edit on 30-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

From what I watched ( about 30 minutes) Kerry seemed to talk circles around himself and repeat everything he said 2-3 times. Maybe I should have watched the whole thing. I dunno.

Well, they say there's always someone profiting from any war! I appreciate your honesty.

I havent profited personally. but this war has helped keep the company I work for going in an economy that is against the products we build on a daily basis

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Keep in mind that the next few debates are on social and domestic issues. Bush will have all the advantages when it comes to the social stuff...

On what freaking planet do you live?

You think Bush wins on social? No scratch that. You think ANY Republican wins on social?

Um, which aspect exactly? Is the desire to force rape victims to breed for their attackers by outlawing abortion? Or is it the complete lack of fiscal responsibility? Or is it wrecking Social Security? Or is it Bush's strong stand on the ENVIRONMENT? How about education? Rising healthcare costs? Refusal to allow drug reimportation? Or maybe you think people are happy about the Patriot Act? Or what exactly?

Do PLEASE tell us how Bush wins on SOCIAL. He BEGGED to have Foreign Policy first (nay REFUSED to debate if it wasn't)!

The debate Bush just LOST was his STRONG SUIT!!!

Oh my God. THAT was funny. Social issues are Bush's strong suit.

Oh wait I remember, he's the one that wanted to amend the Consitution to control marriage? NOOOOOO, it's the failure to enforce the Assualt Weapons ban supported by 68% of Americans that's his strong suit.



Please don't fool yourself. This was supposed to be Bush's "Ace in the hole" tonight.

H-E L-O-S-T.

Now Kerry can peck away, peck away, peck away til election day.

Women will be coming back in DROVES now to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY when they get a whiff of Bush SOCIAL POLICY!

I would prefer to have a President who is thoughtful about what he says. He may have had pauses, but it's ABSURD to critisize him for "just thinking".

I also think that Bush prevailed on this one. He came across as more confident that he would be re-elected, he exposed Kerry and his flip flops, and I agree with his views on N. Korea.

Overall, the debate lacked real substance, but Bush put one over on Kerry.

A for the social issues being GWB's strong point, that is a laugh. I agree with almost everything above but the abortion crap. Interesting theory, the whole rape-victim-breeding-future-rapists bit.

That is definitly the explicit reason that abortion was passed. Not for the thousands of unwanted 'accidental' pregnancies, or the women who would be killed by child-bearing.

The number of rape victims that actually concieve is DWARFED by the major reasons for abortion.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Rain King]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO


Oddly enough, I don't give two flying flips about politics when it comes to protecting our troops.

Considering Kerry wants to fix Bush's errors, the issue for me is: "Did he or did he not vote against the bill that would have fixed the error that he called Bush on tonight?"

Ok, now I am not attempting to flame you, and if it comes off as that, I am truly sorry.

In the Senate bills sometimes include what is known as "pork". This is extra stuff in the bill that usually has nothing to do with it. The first time the 87 billion dollar bill came in front of Kerry, he voted for it. But here's one little tidbit that is never mentioned: it didn't pass. Why? Well, there were some other things that the Republicans wanted added to it that had little or nothing to do with the main part of the bill, 87 billion for defense spending. After those things were added, the bill again came in front of Kerry, who did not like the "pork". It was clearly going to pass, so in protest to the other parts of the bill, Kerry voted against it. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the Senate.

Now, here is a little thought for you: if Kerry had the same powers Bush has, he could have used something known as the "line-item veto", a process by which a President can eliminate certain pieces of a proposed bill, while allowing the gist of it to still pass. I'm sure the Republicans are very happy that Clinton and a Democratic Congress were able to get that law passed.


- Dom

Just a thought. If Kerry is so strong to win why did congress say that if there was a terrorist attack they would postpone elections? That tells me even our own congress and house knows Kerry can't handle a war.

Bush did a great job of skirting questions, and of course using saddam/osama/911/terrorism as an excuse for anything and everything he has done. He was fumbling the whole time. You have got to be kidding yourself if you think his blank stares just "emphasized his point". He was trying to come up with logical rebuttals, because Kerry tore him apart for most of the debate. Maybe the specific brain cells he needed were long gone thanks to his alcohol and coke habits..
I loved how Kerry got him for saying "the enemy attacked us" in reference to the war in Iraq...no, it was Bin Laden as Bush later said he knew that fact. Hope so... I also thought it was interesting that Bush specifically said "still a volunteer army", addressing the latest news/propaganda of a possible draft. And Kerry didn't hesitate to tout his vietnam service whenever possible in the face of Bush...and maybe rightfully so...yea, Kerry won, no questions about it. If you think Bush won, or had the upperhand at all in that debate...then I guess you're dumber than Bush.