Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bull**** is a substance.

Only when it comes from Bulls.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Japher


I agree, and I agree with what Kerry says on the matter. However, I think Kerry should condone not condem Bush for his actions, this would really help him. Most ppl like me see Dems as do nothings; Clinton ignoring Saddam for 8 years, we blame them for the rift we caused in the ME, they stimmy budget and health care reform all the time by shooting down plans but not proposing any with any resemblence of a compromise... I would rather have some act after analyzing all the facts, than some one who will sit on their hands, even after being given the power to go to war. We see Kerry as a coward, despite his Vietnam service.

If ppl don't know Bush went to Yale then how the hell would they be able to vote Intelligence over Likeability?:P

1. Don't blame or give credit to Kerry for Clinton's actions. That's a seperate argument.
2. Paint Kerry as the intelligent elitist and Bush as the likable common man.

[Japher]

1. Don't blame or give credit to Kerry for Clinton's actions. That's a seperate argument.

I'm not, but I will accuse his party and that line of thinking responsible for the events of 9/11... ok, even through the party out.

Who was it who was yelling at Bush and his cabinet members after 9/11 for doing nothing?

Who was it who was yelling at Bush and his cabinet members after reports came in that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Such hypocracy. Libs want action, and it is always not enough or it was the wrong type of action. Quit living in the past. Kerry is and that has nothing to do with what he will do in the future apart from the fact that he would do nothing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

His do nothingness is his perhaps his only redeeming quality. His do nothingnous would allow a stalemate between Legislative and Executive thus hopefully ensuring a reduction in overall government spending.

OTOH his do nothingnous for other matters is the exact wrong thing, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Japher


I'm not, but I will accuse his party and that line of thinking responsible for the events of 9/11... ok, even through the party out.

Who was it who was yelling at Bush and his cabinet members after 9/11 for doing nothing?

Who was it who was yelling at Bush and his cabinet members after reports came in that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Such hypocracy. Libs want action, and it is always not enough or it was the wrong type of action. Quit living in the past. Kerry is and that has nothing to do with what he will do in the future apart from the fact that he would do nothing.

Actually, if you blame Clinton and Dems for 9/11 then you might as well blame Reagan/Bush Sr. and the RP for Saddam and AQ(seperate issues still no connection to eachother). Let's not dwell on how AQ and Saddam achieved and maintained power. Let's not look at the President's record pre-9/11. Let's just look at what he has done since 9/11.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I blame Carter first appeaser to Fundamentalist Islam.

[Japher]

Exactly, Pax, lets.

He's erradicated the Taliban, a government which was known to support terrorism.

Took out Saddam, a leader who was know to support terror.

And what does Kerry say he would do? Nothing. Talk about it. Let the policies of foreign countries determine our foreign policy and the safety of our people.

Bush made some mistakes, yes, but he did something, which is something Kerry will not do.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Edan

Jim Lehrer gets a D as moderator.

Huh? What on earth for? Lehrer just asked the questions and stayed out of it. This was a debate between candidates, not an interview. I can't stand it when moderators with big egos feel the need to insert themselves into the debate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Democracy Corps have put out a poll. The internals are very interesting.

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_October_1_2004_1st_Debate_Release.pdf

Kerry's cut his deficits on foreign policy by half. He's down by only 8 on the War on Terror and Homeland Security, and down by only 4 on Iraq and having a clear plan (where he cut his deficit by 3/4).

It looks like Kerry is coming very close to eliminating his deficit on foreign policy.

He also secured a decisive lead on independents.

Look for the horse race to catch up appropriately.

Now lets see if he manages to do similarly with the federal budget

[Pax]

Originally posted by Japher
Exactly, Pax, lets.

He's erradicated the Taliban, a government which was known to support terrorism.

Took out Saddam, a leader who was know to support terror.

And what does Kerry say he would do? Nothing. Talk about it. Let the policies of foreign countries determine our foreign policy and the safety of our people.

Bush made some mistakes, yes, but he did something, which is something Kerry will not do.

Taliban alive and kicking
AQ alive and kicking
Saddam in prison
OBL ?
It looks like Bush is 1 for 4. That's an F. Still, take into consideration the situation in Iraq, before we invaded and the situation now. I would say that both the common american and iraqi were safer before. Even if you believe the common iraqi is safer today when he does not know if he will be kidnapped, beheaded, maimed, raped, killed, or which side to watch out for you still must agree that americans are not safer now that we have more enemies and our previous enemies hate us even more.

[Japher]

Taliban alive and kicking
AQ alive and kicking
Saddam in prison
OBL ?

taliban, AQ, and OBL are all on the run instead of attacking us, I like that better. I'll give him partial credit on all three.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Japher


taliban, AQ, and OBL are all on the run instead of attacking us, I like that better. I'll give him partial credit on all three.

I'll also give him partial credit, but the value of the persons and groups responsible for the USS Cole, 9/11, and embassy bombings outweighs Saddam and Iraq. AQ was an actively hostile group that had to be dealt with. Good job to the President for taking action. Still, he lost my vote when he successfully transformed 9/11 from being about defending us against real terrorist acts to attacking a country that was uninvolved with 9/11. The logic and methods the President used were brilliant and could just have easily been used to attack the U.K.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Huh? What on earth for? Lehrer just asked the questions and stayed out of it. This was a debate between candidates, not an interview. I can't stand it when moderators with big egos feel the need to insert themselves into the debate.

Poor choice of questions (Where were the questions on Iran, on the Patriot Act, on the CIA? Is Iraq and a little bit of North Korea the only foreign relations and national security issues out there?). He didn't ask any follow up question (OK, granted, it wasn't an interview). He gave way too many extensions (why not just set the time limit 30 seconds higher for each candidate?) with the candidates usually using it to hit their soundbites ("Wrong war, wrong time", etc), rather than expand on the questions. Bush also interrupted Kerry once ("I'm trying to put them on a leash").

[Japher]

Still, he lost my vote when he successfully transformed 9/11 from being about defending us against real terrorist acts to attacking a country that was uninvolved with 9/11. The logic and methods the President used were brilliant and could just have easily been used to attack the U.K.

I'd agree, if we can be certain that Bush knew that the intelligence was wrong prior to entering Iraq. I don't think he knew that. Also, you can't just dismis or blame Bush for Iraq seeing as everyone in the house, including Kerry, not only gave him permission to go in, but encouraged him to.

If the issue was that he did not have weapons but was thought to be a terrorist threat I am certain that Bush would not have gone into Iraq. However, that is something none of us knew, and something I am proud to of had a president to act in the way he did.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Japher


I'd agree, if we can be certain that Bush knew that the intelligence was wrong prior to entering Iraq. I don't think he knew that. Also, you can't just dismis or blame Bush for Iraq seeing as everyone in the house, including Kerry, not only gave him permission to go in, but encouraged him to.

If the issue was that he did not have weapons but was thought to be a terrorist threat I am certain that Bush would not have gone into Iraq. However, that is something none of us knew, and something I am proud to of had a president to act in the way he did.

Articles I read in Time magazine suggest that President Bush had Iraq on his agenda prior to 9/11. Also, the house/senate did not push the President anything to a war. he drummed up support for it. The evidence presented was the evidence HE presented for his case against iraq. Through his rhetoric, he made the position of being against the war(Iraq) politically unsafe.