Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
@ Novak the Pathetic for giving Kerry a D

Yeah, Novak, has lost all credibitly and is nothing more than a shill. His outting of the CIA operative was disgusting and I don't know why he even still has a job.

Although the first analyst was obviously Kerry's lover so he doesn't count either.

The last guy seemed clueless and didn't know what to make of it so he gave them a tie.

[Japher]

Iraq prior to 9/11 is liberal facist propoganda aimed at the neo-cons, of which Bush is one, and I can't believe a bunch of rumors on that one.

Bush drummed up support for a war by displaying evidence that bashed Iraq? What happened before Iraq is the same thing that is happening now in NK. Only this time, most of it may be true. Who knows?

[Ted Striker]

Ted Striker = A+ in all categories

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kerry beat Bush on his strength, foreign policy. It only makes sense that Kerry would do even better on domestic issues. Though, the effect wouldn't be as pronounced - it's hard to see him getting yet another a net 29 point favorability boost as in this debate. Also, Kerry probably has lost his edge in the expectations game.

I think this is wrong. Kerry won because he was polished, articulate, calm and confident. Bush, by comparison, was inarticulate and flustered.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
I think town hall benefits Bush- I think he is better at playing of to a crowd-plus there might be more room for body language and so forth. That being said, Kerry has shown he can at least not be robotic like Gore.

Are you praising Bush solely to raise expectations?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They had a civilian nuke plant, which was allowed. After the war, we didn't secure it immediately and stuff from the plant started getting looted. It is theoretically possible terrorists made off with radioactive material to make a dirty bomb.

To some extent, Bush has admitted to poor planning for the rapid victory. Is this admission going to help Bush or hurt him?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I only watched a little bit, early on. I was impressed with neither candidate. Bush just repeated talking points over and over. His parts were ill-fitted sound bites stuck together. This will be good for him in the long run because most people don't watch the actual debates, but will only see clips of sound bites later on.

Kerry's was bobbing his head too much and smiling at inapporpriate times, so that it seemed like he was agreeing with the Prez when the Prez was criticizing him. Kerry missed the mark a few times when Bush said something stupid.

One big problem for Bush, though, was that he was expected to win the debate beforehand according to news polls. Bush's style is to have lowered expectations,and then rise above them. If folks only think you can deliver 30% and you bring 45%, you do a lot better than expected, and the difference is what impresses folks.

Not that the debates are anything more than a soulless husk of what they once were. I wish the news organizations would get together and decide to host the debates and refuse to televize the Federal Comminsion on President Debates farces.

How did you like Kerry's bright red lipstick?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood


Bush is commander in chief and its on his watch so YES he is to blame when his generals screw up.

I agree. But still the attack on Bush here is a bit unfair, agreed?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They aren't cheap shots at Tommy Franks. Bush was the idiot in charge of pulling troops out of Afganistan to use in Iraq before Tora Bora. Maybe if we hadn't pulled troops out of Afganistan, we'd habve been able to have the manpower to sorround the mountain. Hell, maybe there should have been more troops in Afganistan.

Another BIG LIE? Evidence please.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flubber


so you hold our country responsible for the idiotic comments of an outspoken maverick MP, disavowed by everyone else.

Should we be getting all offended any time some republican senator from Buttlick says something offensive?

Did the Canadian PM apologize?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Yeah, Novak, has lost all credibitly and is nothing more than a shill. His outting of the CIA operative was disgusting and I don't know why he even still has a job.

Although the first analyst was obviously Kerry's lover so he doesn't count either.

The last guy seemed clueless and didn't know what to make of it so he gave them a tie.

You've pretty much summed it up.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes. When you poison the well, don't be surprised when the village hates you.

Excellent analogy, Che.

What was the poison. I forgot. Did we mail anthrax to their PM?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Another BIG LIE? Evidence please.

Yeah Che. Don't you know that Franks is the General/President of this country.

[Ned]

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.

Without even looking at the poll, I would tend to agree with this. Bush took a big hit in this debate.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


This is actually 100% consistent.

Kerry says Bush promised numerous things would be done about Iraq before going to War:

1. Exhaust all other possibilities

2. Build a large and strong coalition as in the first Iraq War

3. He said he would plan it carefully

He also lied about there being Nuclear Weapons or a Nuclear Program (and it was known well before we went in that this wasn't true).

So, Kerry expects Bush to do all of those things, and Bush doesn't and goes in anyway.

Now we don't have enough troops to go around.

Why? No large and strong Coalition, and no careful planning on how to handle the aftermath. If we had both of those, we easily could have done Afghanistan AND Iraq. We didn't and so we can't. A new president is the only chance we have of changing the level of foreign help in Iraq now.

This doesn't mean cow-towing to foreign wants, but it means being aware of their desires and interests and working with them. The World is a community, and like a community you have to work together on big projects so that you can get them done right.

So, in short, Kerry was consistent (as he has been consistent, even though he doesn't always state his positions well). We could have done both quite well, but Bush didn't follow his plan; we needed a real coalition.

-Drachasor

The DAY the war started, Kerry said his ONLY regret is that Bush did not form a large coalition like his father, but the decision to take out Saddam was correct.

Now, compare Kerry's position then with what Dean said.