Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Japher]

Yeah, I generally don't stick my 2 cents in when you have already made the point. Still, if Kerry can win by spouting lies and brown nosing florida (nice move by the way) then Bush needs to do something in return, something big.

[DRoseDARs]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232859/posts

Oh. My. God. Check out what the Freeptards are posting over necktie-gate

OP:

Of Bush, Kerry, and Bush's Necktie
My fevered brow | 10-01-2004 | By Laz


Posted on 10/01/2004 11:59:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz


I noticed something last night.

G.W. Bush's necktie was askew. It looked unprofessional. I wondered HOW in the heck that could have happened.

Then during the replay, I saw how it happened. When Kerry greeted Bush, Kerry held on to Bush's hand as Bush was walking away. Bush was forced to awkwardly stretch his torso, dislodging the correct placement of the tie.

I initially thought it was all happenstance. But on further review, I saw that Kerry made a point of adjusting his tie after the handshake, just in case the manuever dislodged his too.

Maybe it was an accident, maybe not. I think not. If anyone has contacts to Bush, please advise them of this possible purposeful action, or at the very least, MAKE SURE BUSH'S TIE IS STRAIGHT. I was focused on the tie, it looked so sloppy.

Select responces:

It's a smallish point, but every little bit helps. Please send this observation to people who can influence things.

***

Actually, it was a very clever maneuver. I give the Kerry people kudos for coming up with it, if it was indeed intentional.

Now it is up to our side to respond.

***

Thanks. And to those who did not notice it consciously, I'm sure it was an unconscious factor in the somewhat poor reviews of GW's performance.

Psychology is subtle, and unconscious effects are the most insidious. We must be ever-vigilant.

***

Why didn't Lehrer throw a flag when that happened? He was right there. He should've seen the flagrant foul, especially if it was so obvious upon further review... Sheesh. Can't get good help anymore anywhere.

While there are plenty of dimwits there suffering from soiled pants over the crooked tie which I never once noticed (seeing as Bush was almost constantly slouched over the lecturn... bad bad bad ), there were plenty of others making light of it and stating correctly that this is noothing more than spilt milk that no one in thier right mind should spend any time on.

One of these people posted this cute pic

[Japher]

kewl pick, what's a sill vanity?

[Kidlicious]

So I take it Bush sucked more. I didn't watch.

[Japher]

than a hoover

[DRoseDARs]

It says "silly vanity." A lot of posts in that thread were agreeing that the necktie thing was just stupid and didn't effect anything, that the threadstarter was making something out of it that it wasn't.

[Moral Hazard]

I originally posted saying the debate was a slight win for Kerry. I've changed my mind. I've come to realize that Kerry kicked ass in the Debate. I was reading Republican stuff today, usually I'm pretty impartial (aka I think O'reilly is a good show, tho I don't agree with most of what he says), but I was getting mad at the Republicans who were saying Bush won. Should I stay on the Kerry bandwagon? I think I'll jump back off. I like being in between.

[Pekka]

Ned, you have answered your own question partially, why Bush is not as liked in Europe and around the world as perhaps Kerry would be. Kerry is more articulate, polished etc. We like that kind of stuff. Leader of the country, why not? We give very little value to the 'likeability' of the person. I mean, of course it has certain value, but it's not a deciding factor.

We think, well most of us think, that the president is the biggest rep for the country, so he sohuld be articulate and polished etc. Where as many Americans put value on character, we put value on just about hardcore facts and that stuff. I mean that we don't care if the president slips 'cute' freudians, we care usually ONLY about the content. Where as Bush shows steadfast and boldness and consistency in few issues, many internationals see this more as being stubborn, not facing the facts many thing are true (like Iraq not going well), and making it a worse mess directly from that.

I'd say that while his character is an asset in the US, it is the exact opposite in Europe and most countries too. In the heart, we are just like you. Bush made a BIG point about not letting others decide and tell what you should do, hey.. we feel the same way. We don't feel like someone else saying to us what to do either, and furthermore if that's about to happen, it has to be covered in that articulate and polished figure, or else it could appear as rude and arrogant.

You might feel this is incorrect. But hey, that's how many foreigners feel, it's a fact. DO I feel this way? Not really.. I give rats ass about character, be it bad or good. I'm neutral on that stuff. I also realize that all decision are based on the TEAM behind the president, so I don't give a pony's butt about what the president is like. So I didn't explain how I personally feel about it, but I explained one thing that rubs off many furriners from Dubya.

[Odin]

Bush got pwnd by Kerry. He showed that bush is stubborn and lacking in complex thought processes.

BTW: Free Republic is the garbage dump of the Blogs.

[PLATO]

After 25 minutes of reading through this thread, I didn't see one post that wasn't predictable. Looks like this debate had little impact on people's decision if 'Poly is any judge.


I feel Kerry won the presentation side of the debate. I am curious about how he feels a summit will solve the Iraq problem and I am terrified of what bi-lateral talks with DPRK will do to East Asia.

While Bush's delivery was horrid, futher analysis of the substance of what both candidates said, IMO, Bush takes the substance side. The gallup poll seems to clearly reflect this.

[notyoueither]

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?

Actually, there's also been a staffer to the PM, who was not disciplined, and there have been several incidents involving back benchers. None of them have been disciplined either, despite one of them making a habit of making stupid comments not just about Bush, but about Americans in general.

[Moral Hazard]

Plato:
No one changes his mind completely. I however disliked Kerry before the debate. I thought he was nothing more than unprincipled politician who had no real core beliefs. I still think that he is a wind blown and doesn't have any core beliefs. But the debate made me realize that despite these faults, he is the right man, at the right time, at the right place.

I voted for Bush in 2000. It was hard decision, I wasn't sure if was smart enough, and he was from Texas But he's lost it through his actions. Before the debate I planned on writing in McCain. I am however a Clinton Republican, too young to be a Reagan Democrat.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I still think that he is a wind blown and doesn't have any core beliefs. But the debate made me realize that despite these faults, he is the right man, at the right time, at the right place.

I'm curious how you reconcile these two statements. How is a man that you believe has no core beliefs be the right man? Perhaps a good representative, but not a leader.

[DrGerry]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ned, you have answered your own question partially, why Bush is not as liked in Europe and around the world as perhaps Kerry would be. Kerry is more articulate, polished etc. We like that kind of stuff. Leader of the country, why not? We give very little value to the 'likeability' of the person. I mean, of course it has certain value, but it's not a deciding factor.

We think, well most of us think, that the president is the biggest rep for the country, so he sohuld be articulate and polished etc. Where as many Americans put value on character, we put value on just about hardcore facts and that stuff. I mean that we don't care if the president slips 'cute' freudians, we care usually ONLY about the content. Where as Bush shows steadfast and boldness and consistency in few issues, many internationals see this more as being stubborn, not facing the facts many thing are true (like Iraq not going well), and making it a worse mess directly from that.

I'd say that while his character is an asset in the US, it is the exact opposite in Europe and most countries too. In the heart, we are just like you. Bush made a BIG point about not letting others decide and tell what you should do, hey.. we feel the same way. We don't feel like someone else saying to us what to do either, and furthermore if that's about to happen, it has to be covered in that articulate and polished figure, or else it could appear as rude and arrogant.

You might feel this is incorrect. But hey, that's how many foreigners feel, it's a fact. DO I feel this way? Not really.. I give rats ass about character, be it bad or good. I'm neutral on that stuff. I also realize that all decision are based on the TEAM behind the president, so I don't give a pony's butt about what the president is like. So I didn't explain how I personally feel about it, but I explained one thing that rubs off many furriners from Dubya.

Agree in general.

I can't talk in the name of all the argentineans. Less in the name of the latin american people. But is the feeling in this part of the world that Bush is a bad president if the US pretends to be the leader. If you got a president who left his hands into the US, well, is your problem. But normally is not that way. Normally USA wants the leadership, and sometimes an empire (that is what we suffer here). In this place of the world the anti-american feel is big because of what we said, but when the president was Clinton you can feel a sympathy sense about US people.

The polls in Argentina gives more than a 80% for Kerry (even when most of the people dislikes Kerry, but dislike Bush more).

[Moral Hazard]

I'm curious how you reconcile these two statements. How is a man that you believe has no core beliefs be the right man? Perhaps a good representative, but not a leader.

I often wonder about Bush's core beliefs as well*, but on to the question. I think he will be similar to Clinton. He will take advice from all sides, and do rationally what he thinks is best for the country because it is best for him. That is for the first four years. I am a little worried about a possible second term.

* not whether he has them but how far away they are from mine.