Your Reactions to the Second Presidential Debate

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by ixnay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3845089354

INTERNETS

LOL.....ahh, I needed that.

Thanks.

-Drachasor

PS. Before I paid close attention to the link address I thought it was going to be to something on the Internet 2.

[Drachasor]

Oh, and I want to nominate Ixnay for having the


Best Reaction To the Debate

[Nubclear]

Q: The Pretzeldunce said he didn't own a lumber company, before he asked Americans if they wanted to buy some wood. If he doesn't own a lumber company, where did the wood that he doesn't own come from? Answered on Oct-08-04
A: Bush Lumber Co. is in no way affiliated with Pres. Bush. (Other than it being his company)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


War on terror, 9/11, freedom, liberty, my opponent flip flops

At least Kerry was able to point out a couple of instances where Bush has actually flip-flopped.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
abortion is the only social issue that arises so much emotion nowadays, especially as controversy over gun control and the death penalty have died down a bit. that partial birth abortion woman also seemed fairly distraught.

The ONLY social issue that has that level of emotion? Do I need to list the others that you have forgotten about?

[Ned]

IMO, both dished it out pretty good. Kerry hammered Bush on the deficit, promising to tax the rich. Bush pointed out that the so-called rich are the small business owners who create jobs.

Bush hammered Kerry on the global test. Kerry said he was a warrior too, but would lead aliances like Eisenhower and Reagan. (Boy, if there was one theme to Kerry tonight, it was that he quoted Republicans on a host of issues. But twice he made reference to Eishenhower and Reagan.)

Bush pointed out, however, that Reagan was equally unpopular in Europe because he made the tough decisions on the cold war that the Europeans did not like. Reagan took the decision despite their being upopular -- an obvious dig at Kerry the warrior.

Bush was far more passionate -- a man animated by conviction. Kerry was suave and intelligent. He is a lawyer and it would have been very good in the courtroom had he chosen to stay on that path.

So, Bush won the debate, narrowly, due primarily to Kerry's excellence in debate style. Bush had the advantage on the facts and the passion.

[Ned]

One more point, and did anyone catch this? Kerry did not emphasize in the debate as he did the day before that sanctions in Iraq were working and that a war was completely unnecessary. The reason? The Daffor(sp?) apparently concluded that the Oil for Food program allowed Saddam to widely corrupt the UN, France, Germany, Russia and even China to support the lifting of sanctions, not their enforcement.

(Not mentioned by anyone that I know of is that Saddam also used the Oil for Food program to finance terrorism, include al Qaeda.) So much for sanctions, sanctimonious Kerry.

[Pekka]

I only caught the last half of this debate. Why is it that you didn't make huge BLING BLING thread about this earlier!? And I caught it by accident too.

ABout the last half.. I think Bush definitely has stepped up from the first time. I'm talking about his body language, and the uncomfortable pauses were there but they were shorter and almost OK already, and he was driving some points home. I think this style of debate, the town hall debate is good for Bush, I think he looked pretty good too. The pauses he uses... when he goes to simplify things.. I think those are very effective. However I don't lke them myself, if the answer or question he makes is grossly oversimplifying to drive his own point, with false premise or false outcome. But.. in any case, he did it better than the first time and had much more appeal. Maybe he looked a bit too angry. Also one point he needs to be careful is the facial expressions during Kerry's turn, you kind of get the feeling of him being very uncomfortable. But other than that.. I think he did an OK job.

Kerry did a good job too IMO, and he has implemented some new tactics which I think are excellent, but are they effective enough is the question. He is turning the flip flop issue a little, not decisively enough but he is also avoiding to put too much attention to it, because Bush woudl attack it even more and the whole debate and important stuff would be then 2nd priority in every debate and he couldn't drive any points home. But I think he did a good job of turning it a little. THe uses a lot of quotes and statistics, which is good. Bush uses more 'Of course not' and 'of course it is' without backing it up. I mean, soem of the statistics he uses to back up few points, like the job markets is kind of weak.

So he is attacking those issues, and what is the clear strategy for Kerry now is to attack Bush's oversimplifying attacks on Kerry. Meaning 'he voted' this and that, and then Kerry replies to it that he didn't vote against THAT per se, but THIS. He covered a lot of issues by saying he is not opposed to FBI working more effectively, he is not opposing this and that what Bush says, he is opposing the deal itself, and he wants to fix them. Like Tokyo Treaty, I think his answer couldn't be any more perfect saying, that it's a big effort from the whole word and while it's problematic ot the US, the deal itself not the idea, that he wants ot work a good deal and fix it rather than just walk away and undermine the effort. Now that was a good answer, and I liked it. He used it a lot in other answers too, like the abortion one etc. and Patriot Act etc.. the idea is OK, but the deal is still raw, let's fix it. He's trying to get a new image of 'I'm the can do guy' and who would fix these things for the better.

It's very difficult to counter claims like these, if you started with simplyfying. So they had a good strategy on that one. But then again.. kerry did mistakes too, I mean he was kind of.. I can't get my fingers on it but he was going too wide on issues when Bush was going more straight at what he believes is the main issue in it. Kerry used too much time to back up his incoming point, while Bush used much of his time to make the one point known he has, and then make those pauses and trying to torpedo Kerry in it. It's basically a clash of styles.. I thin kKerry would have been better off to be little more vigilant and all that.

I think performance wise, it was pretty much a tie, I couldnt' say who would be better. On debate wise, I think Kerry one, but only by very small margin. And this is because he used the strategy to counter the simplyfying attacks which I think he did beautifully.

Oh by the way, the 3 mistakes question, i think Bush did a great job. He KNEW Kerry would attack the Iraq question and maybe economy too. So, if he would even start talking about that, he would look extremely weak, both of them bashing himself. Now, if he would take another subject he feels he can admit some mistakes, then it'd end up more mistakes revealed, because Kerry would still attack too. So I think he did damage control and kind of let the Kerry attack come but didn't want to give any bigger impact to it than that, and also rather try to soften the Kerry attack before it comes,so I think that was the ONLY move he could have done, knowing his chosen strategy this far.

[Ned]

Also, did you note that Kerry several times talked about being "fiscally" responsible. He was the first Democrat, for example, to favor a balanced budget in the mid-80's (by raising taxes, of course). Kerry even favored raising taxes during the height of a recession!

Now, think about that for a moment! The last presidents to offer tight money to balance the budgets during a recession caused tremendous depressions. Think of Martin van Buren and of Herbert Hoover.

Kerry is f*cking out of his mind and very dangerous to our national well being.

[Ned]

Pekka, Kerry did very well on style, I agree. He also did a very good job at pandering. But if anyone really cared that this country be properly lead, they must have been apalled by Kerry because all he offered was pandering, not only to every constituent group, but the likes of European public opinion as well. Kerry is no leader. He is a pathetic suck-face panderer.

[Jac de Molay]

Bush stepped up, but two things:

1) The first half, he projected hostility and he sounded like a petulant whiner at times.

2) English, mother****er, do you speak it!? His grammatical lapses were so bad sometimes, I could barely follow and understand what he was saying. His inability to articulate is a huge liability here :

Kerry was good but:

1) Statements regarding abortion were, as Bush pointed out, nearly incoherent. Couldn't make heads or tails of what he was saying.

2) Really should've hit Bush harder on the carnage in Iraq, and attacked Bush's environmental record, (or lack thereof).

Kerry B+
Bush B-

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by dv8ed
It hasn't been banned. It's been severely curtailed, because Bush won't allow new lines to be produced for further study.

Actually I don't really think that's true. There's no restrictions on what can be done with private or state monies. If the field has as much potential as people claim that shouldn't be a huge hurdle to climb. So how exactly has it been curtailed?

[Gibsie]

I didn't know if it was on, but I thought it was so I switched on just before bed, and heard a lady in the audience ask how Bush was going to repair the damage to international relations that's happened since he came to term. When Bush spent his time saying how sometimes you have to do the right thing even if other people don't like it and didn't even touch on answering the question, and then Kerry didn't even consider answering it either, I switched right off.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I didn't know if it was on, but I thought it was so I switched on just before bed, and heard a lady in the audience ask how Bush was going to repair the damage to international relations that's happened since he came to term. When Bush spent his time saying how sometimes you have to do the right thing even if other people don't like it and didn't even touch on answering the question, and then Kerry didn't even consider answering it either, I switched right off.

Bush said that pandering was not leadership. Kerry obviously disagreed.

[Gibsie]

Yes, I understood what Bush was saying, thanks to my having a brain, thanks. However, that does not even begin to respond to the question of how you'll repair the damage, which is the problem I have with both of their responses.