Bush vs. Kerry Debate

[Fearit22]

I'm just wondering who else watched the debate, and what they thought of it. Despite the fact that I hate Bush, he is a horrible speaker. He got ripped a new asshole in this debate .... Just FYI 70% of people on MSN voted they thought Kerry won the debate, and that's out of 654XXX votes.

[AznBadAss92LX]

i still think bush did better in pointing out how many fuckin things kerry contradicts himself about

[Fearit22]

Yeah, the Bush campaign uses that a lot. The sad thing is he has more contradictions than Kerry. Regarding many environmental and economic policies, Bush totally changed his mind from before he was elected to now. I forget exactly which group it was, but I'm pretty sure it was one of the environmental groups he had talked with at one of his campaigns before he was elected. He told them that he wanted to meet with them again, but whenever they wanted to discuss some policies through a meeting he refused to talk them. Then they had to sit outside the white house and pretty much forcefully make him meet with them .... So yes Bush has done that too. Hell, if you saw the senseless violence from the war he started wouldn't you change your mind to?

[wed3k]

i think kerry won it.

[Nycxeracer]

The country knows Bush isn't the best speaker, and the country also knows they don't want someone who's so undecided (apparently) on important issues running our country's defenses. I think the debate was fair, and both did pretty well, Kerry does speak better, so if it was a speaking contest, he clearly won. However, if it was based on FACTUAL substance, our president blew him out of the water, question after question. I think Kerry's flip-flopping record will ultimately hurt him, and cause him to lose the election. Bush, although unliked by many of the mtv generation has not been a bad president, however, the liberal media loves to cloud young peoples minds. just my .02.

[accordztech]

dude hahaha i am watching it right now, rerun...

"first of all, i know that binladdin attacked us"

lol man i laughed my ass off when i heard that...cause before that he was refering to saddam who would of had more power today or something like that.

hahahah i laughed soo hard....kerry was like, lets get the facts straight, saddamn didnt attack us....binladin did...

i dont know who won, i really want to watch it all....

[timmy0tool]

Originally posted by Nycxeracer
The country knows Bush isn't the best speaker, and the country also knows they don't want someone who's so undecided (apparently) on important issues running our country's defenses. I think the debate was fair, and both did pretty well, Kerry does speak better, so if it was a speaking contest, he clearly won. However, if it was based on FACTUAL substance, our president blew him out of the water, question after question. I think Kerry's flip-flopping record will ultimately hurt him, and cause him to lose the election. Bush, although unliked by many of the mtv generation has not been a bad president, however, the liberal media loves to cloud young peoples minds. just my .02.

well stated. i couldn't have said it better myself. i would add my say but you pretty much said it all. i fully agree to this comment Nycxeracer.

[uncle_el]

i think what should be done at the debates is to have a panel of professors who typically attend and judge debates to see who really won by debate rules.

there's a difference between getting your point across while answering the question, and it's a completely different thing (and to me the wrong thing to do in a debate) to get your point across and not answer the question, not give a true rebuttal.

also, as jim lehrer said at the beginning of the debate that he would decide whether or not to give a 1 minute extension. yet we clearly saw that bush continually pressed for those 1 minute extensions.

in any event, if you're truly interested in what was really said, check the transcript : http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...t.1/index.html

Anyway...


LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle.

And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos."

And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether pre-emption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet.

But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball.

I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense.

I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.


bush says what he thinks pre-emptive action is, but does not truly address what his opponent said, and then moves to a point not made by the opponent and not mentioned at all prior.

while he's getting a message out, it's not the way in which one debates.

we could go on and on all day about it, so i'll just end for now with one of my favorite quotes from the night:


What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.

[97Lude]

Though kerry hasn't been doing great in the polls lately, last night was a hugeeeee help for him to possibly win this election.
4 more wars+4 more years = bush

[ACCORDianate]

I don't think any candidate won it.

Bush remained stationary, and his campaign is still doing well. The Kerry campaign needed the boost, as they were not doing so well in the past few weeks.

I listen to a lot of public radio in the mornings to and from work, and that was their synopsis on last night's debate.

[JDMcb7]

I don't think either side threw and huge punches, but it was VERY clear who was informed and who wasn't. Did anyone notice the number of times Bush repeated the same thing? All he could go back to was attacking Kerry and pointing the finger. Bush had a very hard time defending and explaining his policies. I think he did a very poor job because he wouldn't get off his little soap box. So apparently pointing the finger is more important than explaining foreign policy.


Kerry Edwards 04

[97Lude]

neither won?

Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?
President George W. Bush 18% 18300 votes
Sen. John Kerry 79% 81310 votes
Evenly matched 4% 3834 votes
Total: 103444 votes


This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.

ABC spells it out that Kerry won the debate:

Scoring the Debate
More Viewers Say Kerry Won Debate, But Voter Preferences Remain the Same
ABCNEWS.com

Sept. 30, 2004 — John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved.

Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45 percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was Bush, and 17 percent called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed.

[JDMcb7]

Originally posted by 97Lude
neither won?



ABC spells it out that Kerry won the debate:

Scoring the Debate
More Viewers Say Kerry Won Debate, But Voter Preferences Remain the Same
ABCNEWS.com

Sept. 30, 2004 — John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved.

Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45 percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was Bush, and 17 percent called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed.

Those polls are ok, but we need to give it a few days to sink in, that is where the real numbers really come out.

[accordztech]

iono about u guys but bush was really defensive...at times when he talked he seemed as though he didnt put his heart out, either that or he didnt really know what to say.

i heard him say "umm..well..." ya kno....

kerry on the other hand was like dead on him...like a hawk....

no posistions so far though on my side =)

[dwf137]

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymedi...d.aspx?ID=2439
^What will Kerry stand for 3 years from now? noone knows, not even Kerry. His opinions now are stable, but when the public opinion switches, will he stick with his beliefs? his reccord says no.

I still cant believe people voting for Kerry. He trash talked all of the honorable people who went to vietnam, died in vietnam, or are still POW MIA from vietnam. They went and fought for thier country, following orders that were given to them, and he goes on public televison and trashes them. He does not deserve to be put in charge of the country untill he appoligizes for his actions.

He wants to speed up what's happeneing in Iraq and pull the troops out ASAP. How about when Saddam got in charge in the first place? We helped to get Saddam into control in the first place, now we finally got rid of him, we cant let another crazy asshole like him get in charge of Iraq again. Even if you have something against the war now, Kerry voted for it, and now we need to take care of any mistakes that we might have made. We can't just pull out and leave anarchy in a country or else we will look like even more of a bunch of assholes to the rest of the world.

Bush is definalty the best choice to make our country not look like a bunch of pansies. Kerry will make our country look like we've been defeated by crazy militant groups and the opinion of those who dont support the war. If we pull our troops out, of Iraq, some militant group will take over and Iraq will be worse off then it was with Saddam in control.

I am democratic in just about all my views except taxing issues and this war. We fucked up, and now we need to fix it. Calling it quits and running away from the situation will not fix anything, only make it worse.

He is a flake. He flies with public opinion, not his own, someone I do NOT want representing my country.