the brawl is on / debate

[nalo]

I don't know how it went I was climbing rocks.

[nalo]

I dont care... I'm voting for larry byrd

[chirp]

Penis size is really the overall deciding factor for me.

[ian]

hopefully nobody posted this yet:

 

Pretty good review by the libertarians....pretty even handed since they hate both parties....

[Dechristo]

I don't know how it went I was climbing rocks.

 

I don't know how it went, I was throwin' back a few pints at the pub.

[RobBob]

It was like they had coached him to not do his "Smirky McChimp" face, and everytime he started to do it, he suppressed it into this prissy tight-lipped thing.

...and the crooked-neck look. What was that about?

 

I swear, I don't want to vote for a Massachusetts liberal and a personal-injury lawyer...but when I see the incumbent blithering simian Mel Brooks-Alfred E Neuman idiot speak, it's hard to take.

[Skeezix]

I don't look at the speaking abilities as a reason to vote for people personally.

Thing is, when someone opens his mouth to speak, a window into his brain opens up. That's how we know that Bush is not very bright, and ability to think on one's feet is an important trait in a president

[Double_E]

getting sick and tired of Bush's ridiculous, constant, droning blather about Kerry's WAFFLING about shit. HOW MANY POLITICIANS OUT THERE CAN HONESTLY, TRULY SAY THEY DON'T DO THE SAME THING?!? fuck him. guy's a moron who's gonna be looking for a new job in a few months.

 

oh you want an example of Bush's waffling you say? how bout this.... saying time and time again that he cares about eradicating terrorism, whilst all of a sudden diverting our resources away from the REAL theater of the war on terror (read: Afghanistan) so he could go fight a war whose real agenda was polishing up the Bush family name and avenging that assasination attempt on his father. what an asshole.

 

on a lighter, more comical note.. how many people felt like Bush's makeup artist went kinda overboard? looked almost kinda fruity.

 

on a more positive note... i'm actually beginning to be impressed by Kerry a little, for once .. thinking that when I vote for him it won't MERELY be a vote against Bush.

[Greg_W]

whilst all of a sudden diverting our resources away from the REAL theater of the war on terror (read: Afghanistan)

 

According to General Tommy Franks, CIC of that theater, there was no significant "diversion" as people claim.

 

I thought the debate was good. My girlfriend and I listened to it on the radio (no tv). I think it would be interesting to analyze the effect on "listeners" versus "watchers". KK made the point that she didn't think that Bush was a very good debater because he didn't have a well-polished speaking voice. She's right, he doesn't, but Kerry's sounded a little too "slick" for my taste. Then I realized that Bush speaks like me, and many Americans I know. In short, like the common man and I think that this resonates with people. I sensed emotion and struggle in his voice when talking about the hard decision to send troops to war. I didn't sense as much emotion in Kerry's voice. I'd say the debate was a tie, if scored; however, some pundits asserted that a tie was as good as a loss for Kerry as he's supposed to be the practiced speaker (being Senator, and all). I think Bush communicated (to me, anyway) resolve and strength, whereas Kerry communicated arrogance and a "I've got all the answers" image. My opinions only.

[rbw1966]

I agree with Greg that Bush conveyed more emotion and appeal to the common man. This is the base of his appeal, his ability to strike a chord with "everyman" and it paints Kerry more and more like a pompous man of privilege.

 

That being said, I listened to part of the debate on the radio and watched the remainder on TV and felt that Kerry had a bit of an edge on Bush due to Bush's delivery and affect. That response to the N. Korea question that started off mentioning Iraq was bizarre--Bush was obviously having trouble with his note cards. Did anyone else catch the frantic shuffling he would do?

 

I'm still not satisfied with either candidate.

[Greg_W]

One of the radioheads brought up an interesting point the other day: A large number of Floridians are without television and are forced to listen to the debates on radio. What, if any, impact will the radio-impression have over the television-impression. Without the visual, I missed any body-language stuff and focused on voice; but, I think voice inflections communicate a lot.

[wdietsch]

they both were mediocre at best

 

Bush again came of "unpolished"

Kerry avoided giving "specifics"

 

where's the next John Anderson when you need him?

[RobBob]

During the debate I thought about the effect of the visual...that's where I give Bush such low marks. With the sound off, Kerry won hands down. Bush looked uncomfortable, blink factor was way high, and he was just goofy.

 

On actual content, they both came up short.

[selkirk]

Minor thread drift but....

 

Iv'e heard over and over again that Kerry doesn't provide enough specifics on his policies. That he states a broad goal without stating how he's going to accomplish that? My question is, what sort of specifics are you looking for? Budget amounts? Where he's going to find the money? troop numbers? It seems like he's given these things.... Second, how is Bush's campaign any different? He doesn't seem to be providing more specifics than Kerry about how things need to be changed, just that we need to keep on, keepin on, which seems to have it's own issues...

Thoughts?

[graupel]

I think you miss quite a bit of the mannerisms by only listening to the voices without seening the video. Bush portrayed mannerisms of impatience and annoyance as he was being called on the carpet for his past decisions. He probably would have done better if he allowed himself to be subjected to events like press conferences where folks actually opposed his views rather than surrounding himself for speeches with sign waving loyalists that have signed an oath of allegience to be there. He definitely didn't seem comfortable with dissent.

 

Kerry came off as more "statesman-like".

[hohm]

The debate was revealing for me in the sense that I feel much better about voting for Kerry now than I did before. Instead of voting for him as simply an "anti-bush" choice, I was actually impressed by his presence, his accumen, and his understanding of the questions and issues that are so critical for a world leader.

[RobBob]

I think that discomfort with criticism was affected, was coached to Bush, but it played poorly.

 

Last night would have been the ultimate debate for Ross Perot to have participated in. We would have gotten some wize-ass zingers and some laughs.

[Jim]

Why does the press give Bush such a free ride? The guy is amazingly inarticulate! Listening on the radio all I could think was this guy is an embarassment. He could not put together complete thoughts for the time he had to speak. He would get to about 30 seconds into his turn and he couldn't think on the fly so he had to stumble along repeating himself. I did see the replay on CBS and it was even worse on television. He looks dumb, he sounds dumb. I want a president at least as smart as me, and preferably way smarter than me. And I'm no genius. What a dolt!

[Greg_W]

Interesting, I tried to keep an open mind for impressions. I was left not really having much belief in Kerry's plan in Iraq. I just don't believe him. I think he'll tuck tail and run over to the UN for sanction.

[Roger]

I am wondering if mabe you guys are all looking for your candidate to win and end up seeing it cast more favorably for him. It seems like both sides think it is a rout.

Not exactly - this morning even the pro-Bush papers are saying that Bush sucked. I thought he did a great job of showing us what he is - a brainless puppet who is lost without an advisor or a teleprompter at his side to tell him what he is supposed to say. Too bad it didn't go on for another half hour, because Bush was really unraveling toward the end.

 

This from CNN:

 

It was a good, meaty debate. Some heat, lots of illumination. Both candidates performed well, overall. Kerry won.

 

If you don't believe us, or the CNN/USA Today/Gallup post-debate poll (more on that below), just ask the New York Post.

 

Under the headline, "Bad Night for W," the country's most rabidly pro-Bush paper forgave Kerry for his New York subway faux pas to report that the president was "unusually off his game" last night in the University of Miami's basketball arena.

 

Even that paper's most rabidly pro-Bush reporter, Deborah Orin, said Kerry "seemed far better prepared than Bush," who "often repeated himself and at times seemed at a loss for words or defensive. ... By the time the debate was over, it seemed clear that Kerry had given himself a new lease on life and guaranteed that the campaign has a long way to run."

 

The New York Times called him "petulant." The Washington Post's Tom Shales said Bush appeared at times "anxious," "ill at ease" and "stammering." The Los Angeles Times editorial, under the headline "Kerry Won," said Bush "seemed tired." Just about everyone called him "defensive" and "apparently annoyed" at Kerry's gall, to dare to think he could be commander-in-chief.

 

Clinching Kerry's win was this exchange, mid-way through the 90-minute face-off, which drove home his claim that Bush is "distracted" by Iraq and Saddam Hussein when the real target in the war on terrorism should be Osama and al Qaeda. Kerry seized on Bush's claim that "the enemy attacked us," saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."

 

Inexplicably, Bush shot back, "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." (We breathed our own audible sigh here, visibly relieved that Bush is on top of that one. Phew!)

[Jim]

In contrast to the current (non)plan that appears to be going smoothly.

[RobBob]

Yeah, Greg, the bottom line for me is projecting what would likely happen under each regime. If Kerry relies on the UN and European nations to take stands on Iran, on N Korea, on Sudan...well, we know where that will go.

 

Bush may end up like Reagan. Probably most of you don't remember how dumb Reagan was. Now he's everybody's hero. Call him dumb or crazy, if Bush ends up standing N Korea down about weapons, f'rinstance, he may come off looking like a hero ten years from now.

[willstrickland]

I'd say the debate was a tie, if scored; however, some pundits asserted that a tie was as good as a loss for Kerry as he's supposed to be the practiced speaker

 

This is an interesting take for a couple of reasons.

 

First, we heard over and over beforehand that "neither man has ever lost a debate". And that "Kerry was an Ivy league champion debater, while Bush is deceptively effective with his down home demanor and tweaking of the issues into common-man soudn bites". So I am a little surprised that you think it was "a tie is a loss" situation for Kerry.

 

Second, this debate was supposed to be Bush's strong suit. National security/foreign policy was the area where the people consistently had a higher opinion of Bush. This is the reason that Rove et al demanded that the first debate be the foreign policy one. They know more people watch the first one by a pretty wide margin, and they expected to solidify the "Bush is better on national defense" perception. IMO, they failed to do that. I saw it as exactly the opposite of Greg...a tie for Kerry in this one was as good as a win. And I honestly didn't think it was a tie. I thought Kerry won decisively. Not on substance so much as acting "presidential" and manhandling Bush in what was supposed to be his element.

 

Never forget that Al Gore "won" the first debate before the media got ahold of it. Then it was all sound bites of the infamous "sighs". Soon the conventional wisdom dictated that Bush really won that one. The difference this time around is that the immediate perception was that Kerry won, and the thing people remember...demeanor and body language, clearly favor Kerry.

 

Watch the right wing spin begin with this point: Kerry is going to ask us to pass a "Global Test" before we can defend ourselves. That was a poor word choice and Rove will pound it.

 

Greg, I listened on the radio, then went back and watched video afterwards. The audio really drew attention to the big pauses and "uhhh, ummm" of Bush and you could actually hear him beating on the podium at the close of several of his answers. You could sense that he was flummoxed and pissed off. Seeing the video really drove that home.

 

The left will probably come out with this spin: Bush said they have brought the Pakistani AQ Khan network(the scientist who sold nuclear...or nukulur, secrets to Iran, Libya, etc) to justice. Bush recommended that Musharraf pardon for this guy. WTF? That's justice? Also, watch for a 527 group to run an ad that shows Bush repeating the "it's hard work" line (how many times did he say that?!) and then displaying pictures of him on vacation and citing stats about how he's been on vacation x% of the time, more than any pres. in recent history, etc.

[Greg_W]

In contrast to the current (non)plan that appears to be going smoothly.

 

I think this pseudo-argument is failing to hold water. Pundits are bringing up the fact that Lincoln had no plan to "win the peace" in 1861; he was quoted as saying, "the first thing to do is defeat the enemy." There was no plan to "win the peace" in WWI, nor WWII. I thought Bush's outlook was realistic: "When the generals on the ground believe that the Iraqi Police and Armed Forces are ready to take command and control, then we will begin to draw down." I think any prognosticatory, "do A, B, & C, and we're out in 6 months," ideas are foolhardy at best, and downright naive at worst. I think the televised nature of war now lead people to only see the short view and forget that such things are not easy and do take time. In 1945 we swept across France; Patton could have gone faster if he had the fuel. But, the hard fighting started as the end neared. It is the same way in Iraq today. As things wind down, casualties increase.

[selkirk]

The major difference between the Civil War, WWI and WWII and the current Iraq conflict was the level of threat. With WWI, WWII, and the Civil war, we had an open agressor, that was posing and immediate (not potential) threat. At that point it seems like the wisest course of action was immediate. Waiting to go to war for better planning would only have resulted in additinal strikes against us, the military, or our allies. With Sadam, it was a pissing contest 6 months in advance. If we had waited for another year, it still would have been a pissing contest but we could have gone with a better plan, and a stronger alliance instead of unilateral action.

Was he a threat, yes, but potentially. Saddam wasn't attacking us and in retrospect probably wasn't going to, at least not with the much touted WMD's.