Jump to content

1st Presidential Debate


Recommended Posts

I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks of the presidential debates last night. I hope that you watched them, esp. if you are planning on voting this year.

Who do you think won the debate? Which candidate appeared more 'presidential'? The topic of the debate was foreign policy -- what did they fail to cover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I keep hearing that Bush lost, but I jst don't see it that way. I find it very annoying that kerry spent more time talking about when bush isnt doing than what he willl do if he wins. I want to know why I should vote for a candidate, not why i should not vote for his opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry actually focused on policy far more then Bush.

Bush didn't know what to say half the time, he spent most of his time repeating one liners - particularly saying Kerry has conflicting viewpoints. Half of Bush's speech was repeating that Kerry is a flip-flopper instead of saying what he planned on doing.

To say that Kerry didn't spend enough time on policy is to ignore Bush's incompetency which was obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and can you please tell us the surprise?


It wouldn't be a surprise if I told you.

OK, the surprise is, if Kerry wins, Oprah is going to buy everyone in America a new car. But don't tell anyone, you'll ruin the surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say this, but anyone who thinks that one specific candidate won the debate needs to go back and watch the debate again; I have this luxury since I video-taped it.

Now, my impressions: Kerry presented himself very well. He sounded convincing (to those who did not pay attention) and it is no surprise that many people saw him as a great candidate. His facts were laughable, at best (more on this later). Bush... well, this guy needs to do three things: 1) learn how to speak in public, 2) aggressively correct Kerry and 3) stop talking too much about Liberty/Freedom for the Iraqi people; I am sick and tired about the whole "Free Iraq" argument.

Before some of you start firing at me, here is what Kerry said, followed by the facts:

Kerry: Bush cut C.O.P.S.

Fact: C.O.P.S. is a program that receives federal support and was supposed to expire in 2001, making a transition to a locally-funded program. Bush's administration actually extended it.

Kerry: Bush's administration did a lousy job (???) in New York City during the convention to the point that the subway system had to shut down.

Fact: Although I fail to see the connection to the administration, I need to remind y'all that only Penn Station was "shut down".

Kerry: The war in Iraq cost $250 billion.

Fact: The official numbers show no more than $130 billion.

Flip-flops: Saddam Hussein was a thread. Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat. Kerry's voting record on authorizing the war and the additional funds for our military operations, including much needed supplies.

War in Iraq: Kerry has a plan that only he knows what it is. His call for more allies is absolutely idiotic. He recently said that one of the first things he will do, if he becomes a President, will be to invite the French and German Presidents to discuss the situation in Iraq and how they can help; they recently declined the invitation, which shows how much they respect Kerry. In a 1997 speech, Kerry insisted that Saddam Hussein had to be removed; believe me, he didn't sound like the "war as a last resort" type of guy he sounded in the debates.

Future wars: Watch out for troubles with Iran; not necessarily a full-scale war. We'll revisit this issue if Kerry becomes the new President. Bush sounded much less ready about starting troubles with Iran, although his administration is keeping an eye on these guys. I think that Bush will be less willing to start another war.

As I will watch the debate again and again, I will be able to find more screw-ups. I must say that both candidates delivered a civilized discussion, although some people tend to take sides more than they should, declaring early victory and thus ruining the outcome of the debate. Kerry's own words "more of the same" are true for the position of both candidates. Hopefully this won't continue to be the trend in the future debates, even though I expect the civilized tone to be the norm. Bush's administration has been far from perfect, but Kerry needs to focus on facts, not interpretations and lies. Bush needs to shut up about the whole Iraqi freedom gospel and go to the offense. Maybe it would help to carry the debate in Spanish, as he seems to be doing much better in that language :)

Just my 2 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Marc... A flip-flop for Bush? If he said that "I believe in XYZ" and then he said "I don't believe in XYZ", then this is a flip-flop. Bush didn't flip-flop, although I would not make this an official answer until I listen to the debate 2-3 more times. Trying to cover Kerry's lies and errors is simply unnecessary. He lied about things in front of millions of people. To me, that is far worse. When he voted for the war in Iraq he had ALL the information available, not to mention his previous anti-Saddam "performances" as a Senator. Even the media (yes, Liberal media) caught some of Kerry's errors, including his numbers on the war in Iraq, in an effort to "prove" they are not biased.

As far as Bush Administration lying to the public, let me remind you that so did the Clinton Administration, about the VERY same things you accuse Bush. I call this double standards. I can accept Bush's faults, but blaming him and his administration for things that were inheritted by the previous leaders is simply very biased. You have to recognize that the American government was fooled by faulty intelligence, during the Clinton years. How is this Bush's fault I still cannot understand. Besides, I would not equate "not finding WMDs" with "non-existing WMDs". In fact, an incident, less than a year ago (sorry, I can't recall exact time), where a biological agent was used in Baghdad, proves that such weapons do exist in Iraq. Why this incident did not receive much publicity is not known to be, although I don't imply that the proof for the making of WMDs was there. I am simply saying that proof may be found later and then it will be too late. What would the anti-Bush crowd say then? I am just curious.

In terms of the title for "worst president", I would nominate Jimmy Carter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to reply to my own posting a long time ago... I'm back in school (and I don't spend hours and hours in front a computer at work anymore) so it's a little harder for me to log on everyday.


I think it is blantantly obvious that Kerry won the debate. The problem is that no one who is partisan is being objective about that debate. Republicans and conservatives who believe that Bush won the debate are just being biased. IT is obvious -- Bush couldn't form sentences, he started to drift off towards the end of the debate (it was way past his bedtime.. poor guy) and he ran out of talking points. Kerry sounded extremely more informed than Bush about all the issues.

Politics and politicans never tell the truth. They distort facts to suit their interests at different points in time... to say that Kerry is the only one who does this is also another distortion.

The fact is... that Bush led us to war in Iraq for reasons that extend far beyond the "global war on terrorism" that has actually bread another form of terrorist in Iraq. The problem is and always has been Palestine and Israel. The conservative agenda has for decades implemented a whole region-wide change in the Middle east because of it's resources. The Persian Gulf is a resource rich land and always has been. Politics have distorted the facts and Americans are buying it. If we were REALLY concerned about the "global war on terrorism" we would start here at home or in North Africa or Germany.

The WMD issue is complicated and I believe that Iraq had them .. but they also had time to get rid of them or disperse them to allies... that issue still has not been resolved and invading Iraq has really NOT helped the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is and always has been Palestine and Israel.

I couldn't agree more. I think this should have long been a top concer of US officials. The quicker, and with more face saving for both sides, this issue can begin to come to rest the better off we will be. However, both sides seem to be rather afraid of pushing the Isreali's for their side. I think this has actually become more difficult in a post 9/11 world, since so many of the attacks on Isreal are terrorist attacks. Even though there is plenty of wrong Isreal is doing, you don't want to send the message, both to your enemies and politically here at home, as being soft on terrorism. Obviously, that doesn't make it right, but as you said, they are politicans, it's definitely a concern to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.