Presidential Debate thread

[WayAbvPar]

So far I want to slap the shit out of both of them. I am a bit surprised at how acrimonious it is so early.

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

[MrHat]

So far I want to slap the shit out of both of them. I am a bit surprised at how acrimonious it is so early.

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

I'm not sure what acrimonious means, but this is fucking stupid.

I agree, omg, omg, omg cripple fight guys, it's a cripple fight.

I'm ashamed of being American.

[Zaphkiel]

So far I want to slap the shit out of both of them. I am a bit surprised at how acrimonious it is so early.

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

   I'm just waiting until one of them starts sweating, or sighs, or rolls their eyes.  Then it will be all over.  Then I can change the channel.

[SirBruce]

So far, I'm surprised Bush has been as agressive as he has, and that Kerry hasn't been more agressive.

However, I'm getting a bit annoyed with Bush's repetitiveness.  He keeps bringing up the same points over and over.  Good points, yes, but he needs to mix it up a little more so he appears more thoughtful on the issue.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Well, I can't quite say that Bush won the debate outright, but he won by default because Kerry DIDN'T, and it was important, I think, for Kerry to win this first debate if he was going to gain ground in the vote.

No major gaffs by either side, although there were certainly moments like Bush quoting Kerry's own flip-flopping back at him and Kerry chiding Bush for saying "they attacked us" when talking about Iraq.  Perhaps the sharpest differences of the night were not over Iraq, but over North Korea (Kerry wants bilateral talks; Bush wants to continue the multilateral talks) and National Missile Defense (Kerry wants to get rid of it; Bush wants to continue deployment of it).

I don't expect the polls to move much either way after this debate.  Look for more fireworks from the Edwards/Cheney VP debate.

Bruce

[Margalis]

IT'S HARD WORK - RUNNING THE COUNTRY IS HARD WORK GUYS! ITS HARD WORK! HARD! WORK!

Bush must have said the *exact* same thing 8 times or so. It's hard work. It's hard! That and "you can't be a commander in chief and send mixed messages! What kind of messages are you sending?!? I don't see how you can blah blah blah..."

Neither of them hit any homeruns or made huge gaffes, and both were repetitive, but Bush was REALLY repetitive. At one point he asked for extra time, and he used that time to repeat YET AGAIN "you can't be a commander in chief and send mixed messages! What kind of messages are you sending?!?" I don't see how you can blah blah blah..."

I will say the single dumbest comment was from Bush, the "I realize how hard it is. I see the casualty reports. I see it on TV."

I mean, to me that just sounds wrong. I can sympathize with PEOPLE DYING because I'm watching TV about it!

If I were Kerry I would have said "I've seen that and been a part of that in real life, not by watching TV."

It really does make the President seem disconnected from reality when he is talking about understanding a very harsh reality, then going on to explain his understanding is from watching TV. Overall though it wasn't that eventful.

The North Korea stuff was a wash, Kerry said he wants bilateral talks and wants to keep China involved. I think you have to understand what Kerry brought up about what the Bush people did when they first came to power and embarrassed the leader of S. Korea and their "sunshine policy." That was a dumb fucking move, especially the timing. "Hello leader of S. Korea, thanks for making the trip over. Your policy is retarded and we're ditching it. Now go home!"

At the time I was *amazed* that we handled that so stupidly. That is a great example of approaching things the wrong way. The Sunshine Policy may or may not have been a great idea, but the way we handled it was terrible.

However, the typical American has no idea WTF happened or what Kerry was talking about. Basically both politicians came off sounding like "we should stop Korea by talking to them."

One other thing I will say about Bush, the "it's hard work" almost comes off as an excuse. It IS hard work, but saying it that many times really was kind of sad, like a child whining when you ask them to do something. It's hard work, but it's your fucking job. YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT, SHUT UP ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS ALREADY!

Overall not too exciting though. If I were undecided, I really can't say which way this would turn me. Then again, I have a hard time thinking that undecideds can be undecided at this point and turn into actual voters down the road. If you haven't made up your mind by now, I would think you will be staying home on election day. I may be wrong about that though...

[Big Gulp]

This was Bush's chance to put Kerry away tonight, and he failed.  He didn't botch anything, but he did come off as slightly defensive, but he didn't hamstring himself either.  He brought up some good points, but then Kerry got in his digs also.  Bush missed some great opportunities to really use some of Kerry's past quotes against him, and to score many rhetorical points.

This was Kerry's chance to turn things around, and while I do think he acquitted himself better than Bush, he didn't hit a grand slam, which is what he needed.  I think Bush will do better than Kerry in the next debate, the town hall meeting.  In a less formal format he comes off as much more personal than Kerry.  Kerry in turn will do better on the last debate, which will be all about domestic issues.

Bush still leads, but he could have buried Kerry.  A missed opportunity, and the election is still up for grabs.

[DarkDryad]

I will simply say I have never seen two well educated people speak so much yet say so little.

[stray]

One other thing I will say about Bush, the "it's hard work" almost comes off as an excuse. It IS hard work, but saying it that many times really was kind of sad, like a child whining when you ask them to do something. It's hard work, but it's your fucking job. YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT, SHUT UP ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS ALREADY!

Yeah, it was repetitive, but I didn't quite take it the same way you did. I just saw it as him saying to Kerry, "Listen Bud, I'm doing what anyone possibly can. You're not going to get even half the shit you've promised to do accomplished." It's Bush's realist (We'll get there, we just have to be patient) vs Kerry's idealist (Look, vote for me, I can change the world!).

I'll admit though, this is probably the best Kerry has looked since he first started running. Not even Bush's attacks of "flip-flopping" didn't hurt him this time around. He could appeal to more voters though, if he simply focused on what makes him different, not "better". There's a fine line there, I think.

[geldonyetich]

Personally, I couldn't bring myself to watch the debate much.  I think I'm just too emotionally involved in this Presidential Election.  

I see Bush Jr. denying Kerry's accusations and the basic premise I stick to is, "Bush Jr. screwed up a lot and now he's in denial in an attempt to save his political career."

However, clearly research is not my strong point, and such a strong statement made by myself is not one I'm going to say I have much to defend.   My point with that statement is only that I'm definately too biased to really give that debate the wiggle room it deserves.

Thus far the CNN QuickVote results on "Who do you think won the debate?" quesiton are 18% Bush, 78% Kerry, 4% undecided in 82600 votes.   However, they are quick to stress that is not a scientific vote by any means.

[Margalis]

Yeah, it was repetitive, but I didn't quite take it the same way you did. I just saw it as him saying to Kerry, "Listen Bud, I'm doing what anyone possibly can. You're not going to get even half the shit you've promised to do accomplished."

I know that's what he meant, but it came off sounding pretty iffy. Maybe if he had said more specifically about what was hard, rather than just everything being generically hard.

[SirBruce]

I agree that Kerry at least looked Presidential for the first time, and a lot of the news outlets are giving him high marks, so I guess he made a good impression.  Bush's repetitiveness and appearing a bit disconnected with minutae seems to have bothered more people that it did me.  I don't deny it is part of his style, but he's been like that for years now; I don't know why people would expect anything different.

The media consensus appears to be that Kerry won.  Maybe I just didn't see it.  Even if that impression sticks, I don't expect to see the polls move very much.

Bruce

[Joe]

I'd lean toward Kerry for the win, just because he had more creative ways of repeating himself. Overall, it wasn't especially damaging to either side, though I found the Iraq criticism well done.

I did, however, find myself agreeing with Bush regarding staying in Iraq until he fell back into his "OMG TERRORISM" groove.

[Calantus]

The debate confirmed to me one impression I've had since the beginning of the election: I can't see either of them as a president. But at least you guys will hopefully get a real president. I don't know about any other foreigners, but myself and everybody I know think of Bush as a fake president. It's hard to take such a man seriously. I can't think of a single Western leader I'd listen to less, not even the frog, and he's a FROG. I wonder how much respect the US has lost because of the election gaff?

And Kerry went at it wrong. I got the impression that he and his party were so afraid of doing something wrong they didn't dare do anything risky like not regurgitating old lines, going in hard for an issue, or tearing bush down. So basically two men stood up, said what they've been saying for ages and tried not to look stupid while doing it. That's not going to cut it for a man not in power.

Anyway, my main 2 impressions were "meh", and "Aussies do it better". At least you see some goddamn passion and thought process instead of regurgitating hand-fed lines and mannerisms. Oh, and why does each party have 30 people going over the debate footage to find dirt on the other candidate? Why is it so important? Sometimes I don't understand americans at all. Seriously, for a culture so like our own, I get so many "wtf?" moments hearing about your politics (we get CNN here and hear from our own reporters often enough).

EDIT: Oh and I'd also say Kerry "won" the debate. Really though, a debate win means nothing unless you win big.

[SurfD]

You know, it would be an interesting experiment to do the following:

Make it ILLEGAL to not vote, punnishable by a 100 dollar fine or some such. (this is nessicary to make sure that ALL opinions are counted) (and yes, I do realise that someone is guaranteed to scream about how being required to vote violates their constitutional rights or some shit like that, personally, I think you should not get any constitutional rights after you reach age of majority unless you vote, but thats another can of worms entirely)

Then give people the following options on the ballot:
Vote Republican: name of candidate
Vote Democrat: name of candidate
Vote neither: I hate both and this two party system sucks.

I would be willing to bet that a HUGE majority of people would pick the third option.

You guys really need another party or two.

[Alkiera]

As an American, I drool over Denmark's system, which has something like 10 major parties.  With that many, I can't imagine being partisan gets you very far, as a politician, and as a voter, you have enough different things to choose from that one party is fairly sure to match up with you better than our two-party system.

In short, I agree that two parties is not enough.

--
Alkiera

[Sky]

You guys really need another party or two.

That's funny, since I'm in the Libertarian party and whatnot. We don't need more parties, we need less people with their heads in the sand or brainwashed by the media.

I thought Bush was chilling and Kerry came off pretty well (finally). Bush just tends to break down when he's not being programmed, Kerry's been doing this for years.

I just want the project for the new american century shut down, so I'm voting Kerry. Why did we attack Iraq? PNAC. Pretty simple, actually. It's not Bush, it's his programmers I'm concerned about. I'd really like to vote Badnarik, but not this election year, it's too important to remove the sitting administration and their lackeys.

[Alkiera]

You guys really need another party or two.

That's funny, since I'm in the Libertarian party and whatnot. We don't need more parties, we need less people with their heads in the sand or brainwashed by the media.

I think he meant we need more than two statistically significant parties.  Yes, there are lots of 'parties'... Libertarian, Green, Conservative, etc...  but the way things currently stand, none of them have a chance at a presidential election.  Without checking, I can't tell you if any of those parties have ever won a senatorial or congressional seat at the national level.  I don't recall it, and I'd think the media(or the party in question) would make a big deal out of it.

A 'party' with no members in the national elected government isn't significant.  We need more significant parties.

--
Alkiera

[Paelos]

This was the first time I've heard Kerry not act like a dumbass or wanker when he was speaking. I still don't agree with him, but he made his points well without sounding pedantic or like a broken record. Bush looked like an angry gnome during the debate the way he was hunkered down on the podium. Still, he nailed Kerry a couple of times on his own.

Either way, it's not life changing at this point.

[Mesozoic]

Then give people the following options on the ballot:
Vote Republican: name of candidate
Vote Democrat: name of candidate
Vote neither: I hate both and this two party system sucks.

I would be willing to bet that a HUGE majority of people would pick the third option.

You're right, but only because throwing your hands up and proclaiming that all politicians suck is easy, requires no real thought, allows for no real discussion, and isn't likely to provoke an argument while you're standing around the salad bar at Wendy's.  

The problem is that it is essentially a refutation of democracy.  People who claim a blanket hatred for politics and politicians never really seem to have a better alternative, but the unspoken addendum to the argument seems to be:  "I wish some benevolent dictator would clean up Washington." Yeah, good luck there.

I have far more respect for the most right-wing asshole than I do for the person who can't formulate a political opinion more profound than U ALL SUCK!  

Thats political graffiti, not opinion.

[Romp]

you'd need to change the voting system to get more parties really.

Australian system is much better in my opinion.  Compulsory voting so politicians have to cater to everyone and preferential voting so you can list the candidates you like in order from best to worst.  

After the votes are counted if no one has a majority then all the votes from the candidate with the least amount of votes are eliminated and they are distributed according to their 2nd preference.  Then the next lowest guy gets eliminated and his or her votes are redistributed according to their next preference (you need to take the 3rd, 4th or 5th preference etc if that voter's next prefernce has already been eliminated).   Usually everyone is eliminated until there are 2 left and one of those 2 will have a majority.  Basically it means you can vote for a minor party and know that your vote wont be wasted.  Essentially all that counts is which party you preference highest.  

So people could vote 1. Nader 2. Kerry 3. Bush and know that their vote will go to Kerry.

You would probably see 10 or more presidential candidates under this system.  Voting systems rarely change though because they benefit the parties who are already in power.

[Big Gulp]

Compulsory voting so politicians have to cater to everyone and preferential voting so you can list the candidates you like in order from best to worst.  

Yeah, compulsory voting is a keen idea.  Why, all the third world dictatorships are doing it!

What a jackass idea that is.  Let's force people who aren't politically motivated, aren't up on the issues, and are resentful of being forced to the polls or made to pay a fine pull the lever for leader of their country!  Fucking genius, that is.

There's a reason that voting is voluntary, and along with the right to vote comes the right NOT TO VOTE.  It's kind of part and parcel of living in a freedom-based society; the government not coercing it's citizens.

[HaemishM]

I watched the first 30 minutes of the debate, then watched a movie. Since I was already decided on my candidate before the vote, I only watched to see if one or the other of them melted down on TV.

Kerry won that debate. Bush looked arrogant, angry, defensive and flustered. Kerry looked "presidential" to use a shitty term. He was calm, controlled and cogent, which is more than I've ever seen him. He still sometimes has a problem stating what he means clearly, but this was him at his best. It wasn't quite Bush at his worst, but he certainly wasn't "on his game." I think that first answer from Kerry, where he sucked up to the moderator, and the entire state of Florida really threw Bush, because Bush immediately had to retaliate with the same kind of suckup, and it cut down on the time he had to respond. His rushing through it made it seem not only disingenuous, it made him have to rush his answer to the real question. Bush is HORRIBLE when he has to think on his feet. BRILLIANT!

What was really disheartening about the Bush side and his supporters is how much they continually attempt to hammer home points that are factually shaky at best. On the Daily Show's coverage, they spoke with Guiliani (sic), a man I respect. Rudy tried to continually make the case that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, and thus for that reason, it was a justifiable target in the war on terror. Even though every single link between AQ and Iraq has been discredited at the worst and tenuous at best. It's almost as if the Republicans really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over again, it becomes the truth. The only credible connection between Hussein and terrorism is his payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's it. That's a LONG, LONG way from supporting Muhammed Atta and the 19 pilots.

The "world" may be safer without Hussein, but Iraq sure isn't, because the US still has no cogent plan for how to secure that country without being an occupier.

[Shannow]

There's a reason that voting is voluntary, and along with the right to vote comes the right NOT TO VOTE.  It's kind of part and parcel of living in a freedom-based society; the government not coercing it's citizens.

Bzzt.

No the reason is so that white middle aged men of the same two parties can be voted in over and over again. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Question for those that know does Canada, New Zealand, the UK have compulsory voting?

Part and parcel my arse, its governments realising that some people need a bit of encouragement to vote and therefore are holding themselves accountable to ALL citizens not just the bloc of educated middle class people they know are more likely to vote. Of course Australia is less free because my governemtn FORCES me to vote! Please. Thats like telling me Australians are less free because we dont own assualt rifles...oh wait someone here told me that too..

[Paelos]

The major disappointment I had with the debate is that Iraq was too much of the focus, as has been the entire election. It's like I'm being forced to pick leaders based on that point alone. Frankly, I'm a long way and a lot more dead Americans away from really getting pissed off about Iraq. A thousand American soldiers dead is a bad thing, but I don't consider it a waste in a war against a dictator or a moral war against terrorists and Islamic fundamentalist nutballs.

That being said, I'm more worried about economic issues, social issues, and domestic issues which are all taking the backseat right now. I want less Iraq talk out of Kerry and more plans elsewhere, and I want Bush to stop looking like he's gonna pull a pistol during debates.

[Shannow]

The "world" may be safer without Hussein, but Iraq sure isn't, because the US still has no cogent plan for how to secure that country without being an occupier.

The fact that Iraq is now one big recruiting/training ground for the terrorists of tommorow makes me feel that Im less safe. I hope I'm proven wrong, really I do.

[Bunk]

Question for those that know does Canada, New Zealand, the UK have compulsory voting?

Canada - no we don't.

Our system is a bit different from the US though.  I saw an American friends ballot last night, whoa boy are they different. The bloody thing was three pages long.

We go in to the polls, and we pick who we are voting for as our local Member of Parliment. Thats it.

Whichever party gets the most MPs in the house is the one that forms the government.  The party leader (assuming he won his seat) becomes Prime Minister.

We had four major parties, and a number of minor ones in our last election.  Going really simple, our major parties break down as:

Liberals: fairly middle of the road - they won in a minority
Conservatives: Repulicanish, with strong ties to Western Canada - 2nd
Bloc Quebecois: Pro Quebec, Pro seperation - 3rd
NDP: socialistic - only unions and old people vote for em - 4th
Chuck Cadman: independent - won in my riding

I like the fact that our system allowed us to vote in a guy that lost the nomination in his riding to some dubious efforts by his party.  The people liked the job he had been doing, so we voted him back in anyway.

Our system is far from perfect, but I like it better than the US's.

Oh, and Kerry came out of the debates looking much stronger in my opinion.

[SirBruce]

IWhat was really disheartening about the Bush side and his supporters is how much they continually attempt to hammer home points that are factually shaky at best.

No, what is really dishearening about the anti-Bush side and their supporters is how much they, like you, continually attempt to hammer home points that are factually incorrect.  To wit:

Even though every single link between AQ and Iraq has been discredited at the worst and tenuous at best.

Wrong.  If you actually READ the 9/11 report, the links between AQ and Iraq are well-documented.  No evidence of an operational collaborative relationship at the time of the war, to be sure, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  The evidence we do have tells us that the two were interested in working together, and there were numerous contacts and links between them.  Plus, terrorism is more than just AQ; Iraq has been assisting and harboring non-AQ terrorists for years.

That's a LONG, LONG way from supporting Muhammed Atta and the 19 pilots.

The War on Terror is not just about AQ.  Democrats want to make it that, because that way they think they can just kill UBL and declare victory and bring all the troops home.  This demonstrates their fundamental inability to understand the nature of the terrorist threat the entire world faces.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

The fact that Iraq is now one big recruiting/training ground for the terrorists of tommorow makes me feel that Im less safe. I hope I'm proven wrong, really I do.

Therefore, the US shouldn't have attacked Germany or Italy or Japan, because that just made them recruit/train more soldiers.

Bush made the same point in the debate.  Kerry complained having our troops in Iraq gave UBL greater recruiting ability.  Bush responded by noting that what we do shouldn't be predicated on what UBL will do in response.

Bruce

[Krakrok]

That being said, I'm more worried about economic issues, social issues, and domestic issues which are all taking the backseat right now.

The theme of the debate was foreign policy.

[Shannow]

The fact that Iraq is now one big recruiting/training ground for the terrorists of tommorow makes me feel that Im less safe. I hope I'm proven wrong, really I do.

Therefore, the US shouldn't have attacked Germany or Italy or Japan, because that just made them recruit/train more soldiers.

Completely different time, situation, culture. Enough with the stupid comparisons.

[Paelos]

That being said, I'm more worried about economic issues, social issues, and domestic issues which are all taking the backseat right now.

The theme of the debate was foreign policy.

It's not just the theme of the debate, its the theme of the election too. I was disappointed that was the choice for debate. It's getting pounded again and again everyday to the point that I'm beyond even worrying about who's in charge of the cleanup. It sucks, no man is going to do a great job with it because it sucks. They won't do anything remotely different because if Bush is elected things will stay the same, and if Kerry is elected he'll realize his plans to get out by doing things his way won't work in the real world. Either way its the same shitstorm.

What they will effect is my life at home. Their policies on the Patriot Act, the treatment of Homeland Security, the job market, social issues, etc.

[Shannow]

Did anyone mention the deficit?

[WayAbvPar]

On the Daily Show's coverage, they spoke with Guiliani (sic), a man I respect. Rudy tried to continually make the case that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, and thus for that reason, it was a justifiable target in the war on terror.

I generally like and respect Giuliani, but watching try to "stay on message" on the Daily Show was embarrassing. I was surprised at some of the tough questions that Stewart threw at him too; looks like the gloves are coming off as the election draws closer.


I was glad that Kerry brought up the whole focus switch from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda/OBL to Saddam Hussein and WMD. That has never made any sense to me, and to see him ask about it in such stark terms hopefully hammered the point home to the undecideds (who the fuck is undecided at this point? The Daily Show's bit on that was hysterical).

Kerry looked as good as I have seen him. Bush definitely could have looked worse, but he could have looked better too. At least he didn't Nixon out or anything.

Tangent- I was really struck last night by how freakin' GIANT Bush's head is in comparison to his shoulders. It is like an orange on a toothpick! It's got its own weather system!

[HaemishM]

Even though every single link between AQ and Iraq has been discredited at the worst and tenuous at best.

Wrong.  If you actually READ the 9/11 report, the links between AQ and Iraq are well-documented.  No evidence of an operational collaborative relationship at the time of the war, to be sure, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  The evidence we do have tells us that the two were interested in working together, and there were numerous contacts and links between them.  Plus, terrorism is more than just AQ; Iraq has been assisting and harboring non-AQ terrorists for years.

Please to prove that. Frankly, everything I've read says that AQ fucking hated Saddamn almost as badly as he did the US. If there is no evidence of an operational collaborative relationship, that means THEY WERE NOT WORKING TOGETHER. That's all you need right there. They weren't working together.

The supposed meeting in Berlin between Atta and an Iraqi minister never happened, and this was known the entire time that Bush's regime was claiming that it did happen. One guy who may have stayed in Iraq doesn't mean they were working together. AQ has had more contact with Saudi Arabia's, Syria's, or Iran's government than Iraq's, as well as more willingness to work with them.

Also, Bush made a point in the debate that was indicative of his regime's entire policy on terrorism. He said we've "captured 75% of AQ's leadership." Great, but that doesn't mean dick. The strength of AQ isn't in numbers. They don't need numbers to get to us. They showed that in 9/11. You can kill 95% of their leaders, and they'll still be able to carry out operations, because all it takes is 1 determined madman to sew chaos and terror. Using bombs, missles and Marine battalions is not only overkill for taking out 1 determined man, it's as inaccurate a way to do so as there is. It's Cold War thinking in a completely different age of battle. Stopping terrorism doesn't require blowing up countries, it requires not allowing the terrorists easy access to their targets.

The failure of 9/11 wasn't in how much or how little airport screening we did. It was in allowing the hijackers into the country in the first place, when fully half of them should not have been allowed any sort of visa into the country. That's not a problem that has a military solution. That's an immigration and law enforcement problem.