Everyone ready for Bush/Kerry debate #2?

lol, need some wood?

0 Replies

That "I have a plan" line must have done really well in the focus groups, because he really trots it out ad nauseam.

And the name-dropping is tricky ... it must work really well to convince people that he's up to the job, that he's no amateur (and it safely buries the allegation that Kerry's campaign is "hiding" or "running away from" Kerry's Senate record) - you know, all the references to where he's been, the forums, (international) meetings, he spoke so-and-so here, there, everywhere - but it can easily tilt into seeming like pompous vanity, which Kerry is already associated with a bit much ...

I think he's managing it, though, so far.

Kerry did well on stem cells too: "these embryos are going to be either destroyed or frozen anyway" - get the idea off the table that somehow babies-to-be would be killed. Very clear.

Bush does better with the little jokes though. He's infinitely more at ease now than in the previous debate. Only the endless eye-blinking while he's listening to Kerry is unnerving - or makes it look like he's unnerved.

0 Replies

That was the first time Kerry brought up Vietnam, wasn't it, and he didn't even name it - just that his religion had helped him "through the war".

0 Replies

Abortion - another point Kerry did well in arguing his position - but I'm afraid it's the less popular position.

Also, the "I truly respect your feeling behind your question" stuff was lame. But he did (aggressively) great in explaining why he voted against Bush's law - the parental notification thing, "I'm not going to require a 16-year old who's pregant because she was raped by her father, to first notify that father before being allowed to have an abortion".

0 Replies

Ouch! That quip about not making a decision about not appointing a Supreme Court Justice because he wants their vote was as bad as Kerry's Red Sox one.

0 Replies

Lol, Bush speaking about reality.

0 Replies

"Obviously the President and I both have very strong convictions" - that is how it came across, imho, this debate - like, a worthy debate between two politicians with strong, if very opposite plans.

Kerry's plans were more detailed. And I agree with them, while I think Bush's are dangerous. But they both did pretty well presenting them and agressively arguing them I think. And the 'agression' made it seem like it was really a question of the heart for both, not just the usual rhetorics. Actually, when Bush said "thank you, I've enjoyed it", I thought yeah they did both look like they enjoyed it - a good tussle. Quite different from last time!

0 Replies

I'm happily surprised. I'm not half as disgusted as I was last time around.

Kerry's promise of no tax increase, for incomes under $200,000 with all those promises is a riot. Will anyone believe such nonsense?

Both men were much better than last time... and that's a relief. Bush no longer looked retarded and Kerry appeared even more human... far more human than I thought him capable.

I haven't yet figured out which, if either, won the debate.

0 Replies

I agree it was a lively debate with a little more substance. I laughed myself right off the couch when Bush said "haters" in his closing remarks. That was too funny.

0 Replies

I agree that they both held up very well in this one, although, I think Bush lost it a bit when he jumped up and demanded to respond to Kerry's statement. Other than that, I think Bush did 100% better this time around. Kerry also did a great job and since I agree with his views, of course I think he did better than Bush in this debate. I agree fully with Kerry when he says that with Bush elected again as President, it will simply be another 4 years of the same thing. Bush is not offering the people any improvements, where Kerry put a lot of goodies out on the table. Seems that all Bush is offering is some wood, lol.

0 Replies

In my opinion it was a tie, and a tie is something of a win for Bush.

Kerry's performance wasn't as good as his first if for no other reason than he frequently repeated his lines verbatim from the first debate. When they were fresh and in contrast to a terrible performance by Bush, they were more effective.

Bush repeated a number of his prior lines as well, but his delivery and mannerism were so improved that they created the impression of new material.

If this debate had been similar to the first one, I think Bush would have been in serious trouble. By not being able to repeat his earlier thrashing of the president, I think Kerry may have lost a little lustre. As a result, I think the bounce he got from the first debate will fall off an the race will return to something closer to the pre-debate situation.

My fellow Bush supporters may insist that he won this one, but I think that will result more from relief and contrast than an accurate assessment.

Still, the candidate who exceeds expectations does, in a sense, win, and Bush certainly did that if you based your expectations on the first debate.

I still maintain that these debates are a poor reason upon which to base one's decision.

0 Replies

Caller at C-Span picks up on what Bush said about his cabinet ministers. You know, where he said that he'd made some mistakes appointing people and he was going to change some but he wasnt going to say who "cause I dont want to embarass them on national TV" or something like that? Wasnt that a bit weird?

But apart from being a bit weird (and unsympathetic), its also kind of typical, isn't it. This is a President and an administration who have continually blamed those below them for whatever went wrong. Things arent going in Iraq how they thought they would? They blame someone lower down in the structure, fire him. I think thats a bad sign. Where's the buck supposed to stop again?

Anyway, that caller, she highlighted a further thing. She was a conservative and she totally agreed with what Bush said and added that she hoped that Bush knew whom he should fire: Colin Powell. She said the name in positive disgust. Wow, makes one think - yeah - who do you think Bush meant? Whom do you think he'll fire? Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz? Yeah, right. He'll fire the last moderate left in the cabinet, is what I think ...

0 Replies

What I wrote in the other thread...
I watched it.
I think that Kerry gains again. Very strong performance with facts and good sentences, he adress to Bush directly as well as the camera and accordingly the audience.

0 Replies

In the repeat I'm now seeing the first few minutes that I'd missed. I cant believe Kerry let Bush get away with that lame-ass rationale for the war.

Bush said basically that we went to war because Saddam was doing some fraud with the oil-for-food thing and he was going to use that fraud to distract the UN and once that would have happened he would start his weapon programmes up again and once that would have succeeded he might have passed some of those weapons on to terrorists. How many years are we on by then?

He had no WMD, he wasnt making any WMD and about his intentions we can only guess, since he hadnt been making any WMD for thirteen years. But we're still to believe that it was necessary to go in because of what - the oil-for-food fraud?

0 Replies

That was a good debate. I, like doglover, was sipping soda and munching popcorn... Bush was so much better this time over last time, but still claiming to hold his same position: more of the same, which is not good for the country. Kerry was good, but didn't shine out as glaringly better because Bush was better this time... I would say it was pretty close, a tie even, maybe... Which isn't good for Kerry, in my not so humble opinion...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Caller at C-Span picks up on what Bush said about his cabinet ministers. You know, where he said that he'd made some mistakes appointing people and he was going to change some but he wasnt going to say who "cause I dont want to embarass them on national TV" or something like that? Wasnt that a bit weird?

But apart from being a bit weird (and unsympathetic), its also kind of typical, isn't it. This is a President and an administration who have continually blamed those below them for whatever went wrong. Things arent going in Iraq how they thought they would? They blame someone lower down in the structure, fire him. I think thats a bad sign. Where's the buck supposed to stop again?

Anyway, that caller, she highlighted a further thing. She was a conservative and she totally agreed with what Bush said and added that she hoped that Bush knew whom he should fire: Colin Powell. She said the name in positive disgust. Wow, makes one think - yeah - who do you think Bush meant? Whom do you think he'll fire? Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz? Yeah, right. He'll fire the last moderate left in the cabinet, is what I think ...

Well before this debate the conventional wisdom had Powell resigning if Bush won a second term. How much of this is Bush's desire to get rid of him and Powell's desire to go, is uncertain. If however, Bush's comment was a precursor to a cabinet purge, I don't think it referred to Powell.

My bet is that if Bush wins, we will see a new Secretary of Defense, and my bet for his replacement is Richard Armitage.

If Rumsfeld does go, Wolfowitz will go as well.

Returning to Powell, I think we will not be in the Administration if Bush wins a second term, and Condi Rice will replace him.

Another change in a second term Bush cabinet:

Norman Mineta out as Sec of Transportation

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But we're still to believe that it was necessary to go in because of what - the oil-for-food fraud?

That goes back to what you said earlier about playing the blame game. His bluff got called on the WMD so he blamed it on intelligence, blaming Clinton for the stock market, blaming the deficit on the War on Terrorism, etc. He doesn't have enough fingers for all the pointing he does.

0 Replies

On C-Span one commentator is arguing Bush won and the other that its a tie ...

not good.

0 Replies

well, that settles it for me. As you all know I was a Kucinc supporter but hearing Bush defend deficit spending reminded me of just how liberal he has become. The damn conservative Kerry was mentioning a balanced budget. Damn what a strange world it is after all. You go Bush spend til you drop.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

In the repeat I'm now seeing the first few minutes that I'd missed. I cant believe Kerry let Bush get away with that lame-ass rationale for the war.

Bush said basically that we went to war because Saddam was doing some fraud with the oil-for-food thing and he was going to use that fraud to distract the UN and once that would have happened he would start his weapon programmes up again and once that would have succeeded he might have passed some of those weapons on to terrorists. How many years are we on by then?

He had no WMD, he wasnt making any WMD and about his intentions we can only guess, since he hadnt been making any WMD for thirteen years. But we're still to believe that it was necessary to go in because of what - the oil-for-food fraud?

And I can't believe Bush let Kerry get by with all his faux tough talk. Kerry is the man who voted against the resolution to move forward with Gulf War I even after Bush Sr obtained a resolution from the UN.

0 Replies

Everyone ready for Bush/Kerry debate #2?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know