PDA

View Full Version : 1st round goes to W.



Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 12:13 PM
This guy saw the debate I did.


http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/9806488.htm

1st round goes to W.
Kerry needed a knockout, and he didn't get it

John Baer
Philadelphia Daily News

HILLARY won.

Or one of the Johns. You know, McCain or Edwards.

Or anybody else seriously looking to run in '08 after George W. Bush serves out his second term.

That's because John Kerry, who had to score a knockout last night, landed some punches but didn't take the title.

Yeah, he looked a little tougher than when he's windsurfing off Nantucket in spandex.

And, OK, he had a good line about how it's one thing to always be "certain" but one can, after all, be certain and wrong.

And he even seemed somewhat directed and focused.

But this debate, critical if not determinative to the outcome of the election, did not take Kerry where he needs to be.

Instead, the champ at staying on message is still the undisputed George W. Bush.

How so?

Because of one moment that defined the debate and the race.

When debate moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush if there are "character issues" that maybe should keep Kerry from being president, Bush showed he's a consummate politician.

He first did some aw-shucks plain-speak. "Whew, that's a loaded question."

See, he's just folks.

Then he graciously praised Kerry's service to country and family, calling him "a great dad," and even praised his service in the Senate.

It was Bush being the nice guy, the guy people like. Brilliant.

Then he hit Kerry with the message of the night, indeed the campaign:

"He changes positions."

It was the pat on the back before slipping in the shiv.

It fit perfectly with his performance throughout the 90-minute encounter.

Bush over and over tagged Kerry for changing his position on Iraq and said several times one can't lead if you say, as Kerry has, it's "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Ah repetition. The mother's milk of campaign victories.

Plus Bush looked the part: aggressive, firm, strong.

From the moment he stalked across the stage (first one out of the wings) to Kerry's podium to shake his hand, to his tight-lipped PO'd look caught on camera as Kerry sniped at him, as opposed to Kerry's smiling and nodding as Bush swiped at him.

(Don't you think they should have traded ties? Kerry wore red, Bush blue, but their states are just the opposite colors.)

When Kerry got to answer the "character" question, he floated off on something about stem-cell research and global warming (the debate topic was foreign policy and homeland security).

And the fact Kerry spoke to Lehrer and not to me and not to voters and seemed more intent on showing how much he knows rather than how much he cares? I just think that's a killer.

Bush worked the camera and Lehrer with a nice mix of eye contact and practiced talking points.

He used his occasional 30-second extensions, a debate rule allowing for continued discussion of a single question, to answer every charge Kerry made.

Kerry, at least once, tried to do the same and couldn't even get Lehrer's attention.

Mostly Bush very much stayed the course.

The war is hard work, which he said, I don't know, a dozen times, but we're going to win. Saddam was a threat. America's safer.

"We're going to win this war in Iraq."

Kerry, when he finally looked into the camera for his closing remarks, said, "I believe America's best days are ahead of us."

For me, stuff like "whew, that's a loaded question" works much better.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send e-mail to [email protected]

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:28 PM
both of you need to step away from the pipe and get some fresh air

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:31 PM
Plenty of fresh air here.

Duff McCartney
10-01-2004, 01:36 PM
Plus Bush looked the part: aggressive, firm, strong.

What a load of garbage. He didn't look any of those things...the guy couldn't go two words without stumbling all over himself.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:37 PM
its called "repeating the same talking points over and over until they are believed to be true" Duff

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:40 PM
So basically you two are ignorant of the issues but think Kerry won because he spoke well. Not surprising.

baseline bum
10-01-2004, 01:41 PM
Bush looked like a freaking child at the beginning of the debate, although he started to do better as it went along.

LandShark
10-01-2004, 01:41 PM
So basically you two are ignorant of the issues but think Kerry won because he spoke well. Not surprising.
They fail to differentiate between style and substance.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:42 PM
kerry won because he had a better message, a better delivery, raised damning questions that got Bush flustered, he won in every category. Bush doesnt look so good when Cheney and Rove arent there to hold his hand

LandShark
10-01-2004, 01:43 PM
Exhibit "A"

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:43 PM
Again, what issues? Be specific. You obviously have a modem. The transcript of the debate is within your reach so you can provide the quotes.

Until then, shut up already.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:45 PM
why dont you go to the graveyard and get yourself a brain..it will do you some good

Spurminator
10-01-2004, 01:46 PM
I fail to see how anyone who listened to what was actually said during the debate could come away thinking it was a clear victory for either candidate. I expect more people would give the edge to Kerry based on his speaking skills, but it was empty showmanship.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:48 PM
Again, you provide nothing. You are incapable of discussing any of the major issues covered in last night's debate.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:49 PM
pick one

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:51 PM
I'll make it easier for you. Take your pick:

Iraq
Preemptive war
North Korea
Russia
Sudan

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:52 PM
i asked you to pick one, not provide a list

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:52 PM
Methinks you needed it. Start from the top if you like.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:54 PM
ok, iraq is fine...fire away

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 01:56 PM
Go ahead. You made the claim that Kerry bested Bush on the "issues." Back it up.

Bandit2981
10-01-2004, 01:59 PM
what part of the iraq debate is in question? that Bush kept implying a false sadaam/al qaida/9-11 link over and over again? that iraq didnt present an imminent threat to the US like we were told? that the american public was sold on the war for iraqs weapons of mass destruction, not in the name of removing a dictator from power? anything else?

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 02:04 PM
what part of the iraq debate is in question? that Bush kept implying a false sadaam/al qaida/9-11 link over and over again?

No he did not. Where is your quote?



that iraq didnt present an imminent threat to the US like we were told?

Bush never said "imminent."



that the american public was sold on the war for iraqs weapons of mass destruction,


Sure. Every major intelligence agency in the world agreed with that assessment as had the Clinton administration prior to 2001. Even John Kerry did at the time he voted for it before he was against it.



not in the name of removing a dictator from power?

Um that was certainly part of the equation.



anything else?

Yes, please provide some substantiation for your claims. You should be able to find the transcript of the debate online.

Nbadan
10-01-2004, 02:12 PM
Subtance versus style? Before the debates we talked extensively about what was important in past debates, and it wasn't substance. So Marcus can argue till he's blue in the face that W. won last nights debate because he repeated the same old Bushivek lies on Iraq over and over again, but when it came down to real answers without the rhetoric it was Kerry, Kerry, Kerry.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 02:20 PM
I never spoke with you about what I considered important in the debates.

For those of us who aren't conspiracy believing nutjobs Bush clearly won the discussion. The only thing Kerry had going for him is that he "spoke well" while explaining that he would give nuclear material to the Iranians and subject the decision of this nation to deal with threats to its national security to a "global test". In addition Kerry indicated that he would dis the South Koreans. Japanese, and Chinese and engage in bilateral talks with the North Koreans. Not only is that dumb because it elevates North Korea in stature but it also goes against his primary claim against the Bush administration that it is far too unilateral in its diplomacy.

Kerry offers nothing different from what Mondale offered in 1984 and McGovern in 1972.

But...but...he spoke so well.

spurster
10-01-2004, 02:47 PM
I don't think Bush changed too many minds. If you thought he was (lying/right) on Iraq before, you would still believe he was (lying/right). I think Kerry was more credible than the rhetoric from the Bush campaign, which the media has done little more than repeat. I don't Bush was more credible than Kerry, especially after Bush started repeating himself. I rate the debate a tie, but the Bush campaign has worked hard to paint Kerry as much less worthy than Bush, and the debate works against that.

JohnnyMarzetti
10-01-2004, 03:07 PM
Bush got his smirking ass handed to him by Kerry.

Spurminator
10-01-2004, 03:11 PM
I can't figure out what was more predictable... The content of the debate, or the subsequent individual assessments of the debate.

Nbadan
10-01-2004, 03:41 PM
Nobody listens to what the two candidates are saying. It's always just rhetoric. Any real substance left the building of Presidential debates along time ago. Did Nixon lose to Kennedy over substance? No. He lost because of 5 o'clock shadow. Did Gore lose to Bush over substance? No. He lost because of audible sighs while W. was speaking.

Of course, since W. clearly lost the debate of style, all his supporters can hang thier hats on is the fact that no matter what, W. stayed on the party message.

Was anyone impressed? Polls say no.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Bush bested Kerry in the actual discussion of the issues. Who wants a "global test" to determine when this nation defends itself? Who thinks it is wise to denigrate our allies while trying to recruit others to commit resources to Iraq? Who wants to alienate Japan, South Korea, and China and elevate North Korea to a status worthy of bilateral talks? Also, since when is it wise to give the Iranians "nuclear material"? The best defense against terrorism is to be on the offensive. My opponent says the war was a diversion and a mistake yet how does he plan to recruit new allies? I agreed with my opponent when he said invading Iraq was right and Hussein was a grave threat to the United States last year, etc...

The problem for Kerry is that the majority of Americans agree with Bush on the war on terror and like his leadership, while Kerry's base is split on the Iraq war. Thus when Kerry takes a position on the war he will alienate one part of his voting bloc (perhaps another reason to take as many position as possible on Iraq).

Winning on 'speaking well' means very little when a majority of voters disagree with you fundamentally. Kerry had to win on the substance of the debate and that is where he failed badly.

JohnnyMarzetti
10-01-2004, 04:11 PM
Kerry had Dubya looking so flustered it was clear that without a script, he couldn't talk his way of a drunk's paper bag.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 04:14 PM
Bush was clearly disgusted with Kerry's rambling inconsistencies and willingness to surrender American national security to a "global test."

Your boy fucked up more than you even recognize. Which is not surprising.

JoeChalupa
10-01-2004, 04:26 PM
It is all just a matter of opinion.
Bush supporters will always think he won.
Kerry supports will always think he won.

But from what I've seen most polls (but who really cares about polls) show that most Americans feel Kerry did the better job.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 04:30 PM
Most Americans feel that Kerry was the more articulate speaker, yet Bush was more believable and likable.

Nbadan
10-01-2004, 04:43 PM
Looking Presidential is the first step towards being Presidential.

Marcus Bryant
10-01-2004, 04:46 PM
Yeah, just like Presidents Mondale and Gore.

Opinionater
10-01-2004, 04:52 PM
Looking Presidential is the first step towards being Presidential.

IMHO, your theory is flawed. Just look at Bush.

T Park
10-02-2004, 01:08 AM
Bandit has yet to answer the question.


IMO Bush didnt hammer Kerry enough on the "voted for it, before I voted against it"

BTW, Marcus, when has Dunce Mcartney ever brought an intelligent thought on politics.

T Park
10-02-2004, 01:11 AM
Still love how, Bush is an idiot because hes not a smooth talker.

So hes a little more normal than the other politicians.

Damn what a slob.

Nbadan
10-02-2004, 01:23 AM
IMO Bush didnt hammer Kerry enough on the "voted for it, before I voted against it"That kind of rhetoric only works when the accusser controls the conversation. I wish W. would go into Sean Insannity-type rants. For one, it would put a spotlight on these ridiculous allegations, and two, it would make these right-wing ideolouges finally look like the complete idiots they are for spouting out this kinda junk. You can run a right-wing radio show spouting stuff like this, but try it in a debate and W. would get his head ripped off by Kerry.

Marcus Bryant
10-02-2004, 04:49 AM
And yet it is preferable for left-wing politicians to advance conspiratorial claims?


but try it in a debate and W. would get his head ripped off by Kerry.

Right. Yet Bush didn't need to do so. Unfortunately for Kerry he brought out the pitcher of grape Kool-Aid a couple of times on Thursday night.