Kerry 1, Bush 0

First debate results

Published on September 30, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

With the first debate over, I think it was pretty clear that Kerry gained more than Bush. Neither scored any knock out blows on the other and the # of memorable sound bites is going to be minimal. But overall, Kerry did what he needed to do.

Expect to see the polls narrow considerably.

Comments (Page 5)

Deference

on Oct 01, 2004

Just *maybe* you should go read this link. Seems not everyone is as optimistic as you seem to be

Yeah, I checked that out. There are a lot of Republicans cheerleading for the president, such as Senator Weld who claimed Bush "won" the debate. I'm so sorry, if Kerry had presented himself as poorly as Bush I'd be raising hell. You should think about that, and pray he does better next time, it reflects badly on Bush when he does such a pitiful job.

Lee:

Despite your very accurate observations, what I think is key to remember about the debates is that they, like so much else in politics, are very much based on appearance. In this most important aspect, Kerry performed remarkably and Bush seemed more like "candidate Bush" of old. In regards to Bush having the "substance", I think his reliance upon now stale Rovisms speaks for itself.

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #62 By: Deference - 10/1/2004 2:50:38 PM
Just *maybe* you should go read this link. Seems not everyone is as optimistic as you seem to be

Yeah, I checked that out. There are a lot of Republicans cheerleading for the president, such as Senator Weld who claimed Bush "won" the debate. I'm so sorry, if Kerry had presented himself as poorly as Bush I'd be raising hell. You should think about that, and pray he does better next time, it reflects badly on Bush when he does such a pitiful job.

And just maybe you forgot this. Mike Reagan (President Reagans son) may be a republican but he's a Kerry fan!

thatoneguyinslc

on Oct 01, 2004

Lets face a few facts here folks. Bush is no debater. The guy hasn't even mastered the english language. He has no viable arguement for how bad things are going for him on all fronts. How could Kerry NOT win the debate? bush 2.0 could only repeat the same tired rhetoric that he has been spouting for the past year.

He got smoked...Plain and simple.

And Lee? bush 2.0 is a liar. The record shows that clearly.

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #64 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/1/2004 2:59:01 PM
Lets face a few facts here folks. Bush is no debater. The guy hasn't even mastered the english language. He has no viable arguement for how bad things are going for him on all fronts. How could Kerry NOT win the debate? bush 2.0 could only repeat the same tired rhetoric that he has been spouting for the past year.

He got smoked...Plain and simple.

Do you do a lot of reading? Just maybe you should do a LOT more!

Deference

on Oct 01, 2004

Are you praying drmiler? Come on! Bush needs you!

tugger1967

on Oct 01, 2004

It hasn't taken too long for the words of the leaders especially Kerry to be misrepresented.

Kerry Did not say we should go into the Sudan unilaterally, he actually said they would not go int the Sudan at all. They would get the African Union to do the peace keeping (Because let's be honest Americans are not the best at keeping peace) and do their part with aid. President Bush agreed and used the Liberian experience as a model for how to approach the problem. To be honest I don't remember Kerry using the words "Saddam was not a threat" not that he didn't say it. He did say there were 30 or 40 other countries who posed a bigger threat than Saddam at the time of the invasion and he was also quick to point out that Iraq and Saddam did not attack the US after Bush stated "we were attacked" when talking on the issue of removing Saddam.

When the debate was over I was pleased because Kerry showed the composure and affluence a world leader needs, while Bush as has been stated in this forum, stuck to his points and simply repeated them over and over. At one point Kerry talked about North Korea and Bush's rebuttal was about Iraq. But now that it is the morning and it has sunken in more I'm a little depressed because I realize Bush will be given credit for winning the debate simply by showing up and taking a verbal beating. It's quite sad. If, god forbid I was an American, there is no way I would partake in such a farce of "democracy" and "freedom". Check your buzz words at the door and give your head a shake.

messybuu

on Oct 01, 2004

Everyone I am seeing that feels moved one way or the other by last nights performances already had their mind made up. The closest thing I have seen to the admission of a changed vote is the guy who was once gonna vote against Bush, but after last night he's decided to vote for Kerry... ...

Indeed. My mother and I watched the latter half of the debates, and while she felt that Kerry did better, I felt that Bush did better, although we both agreed that both candidates made some stupid mistakes. These people saying Kerry kicked Bush's ass (are there any saying Bush kicked Kerry's?) are the same people who have shown themselves quite zealous about their dislike of Bush. One has to wonder if they're even trying to be objective.

You know what really bugs me? The right calls the UN a burden, a dead weight group, a waste, but then they feel free to utilize the UN's information when it helps their case, and even in cases where it doesn't like this one. They resort to an organization they don't respect because they know they can't win, because Bush is the reason North Korea has its weapons and Bush is the reason we find ourselves in this situation.

Wasn't Clinton the one who made the deals with North Korea?

By adding other countries, more leverage can be used. President Bush correctly said China is the way to NK. Kerry is showing that he does not know international politics.

That's what bothered me about Kerry. He disapproves of how we went into Iraq without the support of UN and yet he wants us to deal with North Korea, a nation that's a bigger threat than Iraq (especially due to its relation with China), alone.

Lee1776

on Oct 01, 2004

Despite your very accurate observations, what I think is key to remember about the debates is that they, like so much else in politics, are very much based on appearance. In this most important aspect, Kerry performed remarkably and Bush seemed more like "candidate Bush" of old. In regards to Bush having the "substance", I think his reliance upon now stale Rovisms speaks for itself.

Good insight yourself. I looked at it a little different then you though. I think Bush's handlers (they both have those) said to keep with the same old points. This way he will be seen as staying on track and not changing due to political pressure. Just tell me Kerry would not have jumped all over a change in policy. Did the tactic work? I don't know yet.

What many people fail to see that the Debate does not end when the camera at the podium is turned off. Just as many thought Gore had won in 2000, but two weeks later you could not find a person who still held that opinion.

Let’s just see what happens it's not over until late night on the 2nd of Nov. Wait a second maybe a few months later after the lawyers are finished.

That's My Two Cents

Deference

on Oct 01, 2004

Good stuff, Lee, good stuff.

Lee1776

on Oct 01, 2004

He did say there were 30 or 40 other countries who posed a bigger threat than Saddam at the time of the invasion

Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. Kerry

The question to Kerry is how many of those countries are our Allies or are not a threat to the US? Just because the UK, Germany, France, Russia, Finland, Holland, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan, China etc.... has the the capability of making weapons at the moment means that we should attack and disarm them first? That was a weapon of mass distraction statement.

greywar

on Oct 01, 2004

I am with Brad on this one even though I only read the transcripts... Will it matter? hmmm....

Abe Cubbage

on Oct 01, 2004

I didn't watch the debate. I played Sims 2 and I drank beer.

Mitch21

on Oct 01, 2004

I found this about some of their mistakes Link

I thought the "Pottery Barn Rule" was pretty funny, one of the bigger spins made by Kerry that night

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 01, 2004

The U.S. has been the world's watchdog for quite some time. Remember Vietnam?

One word: France.

Mike Reagan (President Reagans son) may be a republican but he's a Kerry fan!

I think you mean Ronald Reagan Jr., Michael Reagan is quite the conservative.

Not to mention their military is still completely intact has had time to rebuild whatever they lost in the Korean War 50+ years ago. They have more up to date weapons, tanks, training, etc. than Iraq, and right now have a big brother watching their back that would sweep back in just like they did during the Korean War to help the North. Face it China is the key to getting any sort of compliance from North Korea and Ole Kimmy Boy.

As for Bush being the one to blame about North Korea and nukes, which is somebody's gross misjudgment. For one the policies that lead to North Korea getting it's weapons all happened under the watch of one William Jefferson Clinton, and the fact that they got produced under Bush, does not change the fact that their production facilities were in place and unharmed during the era of one William Jefferson Clinton, if anything you should rest the blame on not acting preemptively, and on the other you should blame China. We can't get jack squat done with North Korea diplomatically because of China backing North Korea, and Kerry showed that he was ignorant of how to act with North Korea properly.

So we go into Iraq with no allies, oh wait Kerry said we had no allies in Iraq, I don't know what the British, Aussies, and Polish think about that. Yet Kerry is supporting we go to war with North Korea or act on North Korea all by our lonesome or with at least the backing of South Korea. If you want a bloodbath than Kerry is your man for North Korea, if he wants to make himself a feasible candidate he needs to do a complete 180 on that and fast. Trust me when I say this, if we went to war with North Korea, 1,000 will look like a good number and this is my bottom line.

P.S. Still voting for Badnarik because he still has the toughest policy on the border issue, plus he wants to get the political 'red herrings' out of politics.

- GX

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 01, 2004

Oh besides South Korea having our backs in a worse case scenario with North Korea, Japan would also give support since it is in their backyard as
well.

- GX

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!