The first debate

MTK · 09-30-2004, 10:52 PM

Who watched it, what did you think?

Bush talked alot but didn't say much if you ask me. Debating is not a strength of his that's for sure. Lot's of long pauses, lot's of ummmmm, seemed unsure of himself at times, strange facial expressions when Kerry was speaking, Kerry was stronger tonight IMO. He backs up what he says and doesn't keep circling around like Bush. He was more clear and concise.

Gmanc711 · 09-30-2004, 11:05 PM

I'm gonna go with Kerry. I'm not a huge political guy, but I have followed this election alot because of the war. I still dont know who I'm voting for yet, but I think Kerry had a stronger night.

SmootSmack · 10-01-2004, 12:50 AM

Really it was pretty close, but Kerry is the one trying to catch up and become President, not Bush. Kerry had to have a clear win tonight, and I don't think he did. For that reason I give it to Bush.

From a "production" standpoint, I thought it was interesting how little Kerry looked at the camera compared to Bush and how (at least) on NBC there were full shots of Bush but not of Kerry. And in the double-box shot (both of them shown side by side) they adjusted the camera angles so that they looked like they were the same height

JWsleep · 10-01-2004, 01:33 AM

Kerry seemed stronger to me (but I must admit that I'm already pro-Kerry).

He had (for him) pretty clear answers about his views on Iraq, and he was agressive on criticizing Bush.

Bush seemed a little clumsy in his speech (nothing new), and he began to sound like a broken record with his flip-flop claim. He sounded best when talking about people, and when he talked directly about Kerry's daughters, etc. He's clearly much more comfortable on that level, and his strength is seeming like a regular fellow.

The incumbent has little to gain from debates, especially when leading in the polls. Kerry got to stand there with the president and show that he's on that level, which I think he did (not so hard with dubya). But I doubt it'll have much effect in the crucial battleground states. Still, we'll see.

Bozzy · 10-01-2004, 01:51 AM

Bush was clumsy, he stuttered, and he acted like an ass. Making dumb comments and rolling his eyes.

Kerry was in the zone on all of his talking points.

Bozzy · 10-01-2004, 01:52 AM

oh yeah

WHAT ABOUT POLAND?

Daseal · 10-01-2004, 07:19 AM

I feel Kerry was stronger, and considering Bush had all of the questions in advance he either didn't do his homework or had no idea what Kerry would say.

I want to see Bush man up and accept a debate that the questions aren't revealed in advance.

SmootSmack · 10-01-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I feel Kerry was stronger, and considering Bush had all of the questions in advance he either didn't do his homework or had no idea what Kerry would say.

I want to see Bush man up and accept a debate that the questions aren't revealed in advance.

What makes you say he had all the questions in advance?

That Guy · 10-01-2004, 07:52 AM

i watched it with some other people... the general thought afterwards was kerry looked good if you were a dem, but if you didn't have a preference before, no one really came off as being awesome

i didn't like some of what kerry had to say about expanding the military, not because its a bad idea (if we never downsized the army in the first place we'd be hundreds of billions of dollars ahead at this point... contractor deployment for logistics is very expensive), but because for the last thousand years kerry has voted against EVERY SINGLE military spending bill that's been written.

On N korea he said he rather give them free nuke plants and then just hope they don't use them for weapons... he wants bilateral talks (which is stupid, china sends N korea a lot of money and helps keep the regime working, they're the country with the most sway, regardless of what politicians may say)... he thinks a missile defense shield is a waste of money, which might be true... but when he says nuke proliferation is the biggest concern and that he wants to reduce america's nuclear reserve, it doesn't make much sense. His talk of nuke reduction made me think he wanted to say "we have no will to retaliate, fire at will"... (bush should have replied that N korea is now able to launch missile at California in defense of a missile shield, but he missed the opportunity)

I think he needs to drop the war hero act altogether, he looks and acts like a stuffy politician and his conduct as that point in his life wasn't exactly top notch.

kerry cleared up that he wanted saddam out, but he would have handled things differently, but he never said HOW he would have handled it (besides more UN support... russia and france were on the iraqi payroll for military gear during sanctions)... he also seemed to want to put a time table on troop removal regardless of what events may occur, and i don't think thats really reasonable. Overall he didn't come off as very military savy or what have you.

his good points were increasing nuke clean up in russia, and stem cell research (neither candidate is great on science... but bush is really bad).

bush on the other hand really didn't say much besides that he thought he's done a good job and would like to continue (his opinion), but kerry didn't throw any real knockdown punches, and i don't think either candidate got that many fence sitters here...

MTK · 10-01-2004, 09:02 AM

Both solidified their bases, the key as always is what the swing voters think.

Beemnseven · 10-01-2004, 09:42 AM

First let me say that I'm not a fan of either candidate. So you're getting an objective viewpoint here. I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik by the way. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, you really need to familiarize yourselves with some of the other choices out there. It doesn't have to be one or the other, people. To me, the distinction between democrats and republicans is similar to the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

That being said, John Kerry is clearly more articulate than Bush, and a more seasoned debater. But I still don't know exactly where he stands on Saddam Hussein, or the war in Iraq. It did seem like Kerry had more to say, more points for Bush to defend, while Bush basically had one answer for everything, "It's hard work, we can't show weakness, blah, blah, blah."

Those long pauses that many of you have mentioned, the uncomfortable moments when Bush seems to struggle may actually appeal to more voters than you think. The fact is, most people talk that way. Unless your a politician, I think there are lots of people who realize that Bush sometimes sounds like they would sound in a similar situation. In those ways, Bush may actually identify with more people. By and large, unless you're a passionate Bush Hater, I think the American people are generally forgiving for Bush's lack of polished public speaking abilities.

I was anticipating a gaffe, but didn't see one. I thought for sure Bush would stumble ackwardly through the debate, but it never really happened. Neither candidate scored big, and neither really lost it completely.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I was never convinced that Hussein presented the grave threat that many conservatives were apparently so scared about. But does John Kerry really offer a clear alternative? He's not giving us that much of a different option as to how to get out of the mess that's been created.

On the points that Bush lost interest in Osama bin Laden and recklessly went after Saddam Hussein, who never attacked us, Kerry clearly won that aspect, while Bush tip-toed, and weaseled his way out of it. If Kerry really drives that point home, then that could be an effective weapon that Bush obviously has no answer for.

I'm more interested in domestic affairs, and I can't wait for that debate. Last night's round was a draw in my mind.

SmootSmack · 10-01-2004, 09:50 AM

For those that want to know more: Michael Badnarik

SmootSmack · 10-01-2004, 09:58 AM

I'll bet a lot of potential voters fall under this category

EEich · 10-01-2004, 09:59 AM

People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.

Beemnseven · 10-01-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEich

People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.

How ridiculous. Voting your principles is "throwing you vote away"? I see.

So voting for the lesser of two evils isn't? I don't know what political ideology you come from EEich, but I know neither candidate holds true to the beliefs and principles I hold dear. So why should I vote for them?

It's people like you who perpetuate the crap that politics really is. Stubborn, lazy voters who could care less about how this country is going down the tubes, and don't take the time to search for someone who truly stands for what they believe -- and participating in this mindless popularity contest when both parties are only in it to stay in power, give in to the lobbyists, and could care less about what the Constitution says. Oh yeah, that's a really effective vote.

As to your analogy about football and Super Bowl champions, that is seriously flawed. Voting for only the candidate who has the best chance to win is like bandwagon, frontrunner fans who choose different teams to root for every year based on who is playing at their best and has the better chance to win the Super Bowl.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you an evil.

Vote your principles.

View Poll Results: Round one of the debates goes to...
Bush	4	16.00%
Kerry	18	72.00%
draw	3	12.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

09-30-2004, 10:52 PM	#1
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	The first debate Who watched it, what did you think? Bush talked alot but didn't say much if you ask me. Debating is not a strength of his that's for sure. Lot's of long pauses, lot's of ummmmm, seemed unsure of himself at times, strange facial expressions when Kerry was speaking, Kerry was stronger tonight IMO. He backs up what he says and doesn't keep circling around like Bush. He was more clear and concise.

10-01-2004, 12:50 AM	#3
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Really it was pretty close, but Kerry is the one trying to catch up and become President, not Bush. Kerry had to have a clear win tonight, and I don't think he did. For that reason I give it to Bush. From a "production" standpoint, I thought it was interesting how little Kerry looked at the camera compared to Bush and how (at least) on NBC there were full shots of Bush but not of Kerry. And in the double-box shot (both of them shown side by side) they adjusted the camera angles so that they looked like they were the same height __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

10-01-2004, 01:33 AM	#4
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 56 Posts: 4,719	Kerry seemed stronger to me (but I must admit that I'm already pro-Kerry). He had (for him) pretty clear answers about his views on Iraq, and he was agressive on criticizing Bush. Bush seemed a little clumsy in his speech (nothing new), and he began to sound like a broken record with his flip-flop claim. He sounded best when talking about people, and when he talked directly about Kerry's daughters, etc. He's clearly much more comfortable on that level, and his strength is seeming like a regular fellow. The incumbent has little to gain from debates, especially when leading in the polls. Kerry got to stand there with the president and show that he's on that level, which I think he did (not so hard with dubya). But I doubt it'll have much effect in the crucial battleground states. Still, we'll see. __________________ Hail from Houston!

10-01-2004, 09:50 AM	#12
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	For those that want to know more: Michael Badnarik __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

09-30-2004, 11:05 PM	#2
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 39 Posts: 7,506	I'm gonna go with Kerry. I'm not a huge political guy, but I have followed this election alot because of the war. I still dont know who I'm voting for yet, but I think Kerry had a stronger night.

10-01-2004, 01:51 AM	#5
Bozzy The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 45 Posts: 1,034	Bush was clumsy, he stuttered, and he acted like an ass. Making dumb comments and rolling his eyes. Kerry was in the zone on all of his talking points.

10-01-2004, 01:52 AM	#6
Bozzy The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 45 Posts: 1,034	oh yeah WHAT ABOUT POLAND?

10-01-2004, 07:19 AM	#7
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	I feel Kerry was stronger, and considering Bush had all of the questions in advance he either didn't do his homework or had no idea what Kerry would say. I want to see Bush man up and accept a debate that the questions aren't revealed in advance.

10-01-2004, 07:52 AM	#9
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,620	i watched it with some other people... the general thought afterwards was kerry looked good if you were a dem, but if you didn't have a preference before, no one really came off as being awesome i didn't like some of what kerry had to say about expanding the military, not because its a bad idea (if we never downsized the army in the first place we'd be hundreds of billions of dollars ahead at this point... contractor deployment for logistics is very expensive), but because for the last thousand years kerry has voted against EVERY SINGLE military spending bill that's been written. On N korea he said he rather give them free nuke plants and then just hope they don't use them for weapons... he wants bilateral talks (which is stupid, china sends N korea a lot of money and helps keep the regime working, they're the country with the most sway, regardless of what politicians may say)... he thinks a missile defense shield is a waste of money, which might be true... but when he says nuke proliferation is the biggest concern and that he wants to reduce america's nuclear reserve, it doesn't make much sense. His talk of nuke reduction made me think he wanted to say "we have no will to retaliate, fire at will"... (bush should have replied that N korea is now able to launch missile at California in defense of a missile shield, but he missed the opportunity) I think he needs to drop the war hero act altogether, he looks and acts like a stuffy politician and his conduct as that point in his life wasn't exactly top notch. kerry cleared up that he wanted saddam out, but he would have handled things differently, but he never said HOW he would have handled it (besides more UN support... russia and france were on the iraqi payroll for military gear during sanctions)... he also seemed to want to put a time table on troop removal regardless of what events may occur, and i don't think thats really reasonable. Overall he didn't come off as very military savy or what have you. his good points were increasing nuke clean up in russia, and stem cell research (neither candidate is great on science... but bush is really bad). bush on the other hand really didn't say much besides that he thought he's done a good job and would like to continue (his opinion), but kerry didn't throw any real knockdown punches, and i don't think either candidate got that many fence sitters here...

10-01-2004, 09:02 AM	#10
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	Both solidified their bases, the key as always is what the swing voters think.

10-01-2004, 09:42 AM	#11
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 51 Posts: 5,311	First let me say that I'm not a fan of either candidate. So you're getting an objective viewpoint here. I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik by the way. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, you really need to familiarize yourselves with some of the other choices out there. It doesn't have to be one or the other, people. To me, the distinction between democrats and republicans is similar to the difference between Coke and Pepsi. That being said, John Kerry is clearly more articulate than Bush, and a more seasoned debater. But I still don't know exactly where he stands on Saddam Hussein, or the war in Iraq. It did seem like Kerry had more to say, more points for Bush to defend, while Bush basically had one answer for everything, "It's hard work, we can't show weakness, blah, blah, blah." Those long pauses that many of you have mentioned, the uncomfortable moments when Bush seems to struggle may actually appeal to more voters than you think. The fact is, most people talk that way. Unless your a politician, I think there are lots of people who realize that Bush sometimes sounds like they would sound in a similar situation. In those ways, Bush may actually identify with more people. By and large, unless you're a passionate Bush Hater, I think the American people are generally forgiving for Bush's lack of polished public speaking abilities. I was anticipating a gaffe, but didn't see one. I thought for sure Bush would stumble ackwardly through the debate, but it never really happened. Neither candidate scored big, and neither really lost it completely. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I was never convinced that Hussein presented the grave threat that many conservatives were apparently so scared about. But does John Kerry really offer a clear alternative? He's not giving us that much of a different option as to how to get out of the mess that's been created. On the points that Bush lost interest in Osama bin Laden and recklessly went after Saddam Hussein, who never attacked us, Kerry clearly won that aspect, while Bush tip-toed, and weaseled his way out of it. If Kerry really drives that point home, then that could be an effective weapon that Bush obviously has no answer for. I'm more interested in domestic affairs, and I can't wait for that debate. Last night's round was a draw in my mind.

10-01-2004, 09:58 AM	#13
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	I'll bet a lot of potential voters fall under this category __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

10-01-2004, 09:59 AM	#14
EEich The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bristol, CT Age: 61 Posts: 1,001	People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all. It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.

The first debate

Parking Lot