I didn’t see who took credit for the ad, but I’m assuming it was a third party ad. Good point. (But still . . . don’t you think they run the ads by the man before airing them?)
One thing was clear from that debate: those two men despise each other.
Since I didn’t see anything of this “debate”.
Hence reading this thread that follows it so to speak by the minute was very amusing.
I almost regret I did not make the effort to watch myself. Don’t know how deep into the nightly hours it was overhere when this funny event was scheduled in the USA, but I’m always in for amusing entertainment.
Salaam. A
Not really - he may believe that life begins at conception, but the vast suffering that could be relieved through preventing unwanted births and curing dread diseases outweighs the very small, possibly zero, suffering that comes from destroying a few-weeks-old embryo. It’s not a traditionally Catholic way of looking at the issue, but many Catholics agree with him.
Bush claimed to believe that life starts at conception, but he still took credit for allowing research on certain existing cell lines. Then he said he would oppose the creation of additional lines from existing frozen embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway. Classic political doublespeak.
Wow, that’s cool. I own General Electric! 
First off, I want to say that our President did much better in this debate, than he did in the first.
… Well, presentation-wise.
If you’re going to contend this, then I contend that Bush alienated “a couple hundred Missourians” by this comment:
As was demonstrated by his little temper-tantrum, earlier in the evening-- when Bush doesn’t agree with you, expect to put up with a lot of screaming and pouting.
[cue music=“segue”]
Speaking of which, I noticed a lot of you pointed out the President’s “episode” (in real-time, heh)-- the first thing that popped into my head, during this, was: “Huh. No wonder this guy doesn’t do well with ‘negotiations’.” I mean, do people see this as behavior that should be demonstrated by the POTUS?
How, pray tell, was this insulting? First, I should clarify-- I don’t think that Kerry was pandering for votes, when he mentioned that he is Catholic. If you think he was, I suggest you take a look at the transcript, and review what he was saying to Sarah Degenhart. Kerry was establishing a common ground between the two (Kerry and Degenhart), so his point could be understood more clearly.
And the fact that Kerry is able to draw a distinction between his religious beliefs, and his role in the government, speaks volumes of the man.
[cue music=“segue”]
Speaking of which, I was really caught off guard by this:
So what we’re being told is that the President doesn’t think Supreme Court justices should allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their decisions… but it’s OK if the President does it. Glad he cleared that up. :rolleyes:
I think Kerry’s main objective with this, was to point out that Bush’s definition of “small businesses” is too broad and general. I think Kerry et al. should really harp on this (“Did the President flat out lie, or is he making so much money he doesn’t even know where some of it comes from?”), especially since most “small businesses” won’t even be affected (at all) by the roll-back.
Finally, I am blatantly disgusted that our President cannot admit to any mistakes. At this point, I would be (at least half-assed) content, if he were to just say “Well… this [shirt] tie doesn’t look too good, tonight.” I don’t think he can wrap his mind around the concept, though; it seems completely lost on him. For example:
Actually, when “they ask about the mistakes”, they are probably “asking about the mistakes”. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in the United States… not Iraq. Yes, Iraq is taking up a lot of your time, but we have many more problems, outside of Iraq. So when we ask about your mistakes, we’re not just asking for you to defend your record on Iraq.
This is just another example, which shows that the President truly does not connect with the populace.
Overall, I was pleased with the debate- it felt like I was watching a genuine debate. By the end, I felt that it had ended in a tie, leaning towards Kerry for presentation (i.e. not stomping his feet to interrupt Gibson) and least amount of factual errors.
I also enjoyed how Bush was very defensive for the first 40 minutes or so (basically, while talking about Iraq). Kerry did a nice job as an attack dog, this second time around.
LilShieste
Or strong opinions on numerous subjects, which sometime are in accord with one candidate and other times are in accord with another. As surprising as it appears to be to many on this board, it is possible to be (a) politically aware; (b) well-read on the history and issues; and © have more than two brain cells, and not adhere to either orthodox religion. (Fundamentalist right-wing Christian or Obsessive Bush-hating lefty)
Are you deliberately missing the point, or have you not bothered to follow the provided links that elucidate the subject?
George W. Bush’s 2001 tax return included $84 in Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship) income for his part ownership in The Lone Star Trust.
Schedule C.
Part ownership.
That is not the same as Dividend Income, which does not qualify someone as a “small business,” as Schedule C income does.
For the sake of full disclosure, however, Bush did switch to reporting his income from The Lone Star Trust as “royalties” in subsequent years. That does not mean that he hasn’t reported a “part ownership” in said company in the past, and declared “Business Income” from it – he has.
Point taken. I’m tempted to say that this administration’s policies are all part of a consistent ideology, and that it would be difficult to support some of them, while rejecting others, but it’s pretty clear that there are a lot of counter-examples out there. The more traditionally conservative elements of the GOP, for example, may have no problems with Bush’s environmental policies, but may be troubled by things like the Patriot Act.
I, on the other hand, find this administration’s policies on damn near everything abhorent, so almost any alternative is preferable.
And, of course, I suppose that if both candidates make your flesh creep… 
BTW, the “Bush-hating lefty” label is really, really tiresome. I don’t hate George Bush. I’m sure he’d be a fun guy to have along on a fishing trip. I’m sure he’d make a super Buick dealer. I just disagree with almost every action his administration has taken, and think he’s the worst President we’ve ever had. There’s no hatred there at all. I just think the man’s completely overmatched by the job.
I’m behind Early Out, here.
There are reasons why I don’t plan to run for U.S. Presidency (well, once I turn 35). I don’t have delusions that I would do a good job, as POTUS. That certainly doesn’t mean I hate myself, though. 
LilShieste
The more I think of it, the more I wish that more time had been spent on environmental issues and that Kerry had done a better job with that. I hope there is more of a chance in the last debate. I think Kerry really needs to make some of the following points:
(1) For the first time in its history, the League of Conservation Voters has placed the President (and Vice President) of the United States on its “dirty dozen” list. By contrast, John Kerry’s lifetime LCV rating was the highest of all the Presidential candidates this year.
(2) I think that Kerry is focussing too much on Kyoto when global warming comes up. Given the U.S. citizenry’s general skepticism about international treaties and the general respect that John McCain has amongst swing voters, Kerry should focus on the fact that the Bush Administration strongly opposed the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship bill, a bill that proposed a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (but whose caps were considerably weaker than Kyoto’s).
(3) When Bush brings up the bogeyman of lost jobs in regards to Kyoto or the McCain-Lieberman bill, Kerry ought to say, “Well, Mr. President, under your administration we’ve lost jobs and we still haven’t done anything significant to address climate change, so I’d say you are batting 0 for 2.”
Fine…So, maybe you are right that Kerry underestimated the number in the audience who would be affected. Seems plausible although we really don’t know. I still don’t see how this amounts to him talking down to people.
I agree. What he should be hitting especially hard are the environmental issues that people of all political stripes often agree on. The Bush administration has taken a number of actions designed to weaken enforcement of the laws on clean water and clean air, they’re pushing for more extractive activity in the national forests, in wilderness areas, in wildlife refuges, and even in national parks. “More snowmobiles in Yellowstone” seems to be the rallying cry. Yet poll after poll shows that a substantial majority of the American public is opposed to these policies. The Dems should be doing a better job of capitalizing on that sentiment.
Thank your lucky stars that he didn’t produce it - right there on stage - and invite Kerry to a measuring contest.
I always thought he had a rolled up pair of sports socks strategically positioned in that flight suit . Sort of ’ I’m your president - aren’t I well equipped to do the job?’
Well things did make quite a turn since Bush made some of those promises. President’s shouldn’t make promises about things they have little/no control over. You can’t promise jobs, but you can promise to execute plans that, in theory, should create them. The only egregiously disingenous part of Bush’s responses was the claim that he wouldn’t prevent US citizens from buying Canadian drugs if they were deemed “safer.” Bush’s promises can theoretically be done. There is no possible way for Kerry to deliver on what he’s promised so either he’s pandering or naive. My guess is pandering.
First: I’m sorry, has Bush actually said what he is going to do to halve the deficit? I will grant that the rollbacks of the Bush tax cuts, if they entirely went towards the deficit, wouldn’t halve it… but all I’ve heard from Bush is “more tax cuts”. And, as we saw in Iowa, last week, these tax cuts are just being added (that is, negative number + negative number) to the deficit.
Bush said that we need to supervise the spending done by Congress, Kerry thinks so too. Kerry plans to be more vigilant, in filtering the types of spending that gets approved, though. Doesn’t sound “impossible” to me.
Kerry says that there are corporate tax loopholes that can be closed, which can save about $80 billion. Doesn’t sound “impossible” to me.
And what problems do you have with the way Kerry has proposed to fund his health care plan? I think they’re completely feasible. (Hell, a lot more feasible than requiring elderly people acclimate to using the “Internets” to take advantage of the one put forth by the Bush administration.)
LilShieste
Lies, damned lies, and the lying liars who tell them…
You can guess the rest, but go look anyway…
Why is this a surprise?
Bush: Despises Kerry for (a) criticizing him and (b) wanting his job.
Kerry: Despises Bush for running this nation into the ground.
rjung, that was just my impression from watching the two men on the stage together. I sensed a kind of personal animosity that wasn’t there when, say, Clinton and Dole or Reagan and Carter debated.