Bush-Kerry Debate: Watch Along Thread

[El_Kabong]

I love these threads.

Disclaimer: I’m generally pro-Kerry (or more accurately, anti Bush). General impression: advantage Kerry, but not the slam dunk many predicted, and I say this despite the fact that I thought Bush gave a cringeworthy, frankly disastrous accounting of himself.

I made a personal attempt to judge the reponses purely on content, accuracy and fact, although I had to guess at times as I had no way of fact-checking during the debate. If anyone cares, I scored advantage Kerry on 11 of the questions (2-4; 6-10;15, 18), advantage Bush on four (1, 5, 13, 16), neither on two questions (11, 14) and both on one (17, the one about what the greatest current threat is).

Overall, I was somewhat disappointed that so many of Lehrer’s questions were on Iraq and terror; yes, it’s a big deal, but these are clearly not the only major issues engaging US foreign policy, and I feel that the US has become unhealthily fixated on these issues. I was also disappointed by the lack of detail in most of Kerry’s responses as to how he would improve the situation in Iraq, and I am downright disgusted as to how both candidates (and the American people, apparently) can only see this conflict in terms of how many American lives have been lost. Lehrer centered question 10 around whether the loss of 1000 troops had been worth it, without the slightest hint that more than ten times that number of Iraqi civilians have died since the US invaded.

Where Kerry did best was in parrying the “flip-flopper” issue (brought up by Bush at least six times by my count), on pushing GWB’s buttons (especially early in the debate), and by generally delivering coherent answers Where Bush came off best was, well, not often, IMO, but mainly where he was able to express that he did in fact appear to seriously consider some of the ramifications of his actions as president after all.

Best howlers of the night: “Moo-lahs”, “mexed missages”. I was weeping with laughter.

Biggest, er, misstatements of the night: Kerry: North Korea obtained nukes while Bush fiddled post-9/11; Bush: justifying Iraq invasion by saying "the enemy attacked us.

Worst overall moment: the unbearably platitudinous closing remarks.

[Mehitabel]

Toddling off to bed, visions of Jim Lehrer dancing in my head. Love to see what the Overseas Dopers will think when they wake up. The Beeb has a video up.

[Wile_E]

@Frostillicus

I hate to break the bad news to you, but Iraq is not free. They are currently occupied by a foreign army that has set up a puppet government to do its wishes.

And in 10 years whomever we put in charge will be our sworn enemy. Another Osama or Saddam in the making.

[Sam_Stone]

Diogenes the Cynic said:

I think that Kerry basically did the equivalent of converting a fourth down in the last two minutes of a football game. If he had failed, the game would have been over. He stayed in the game and got a fresh set of downs.

Best description so far. That’s exactly what happened. Bush was playing defense, and Kerry needed to break through to stay in the game. He did.

About this business about Republicans and Democrats ‘spinning’ for their guy. I hope no one does that on this board. I think sometimes we confuse ourselves for pundits. Their job is to spin, because they are talking to large audiences and trying to sway them. Our job on the internet is to cut through the spin and speak our minds. I’ve never ‘spun’ anything for the President - if I agree with something he does, it’s because I agree with it. If he does something stupid, I’ll say so.

Too many of us just draw sides and blindly support ‘our guy’. That doesn’t serve the cause of fighting ignorance. So I hope that if Kerry had lost the debate, the Kerry supporters here would be willing to say so.

[pantom]

An actual substantive debate. Shocking.
Kerry should’ve beaten up on him for quite a few more things than he did. Bush needs to learn to think on his feet.
I think they both “hammered” their talking points way too hard, but it didn’t get too much in the way of an excellent give and take on the issues.
I can’t figure out for the life of me why Kerry thinks bilateral talks with North Korea are a good thing. They’re an extremely minor country, and Kim Jong Il would freakin’ wet himself on the prestige he’d gain by having his government recognized as an equal partner with the US. Big points for Bush on that, especially since it’s a point of difference that shows what Kerry would do that is clearly different from Bush. But not in a good way, IMO.
Overall, a win for Kerry in that he differentiated himself from Bush and did find a way to explain his Iraq position and score points on Bush on that issue, which is the decider in this election. I’ve thought that Kerry hadn’t yet given the voters a reason to vote for him; at least he managed that tonight. That may be all he needs; we’ll see.
That Korea thing was disturbing to me, though.

[PatriotX]

@Diogenes the Cynic

'Trial lawyers." Drink

You don’t get the memos. It’s “personal injury lawyers”

[Sevastopol]

@xtisme

What effect, if any, will this have on the polls? There was some talk that if Kerry didn’t handle this well or if Bush looked really good that this could have been the knockout blow. It didn’t happen and Kerry definitely won this one. So…will this effect the polls?

-XT

I think so. Many people aren’t as engaged in the election process until about now. Kerry’s real task is to present himself as a credible alternative. The time to do that starts now. There is a short window of opportunity while the apathy recedes. If Kerry pitches himself creditably, now while people are listening, then it has to have an effect on voting intentions.

Not immediately though. Pay no attention to the first polls. In a few days. All IMHO of course.

[jshore]

I’m sort of reminded of the Saturday Night Live skit of the 1988 debates between Bush and Dukakis where Bush is constantly repeating the mantra, “Stay the course…We’re on the right track…” and at some point Dukakis says, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”

On the other hand, Dukakis did lose. So, I ain’t going to try to make any predictions of what will happen as a result of this debate. I don’t see how Kerry can’t get some bounce in the polls but I don’t know how big it will be.

Biggest, er, misstatements of the night: Kerry: North Korea obtained nukes while Bush fiddled post-9/11

Not sure what part of this you are objecting to exactly, although I will repeat my own pet-peeve on this that I have aired many times: North Korea claims they have nukes. While we should take this claim seriously, it does not mean that we should necessarily believe it to be definitively true. There are other opinions:

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: LOTS OF “BEWARE-OF-DOG” SIGNS - BUT FEW DOGS.
“The first liar,” they say in Texas, “hasn’t got a chance.” All around the world, petty tyrants keep their hands under the table and try to look like they’re holding a weapon. Sig Hecker, the former head of Los Alamos Lab who visited North Korea’s nuclear facilities (WN 16 Jan 04), briefed a Senate Committee Wednesday. He is unconvinced that they have the bomb. Curiously, North Korea denies it has a uranium enrichment program as the U.S. charges. Instead, they claim to have extracted plutonium from spent fuel rods, but nothing is known of its isotopic composition, if indeed it is plutonium. A Pu bomb is far more difficult to build than a U bomb and there is nothing to indicate they can do it. But even as North Korea brandishes weapons it doesn’t have, Libya, which had only recently declared it had a nuclear program, has now announced its program is being dismantled in an effort to have sanctions lifted from the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who toured the Libyan sites, says there wasn’t much to dismantle. Libya, it now appears, was nowhere near large-scale enrichment.

(I gave the full thing here because the Libya part is also of interest given Bush’s repeated mention of it. I think he is taking far too much credit for something that was already well in motion before he became President…On the other hand, I guess that’s what all Presidents do regarding good things that happen on their watch.)

[LilShieste]

@Tigers2B1

Tag this thread! I’ll refer back to it once Straightdope posters talk about how biased FOX is when referring to Bush. Never seen FOX used so much in support of a position a poster wants to make.

:laughter:

Oh, that was rich. If that’s the only thing you can present, to show that someone is not biased in a certain direction… it ain’t gonna go far.

@vanilla

I say Lehrer won the debate.

I would have to disagree… he couldn’t keep control over the other two.

Overall, this debate really surprised me. I was starting to get worried about how Kerry was going to do in this. About 80% of the time, Bush was stumbling over his own words/statements, or following Kerry wherever he took the debate. I don’t see how people can claim that this debate was “close”.

One of the candidates displayed a lot of leadership, and initiative (and a lack of hesitation), and it certainly was not the POTUS.

That being said: of course it wasn’t the equivalent of a “knock-out” or a “home run”, or anything. I don’t think there is anything that Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) could have said in this debate that would have constituted either of those things.

LilShieste

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

Too many of us just draw sides and blindly support ‘our guy’. That doesn’t serve the cause of fighting ignorance. So I hope that if Kerry had lost the debate, the Kerry supporters here would be willing to say so.

I would pefer to see Kerry win… obviously you and I cannot be “supporters” per se… and to be honest, I EXPECTED him to lose. I really, honestly believed Bush would be much, much better (since he was way better in 2000, why wouldn’t you expect him to be better than he was tonight?) and I was all ready to write the post announcing Kerry was doomed.

[Psycho_Pirate]

Kerry had better speaking ability, but he again contradicted himself on his previous positions. He also made many useless points.

Example: “Just because the President says bilateral talks won’t work, doesn’t mean they won’t work.” No duh. And guess what, Frankenpumpin? Just because you suggest that it will work doesn’t mean that it actually will work.

Bush is not as eloquent a speaker as Kerry, but he speaks from the heart. He has convictions of how to protect our country, whereas Kerry changes his position for political expediency and global popularity. Kerry says he is going to build a coalition: How? It’s not like we didn’t try, but the other countries who had sweet oil deals with Iraq (Bonjour, mes amis!) would never have supported us.

I’d cede this as a slight victory on technical points to Kerry, but Kerry was disingenuous about Bush’s reason for going to Iraq. Bush did not mislead the American people. At worst, he was misled by bad intelligence. Overall, this debate was a draw.

And 1000 lives is worth peace in Iraq. 100,000 lives is worth peace in Iraq.

And finally, Kerry did say that Bush lied in Dec. 2003 about going to Iraq, so once again the flip flopper did what he did best. He lied and flip flopped.

I’m pro-Bush by the way. Can’t ya tell?

[Gaudere]

Ba-jeebus, I take time off to watch the debates and I get a 380+ page to read through?

I thought it was funny that Bush’s first words were “9/11”. (There was the one article that showed Bush approval rising markedly in people after reading about 9/11 but damned if I can find it now. Will see if I can track it down, sorry.) I’m sure that’s a drink in some drinking game.

Whoever came up with the thumb-pointing, yes, I understand people don’t like the finger-pointing, but man is that unnatural.

I’m glad both mentioned a few actual stats that can be checked. Maybe it’s my GD training but all this “I will do better!” “No, I will do better!” doesn’t mean much without some facts. You can say whatever you like…let’s see some cites and plans. Too much empty rhetoric but I guess that’s what we’re stuck with. Maybe someday the debates will be held on a message board and we can really check these guys out… Can you imagine the SDMB Debates?

[Tigers2B1]

@Psycho Pirate

…I’m pro-Bush by the way. Can’t ya tell?

Well, so far that’s 388 to 4. Typical.

[LilShieste]

@Psycho Pirate

Example: “Just because the President says bilateral talks won’t work, doesn’t mean they won’t work.” No duh. And guess what, Frankenpumpin? Just because you suggest that it will work doesn’t mean that it actually will work.

First off, I don’t see how this “contradicts” Kerry’s point. Kerry is merely showing people that the president has a much different idea of “exhausting his options” than he would lead us to believe.

Kerry says he is going to build a coalition: How? It’s not like we didn’t try, but the other countries who had sweet oil deals with Iraq (Bonjour, mes amis!) would never have supported us.

What do you mean, “How?” He’s mentioned the specifics several times (and that’s just in this one night)-- we need to get our allies back onto our side of the table. I don’t think that Bush did try to do that, and I don’t think that he is really interested in trying to repair those broken alliances either; he seems quite content with our current “coalition”. Example (paraphrased, slightly): “Oh, and don’t forget Poland!!”

And finally, Kerry did say that Bush lied in Dec. 2003 about going to Iraq, so once again the flip flopper did what he did best. He lied and flip flopped.

Anyone who uses the term “flip-flopper”, of “waffler” when referring to Kerry on the Iraq war after this debate, really didn’t pay any attention to any of Kerry’s statements tonight.

LilShieste

[Guinastasia]

@Psycho Pirate

And 1000 lives is worth peace in Iraq. 100,000 lives is worth peace in Iraq.

Peace in Iraq? We’re nowhere near peace in Iraq. I shudder to think of what that place is gonna be like ten years from now.

Mark my words-this is gonna bite us in the ass someday.

Oh, and I want to have John Stewart’s child. (Yeah, I know he’s married. But a girl can dream, can’t she?)

[Salem]

When Bush said something to the effect that he knew ‘how those guys think’ in reference to dealing with other world leaders, Kerry shot back that that he (Kerry) had twenty years of experience in dealing with those guys. It made me think about how little Kerry’s long-term political experience seems to be in the spotlight. I would think that the Kerry camp would be holding that over Bush Jr’s politically virginal head a bit more.

[jshore]

@Psycho Pirate

He has convictions of how to protect our country, whereas Kerry changes his position for political expediency and global popularity

And your evidence for this is…?

Kerry says he is going to build a coalition: How? It’s not like we didn’t try, but the other countries who had sweet oil deals with Iraq (Bonjour, mes amis!) would never have supported us.

Well, one way is to get to a point where most everyone agrees there is an impasse in diplomacy rather than just cutting it off at some point and rushing to war.

And, given how the war has gone and the subsequent rewarding of contracts to Halliburton and the relative priorities placed on securing oil-related facilities vs. securing potential WMD sites, I wouldn’t harp too much on ulterior motives if I was in your shoes

I’d cede this as a slight victory on technical points to Kerry, but Kerry was disingenuous about Bush’s reason for going to Iraq. Bush did not mislead the American people. At worst, he was misled by bad intelligence. Overall, this debate was a draw.

We’ve discussed this at great length in other threads. While there was bad intelligence on the existence of WMDs, Bush still exaggerated what the intelligence actually said. And, he refused to find out what the truth was by letting the inspections continue…at a time, by the way, when it was becoming more and more apparent to Hans Blix that U.S. intelligence didn’t know what they were talking about since the leads they were providing for where to look weren’t panning out.

But, where Bush really misled was on things like the seriousness and immediacy of a threat that Saddam’s supposed WMDs posed. For example, he repeatedly harped on the spector of Saddam giving them to terrorists even though the CIA and company were telling him that this was a very unlikely scenario since it would be dumb from a self-interest point-of-view and would be going against the grain of someone who is used to absolute control…It is the ultimate surrender of control.

And, he misled on the connections of Al Qaeda and Saddam and of Al Qaeda and 9/11. It is a known fact from polling that many Americans believed manifestly false things as a result of his deceptive statements and the way he kept linking these together in what he said (and does to this day).

[RTFirefly]

How many times did Bush say something was “hard work”? Probably only about 132 gazillion.

Must’ve been trying to dispel his lingering image as Slacker-In-Chief.

[RTFirefly]

@Bear_Nenno

I disagree. Freedom is worth 1,000 lives. It is easily worth 1,000 lives. Ask anyone who has ever NOT had freedom. Ask anyone in the past who has had to fight for their freedom. Throughout history people have risked death for the chance at freedom.
That they are not Americans, and that these lives are Americans. . . A life is a life.
Blessed are the peace keepers.

Absolutely.

If we could bring freedom to the Iraqis, the sacrifice of those lives would be worth it. But the chances that we could have done that, even before fucking up the reconstruction, were slim and none. Then we went and made things worse.

[Salem]

Well it is hard work getting the braver than the bravest of braves to love the widows of the worthy without flip-flopping and sending mexed missages so that freedom from the attacking Iraqi can reign with the help of the Big 4 Coalition, including Poland, in this post-September 10 world. Hard work, indeed.