Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Bush almost never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Kerry rolled his eyes when he realized that, immediately after the 10:1 remark, he contradicted himself by saying we didn’t send enough troops into Iraq.

Kerry said that we did not send enough troops into Iraq to get the job done, but who says he would have gone into Iraq anyways, at least not until we were through with Afghanistan, and Iraq posed a serious threat.

Oh, and I'd just like to point out a history-anecdote for you all. The same exact thing happened after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, where Austria-Hungary told its citizens that Serbia had sponsored terrorism, (despite all the facts saying otherwise) and used that to invade Serbia. This invasion of Serbia, then, triggered what we call World War I.

And there is a term that Bush continues to use in this debate and in his RNC speech that really, really scares me, and that's "the broader middle east." He's not talking about just Iraq, this could include expansion into Iran and other nations, which would really spell trouble. Not to mention a draft would be needed, and I'd be in said draft.

Back to the point, Kerry won hands down. Bush paused and stuttered, and what someone said earlier about not having good skills in a debate doesn't affect a president's ability to lead. Contrary to that, however, I think it most certainly does, for this shows that he cannot think on his feet without his advisors nearby, and we need a president who can make the right decisions in good enough time to be effective, and Bush just doesn't show that. And whenever Bush asked for an extra 30 seconds of rebuttal, he couldn't think of anything, or just repeated the same old rhetoric, too.

Kerry, however, missed a couple of chances to pin Bush down, so to speak. The most noteworthy of these times was at the last question before closing arguments, where Bush had his 30 second rebuttal. The question concerned nuclear proliferation and North Korea, but Bush switched to talking about Hussein, completely skipping the point of the argument. I think Kerry should have called him on the spot right there, pointing that this shows the narrow-minded personal agenda of Bush.

[MikeDubreuil]

I think that Kerry won the debate. I thought many times Bush looked foolish in his answers. Either he couldn't find the correct words or he's made dumb faces. Surface level garbage aside, Bush was not good at attacking Kerry.

Bush persistanly said Kerry changes positions because of politics. However, he never gave a solid example. Something the Kerry campaign should focus on is that Kerry has changed positions. That's not due to politics, that is due to new intelligence. When we went to war with Iraq the intelligence was astonishly incorrect. Of course we want to go to war when the CIA is saying Saddam has biological weopons, weopons of mass destruction, and might start a nuclear program. However, once we realized that intelligence was incorrect Kerry changed how he felt about our invasion of Iraq, everyone did - except right wing nut jobs.

One thing I do agree with is that Kerry alluded to the fact that the Bush campaign is trying to make Americans see the situation in Iraq with rose colored glasses. This website has two great articles written by a soldier and a journalist currently in Iraq which gives you a better idea of the true state of Iraq.

[Tytus Gerrish]

ok, i see lots of biast remarks and predisposition in this thead. im going to be as nutral as possible.

Kerry- spoke with determination and did not have to spend much time thinking about what he was going to say

Bush- Had a slight sence of humor witch was nice. though he speaks like he dosent know what hees talking about. Im not saying that he dosen't

Kerry- accused that troops were used to gaurd the oil assets in iraq. when they could have been used in other places where weapons could have been found.

Bush- Didn't defend that by saying that the troops were gauarding the oil so that it would still be there to rebuild Iraq's econmy. Infact I don't think it ever occured to him

kerry- had a Multitude of information to give and it easily flowed out of his mouth

Bush- seemed to have little to actually say , had troubble sayinjg it, and repeated it often

Kerry- made a few remarks that were in fact, not true

Bush- Made a few remarks that were in fact, not true

Kerry- Showed Love For Florida All right

Bush- also showed love for florida but when he did Kerry had already used up all the effectiveness of it

Kerry- Displayed his knoledge of the individual solders problems in iraq and pleded to equipt them with better armor

Bush- nearly completely avoided the subject

on a side note Don't you think its kinda stupid for Assualt weapons to be legal in this country while their trying to make it illegal to buy body armor?

kerry- defended himself with well thought out sentenses

Bush- defended himself with a few facts though he sounded like a child when he's in troubble and wines about his inosence.

kerry- Displayed how he wouls be a good leader

bush- Displayed How he was a good leader


While being as nutral as possible and considdering everything that both said and also realising where they were incorect and where they were correct. John kerry was in my opinion was the victor of the debate

Although im niether fan, id say that Kerry won the debate, just because hes a better speaker than Bush. I think Kerry was a smart aleck yesturday. Did anyone notice, that they never showed Kerry's facial expressions as bush was talking? But when Kerry was talking theyd have a split screen where theyd show both Kerry and Bush. I think Nadar should be in this debate. He'd kick butt. Bush nor Kerry should win presidency. Its not like theyll ever keep their promises of what they will do if they win. I think its time for the U.S to have a girl president.
-Court-

[Jeff Rodriguez]

OK, my first question to everyone is: Did you watch the debate on a network, or did you watch it on C-Span? The C-Span feed never changed camera angles and always showed a split screen of the candidates. I have talked to several people who watched a network broadcast, which switched camera angles. Watching the split screen lets you see the candidates initial reactions to each other.
In the future, please watch the C-Span feed.

What stood out the most to me was the question about Kerry accusing Bush of lying about the WMDs in Iraq. To Kerry's discredit, he didn't use the work 'lye', making his point weaker. He should use strong words on his strong beliefs, which, I think, this is one of. To Bush's discredit, he didn't respond to the question. He responded by saying that Kerry flip-flops. He didn't answer any of the allegations. Big mistake.

Again, the same think happened when asked about preemptive military actions. One of Karry's main points was that Bush didn't use US troops to capture Osama Bin Laden. Instead, he used Afghanis warlords. Again, Bush didn't respond to Kerry. He repeated himself, stating that Saddam was a threat and would have had WMDs. He didn't answer Kerry's allegations. Strike 2.

On the other side, Kerry didn't elaborate much on his plans. This has already been discussed so there's no reason to go into it more. He did plug his website, though, and refer people there to fond more answers.

During the question about homeland security, Bush seemed to be using scare tactics on the American people, stating that the Patriot Act needs to be renewed or else we'll get attacked again. Scare tactics don't sit well with me.

And perhaps the biggest disagreement between the two of the night, North Korea. Kerry wants Bilateral talks, Bush wants six point talks and use China's leverage. It's up to you to decide which plan you think would be best.

Again, please watch the C-Span feeds of debates.

[Greg Ross]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Well, besides my democart bias, the thing is that when your presdient gets the date for 9/11 wrong (9/10 according to him) you start to worry.

His exact words (according to MSNBC's rush transcript) were:

That wasn‘t going to work. That‘s kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.

He was referring to the way things were prior to September 11, 2001.

[Joe Ross]

[quote=gwross]His exact words (according to MSNBC's rush transcript) were:

That wasn‘t going to work. That‘s kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.[/quote
He was referring to the way things were prior to September 11, 2001.

But, pre-September 11th would have just as accurate (or more accurate), unless he was implying that things were different on September 10th.

I definetly think that Kerry did a better job. Bush did great at his convention, but I don't think that carried through.

I'm not voting for either, though.

[Greg Ross]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

But, pre-September 11th would have just as accurate (or more accurate), unless he was implying that things were different on September 10th.

True. But I think he simply stumbled in his word choice between "pre-September 11th mentality" and "September 10th mentality". Do you know anyone who makes similar speaking errors? I do, and I love her very much.

I definetly think that Kerry did a better job. Bush did great at his convention, but I don't think that carried through.

I agree that Kerry is a more polished extemporaneous speaker, but in no way has he convinced me I should vote for him.

I'm not voting for either, though.

One of them is going to win (he stated categorically.) Does it really make no difference at all to you which one wins? If you vote for neither, you are, in essence, ceding your vote to someone who disagrees with you.

[Tristan Lall]

So I'm going to jump in as well: I say Kerry won.

• Kerry repeatedly reminded the audience that the so-called war on terrorism was originally intended a campaign against terrorists, and not against merely oppressive governments. Bush was unfortunately stuck with his own record as an incumbent, and couldn't, even if he wanted to, have agreed.
• Kerry did much to dispel the notions of flip-floppery over Iraq, by stating clearly that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat, but disagreed with the actions taken by the current administration.
• Kerry also firmly argued that he prefers that a "strong coalition", with a balanced commitment from several nations, working together in fighting terrorism (and the like)--this in contrast to Bush's (in my opinion, hollow and unjustified) contention that the coalition of America, Great Britain and Australia (and later Poland) was just as effective.
• Kerry made a commitment to work against nuclear proliferation everywhere, noting American hypocrisy regarding anti-bunker munitions (tactical nuclear devices, not strictly WMDs!); Bush restricted that to nucular [sic ] devices in the hands of terrorists (and presumably "rogue states")--he did not encourage nuclear disarmament in general.
• Bush's statements about the International Criminal Court were practically criminal themselves, in their insensitivity and gross disregard for the opinions of non-Americans. To claim that the courts are a sham and that the officers of the court are not held accountable for their actions sends an intolerable message--that Americans are the only arbiters of justice, in his view. (This was a minor issue, but from a non-American's perspective, it reveals much about the underlying bias against the involvement of the world in American affairs.)
• Bush's diction was more stilted than Kerry's, and he was responsible for a number of awkward pauses. Though his abilities as a leader aren't affected by awkward pauses, his image as a public speaker was tarnished.
• Bush's repetitious nature has been wearing on me (less so Kerry, but that could be bias talking), and this debate seemed to introduce no new ideas from the Republican camp. This could have something to do with their "stay the course" policies.
• On a related note, Bush said that he was steadfast and unshakable in his core beliefs; Kerry said that his opinion changed as his knowledge and experience changed. Isn't it funny that this in some fashion parallels the difference in opinion between religious fundamentalism and secular humanism (in that one has everlasting, unimpeachable beliefs and the other has everchanging and inherently imperfect beliefs)....In any event, I'm not insinuating anything--it's just an observation.
• Kerry repeatedly pushed the idea that Bush made wrong decisions. I think that this makes for a very compelling strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign--show that Bush made (in his opinion) the wrong decision, with the same evidence available to him (as Bush repeatedly pointed out, to his own detriment, I'd say).
• Kerry, on several points, got a "free pass" when Bush was seemingly caught off guard by Lehrer (the moderator) telling him to take 30 seconds to make another statement; Bush was often reduced to repeating himself, while Kerry usually (but not always) managed to get in some further content. Bush also rambled incoherently when he brought up the anecdote about the lady whose son had been to war--it may have been sentimental, but it allowed Kerry to capitalize on that point.

To Kerry's disadvantage, however:

• Kerry did not speak clearly about his "global test". I think (and would hope that) he meant that Americans would allow the needs of other nations' peoples to influence his decisions--but at least it was clear that domestic matters would be primarily decided by domestic needs; that's fair enough. In any event, Bush ridiculed it, and because of the shaky support by Kerry, this issue could find itself sticking around.
• Kerry couldn't provide an exact synopsis of his plans in Iraq. To be fair, two minutes to explain a totally new policy is next-to-impossible, but he will still be dogged endlessly by this point unless he clarifies it at the earliest opportunity. To his credit, he did clarify that it was, in his opinion, possible to withdraw from Iraq, starting in 6 months; he did not make a firm commitment--interpret that as you will.

So as a practical matter, why was a Canadian watching an American debate? How many Americans can even name the Canadian Prime Minister? (To use an oft-repeated--in Canada, at least--but slightly disingenuous question.) It's because the rest of the world (including the U.S.A.) matters; it ought to concern more Americans what's going on in the world, and I don't think Bush has covered that issue adequately. Kerry has done better, but the current exclusivist mentality in much of America doesn't lend itself to earning votes through appeals to the world community.

The debate which was allegedly devoted to foreign policy had much to do with inherently domestic issues. This brand of terrorism isn't so much a foreign policy issue, for it's clear that terrorism against Americans is the only terrorism that was dealt with in the debate (excepting the very last question, in which Russia was briefly mentioned). Though that terrorism occurs primarily in foreign areas occupied by Americans, a proper "leader of the free world" (self-styled as that may be) would likely be expected to address terrorism wherever it exists, and not merely against those places that are politically expedient. This is a bitter pill for Americans (and likely everyone involved), but anything less makes it painfully obvious to those who observe world events that much of the "good fight" is bravado and posturing for the domestic market. I would say that Bush is guilty of it, and he is not alone among American presidents in that judgement. Neither is America alone in that situation--even Canada has been known to put its selfish interests above humanitarian needs. Even so, in whatever small ideological measure it represents, it would be a moral (and probably Pyrrhic) victory for Kerry if he were to choose to work with the world to solve its problems and earn the "leader of the free world" title. It's a slightly naïve wish, but given time, that's the direction that America should be heading. The current America-first policy is appalling, and undermines everything that the United Nations (and the League before it) did for the world--America renders them irrelevant by simply ignoring them, and in so doing, harms the citizenry of the world, and earns the adulation of around 50% of the American population. What a strange country America can be, sometimes.

In the interests of disclosure, it is probably obvious that my political opinions are more closely aligned with Kerry than with Bush--nevertheless, I have no party line to maintain, and have made an effort to remain lucid and fair in my assessments. Even so, one must always remember that bias is everywhere--discovering and interpreting bias is therefore a most critical skill.

(And as an administrative matter, I noticed that there was at least one similar response in the other debate thread--it wasn't a poll, so I think it's fair to create a new thread for that purpose, and to discuss this debate specifically).

[Joe Matt]

Here's a /. article on how Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq.

http://politics.slashdot.org/politic...id=226&tid=103

[Bill Gold]

I didn’t want to start a new thread on political issues, but if moderators want to split this off that’s fine by me.

President Bush seems to have an uncanny knack for counting his chickens before they hatch (and he doesn’t even want to use the stem cells from the ones that don’t hatch for medical research, either*).

In their first debate he famously nit-pickingly corrected Kerry by warning him not to forget Poland in the “Coalition of the Willing.” Just days later Poland announced a time table for pulling all of their troops out of Iraq.

In their second debate President Bush held up Afghanistan as if it were some sort of model of how we can succeed in impressing democracy upon people. This morning the 15 candidates campaigning against interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai have denounced Afghanistan’s elections as fraudulent and illegitimate. This doesn’t bode well for the current administration, if this is any indication of how elections might occur in Iraq in January (assuming they aren’t delayed or cancelled entirely due to violence and instability).

What claim or statement will backfire on him next Wednesday?

* - This zinger has been brought to you in whole by the one and only Jim Gold!

[Jack Jones]

Last night the candidates had the chance to present their case to the common people. Kerry made their “common-ness” clear when he pointed out that his tax hike would not apply to the audience, just to the three rich guys on the stage.

One thing we know for sure is that it’s the commoners who collectively adjudicate common sense. One tenant of such is to recognize that hindsight is 20/20. Who among them does not know at least one Monday morning quarterback? How many have read Thomas Paine’s lament about times that try men’s soles and the summertime soldiers and the sunshine patriots who succumb to those times? How many will not put two and two together and recognize Kerry for what he is?

It’s probably true that few, if any, in the audience went to Ivy League schools. But they know how to add. As much as the have-nots are inclined to envy, they will come to the conclusion that Kerry cannot cure all of our ills by bleeding the rich. They will realize that it’s their doctor, builder, lawyer, plumber, and maybe the grass cutter who’ll get hit first. They will know sure as anything that the cost will get passed on to them. They will know that it’s still not enough.

Will they be happy to find they’ve entered the ranks of the wealthy once the Kerry tax hike applies directly to them?

Common sense tells us that health insurance for all will not make us all healthy. The evidence of that is seen across our northern border, where a government committee decides how many hip replacements there will be every year – irrespective of how many people actually need one. We see that the overflow – the ones who can afford to – have to come to America. Common economic sense tells us that Kerry’s plan to pump money into the health care demand side would only work to drive up the market-clearing price of insurance. So, the thousand dollars per person would end up enriching only the likes of BC&BS – who, by the way, could then better afford to enrich the ambulance chasers who are sucking us dry.

There’s a line in a film about the quintessential common man that goes: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.” How many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George? Is it not obvious to them also that Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry. History is rife with instances where the common man would revolt against the Aristocrats who would “let them eat cake.” I can’t imagine the heart of America endearing a First Lady who would have them “go naked for a while.” Common sense tells us to judge a man by the company he keeps.

At the end of the day, common sense should tell us that Bush won the October 8 debate.

[Adam Y.]

In their first debate he famously nit-pickingly corrected Kerry by warning him not to forget Poland in the “Coalition of the Willing.” Just days later Poland announced a time table for pulling all of their troops out of Iraq.

Well if you really want to get nitpicky..... It's not thirty countries like Bush and Cheney said but 24 that are allied with us in Iraq. Six dropped out.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

My posting history is enough for anyone to know who I would think won. I will leave it at that.

This is another political thread about how much Kerry or Bush is an idiot and how the country will be in shambles if one or the other is elected. Thus warned: let me take Tytus's fine example (seriously, he has the neutrality thing well done I believe) and attempt to analyze.

Stage presence:
Debate 1) President Bush was nervous and Senator Kerry didn't appear nervous.
Debate 2) President Bush was much more confident, Senator Kerry remained roughly the same.

Information Flow:
Debate 1) President Bush stated some true and untrue facts. Senator Kerry stated some true and untrue facts.
Debate 2) President Bush stated some true and untrue facts, Senator Kerry stated some true and untrue facts.

Demeanor:
Debate 1) President Bush attacked Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry attacked President Bush.
Debate 2) President Bush attacked Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry attacked President Bush.

"Who won" is merely a question of what side you vote for. I haven't seen deviation from original party standpoints since we started debating this election on Chief Delphi. Despite lead changes, which are also biased, I feel it is more appropriate to view these debates as a form of education on President Bush's and Sentor Kerry's plans and platforms. My biggest interest as well as what my family has told me is domestic issues, which will be discussed in the final debate. I look forward to it.

[Tristan Lall]

Jack, you win the award for most frequent use of the word "common" in a single post, however, common sense does not equal good sense. If (hypothetically) you lived in a nation of fools, would you advocate fools' sense? You are appealing to popularity (a logical fallacy) by claiming that Kerry ignores common sense, when you ought to be claiming that he ignores good sense (which is hopefully quantifiable, and not necessarily subject to the whims of a largely ill-informed populace).

Incidentally, regarding Canada, it is disingenuous to state that "a government committee decides how many hip replacements there will be every year". It isn't a matter of the government putting down a number, and the surgeons following it--it is a matter of the surgeons doing their procedures, and the government keeping track of the number performed, then budgeting resources to cover the cost of about the same number of procedures in the next year. In essence, they are fundamentally in touch with the needs of the patients, rather than conceiving of arbitrary funding formulae. Because of the larger influence of government, the public healthcare system requires patients to take a place in line and wait for their (major) procedures, rather than paying their way to the front of the line (as is often possible in America, with private clinics and the like). Of course, if it is medically necessary to have a procedure performed forthwith, it is done (and still paid for by the government) without any further questions asked. Waiting in line may be frustrating and painful, but consider that by paying your way ahead, you're simply prolonging the same situation in those who cannot afford to jump the line. (Note that partaking of the services of a private clinic is the same, since it could just as well perform the procedure on a poor person, as on a rich one.) This isn't just a matter of liberalism or conservatism, it's most importantly a matter of ethics.

In Canada (specifically Ontario), health insurance is government-run, and funded by taxes. All you have to do to receive medical services is show proof of medical insurance, which is issued to (essentially) every citizen and resident in the form of a "health card". We cringe at the idiocy of a system that doesn't guarantee medical services to its citizens and residents--the American politicians talk nonchalantly about millions of people without health insurance, people who, if faced with a life-threatening condition, would likely be bankrupted by the cost. Perhaps those people are fools, gambling that they will never be ill, and not planning for that strong possibility. More likely, they are reasonable people, who cannot afford to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Will they be happy to find they’ve entered the ranks of the wealthy once the Kerry tax hike applies directly to them?

The anti-taxation spirit of the Boston Tea Party lives on in America, though there is no longer a monarchy that amasses its revenue from exploitation of the colonies; the vehemence of it all is amusing, but rather disturbing at the same time. They ought to be happy that they're rich. They ought to realize that it won't kill them to reduce their standard of living slightly, so that America can reduce the rampant poverty that plagues its cities. Perhaps they should learn to suck it up and pay, because getting cheated by a few who defraud social programs is preferable to forcing innocent, but nevertheless poor people to live in a ghetto. Once again, it is a question of ensuring a minimum standard of living for all--and if it means taxing the rich, or even the middle class to achieve that standard, so be it.

And Jack, regarding this:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

There’s a line in a film about the quintessential common man that goes: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.” How many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George? Is it not obvious to them also that Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry. History is rife with instances where the common man would revolt against the Aristocrats who would “let them eat cake.” I can’t imagine the heart of America endearing a First Lady who would have them “go naked for a while.” Common sense tells us to judge a man by the company he keeps.

I'm sure that you have evidence of the very specific statements you made above. For example, show that "Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry"--if it's obvious, you've probably good ironclad proof. Indeed, enlighten us as to approximately "[h]ow many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George?" I suspect that the rationale behind these statements is approximately equivalent to the rationale that Bush is unfit to lead, because he nearly choked on a pretzel, or fell off of a Segway. In other words, it's just stupid.