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.

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.

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

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.

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.

oh yeah

WHAT ABOUT POLAND?

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.

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...

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

I think that Bush did a good job of coming out a showing that he is not the buffoon that so many have tried to make him out as.

IMO, neither really came out swinging for the fences when it comes to the swing voters.

First let me say that [B]I'm not a fan of either candidate[/B]. 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.

Of course I'm a little biased, but I saw vintage Bush buffoon last night. Long pauses where sometimes it seemed he wasn't going to be able to spit out a single word, he kept repeating himself without rephrasing, obvious looks of frustration when Kerry was speaking. Nobody is ever going to confuse him with being an eloquent speaker that's for sure. He's an average Joe, but personally I don't feel comfortable with an average Joe being the leader of the free world.

For those that want to know more: [URL=http://www.badnarik.org/]Michael Badnarik[/URL]

I'll bet a lot of potential voters fall under [URL=http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com]this[/URL] category

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.

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Voting principles is fine...
But voting for your ideal candidate is more likely to get the greater of two evils elected.

My analogy of betting on the Cardinals is not flawed... The Cardinals have no reasonable chance to win the Superbowl... betting on them is throwing your money/vote away. It's not a matter of jumping on a bandwagon.
To prove my point, I will bet you $5 on the election and give you ten million to one odds.

Voting with your heart is fine... voting with your head makes more sense to me.

By the way... My political idealogy is this... I'm a registered Democrat, but my ideal candidate this year was McLean. Sadly, I couldn't vote for him in the primary. I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration and would give my principles up to get that guy out of the White House. Are things clearer now?

Who's McLean?

Incidentally, today's Republican party was once considered a "third party". It was created in the 1850s by anti-slavery activists. At the time the major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln is technically the first modern Republican president ever.

Sorry... McCain.
I'm hungry... thinking about the McDonald's hamburger.

McCain's great. I wish he had won in 2000

anybody but Bush...

I actually feel stronger about Kerry after last night, I'm still not thrilled about him but he's the lesser of the two evils.

Kerry is the lesser of two evils, so I'd say he won hands down. I would have liked to have seen Kerry drill Bush on his relationship with the Bin Laden Family and why Osama Bin Laden's name was not mentioned one time by Bush in his Republican Convention speech. I think Bin Laden is off limits if youv'e seen Farenheit 911.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]anybody but Bush...

I actually feel stronger about Kerry after last night, I'm still not thrilled about him but he's the lesser of the two evils.[/QUOTE]


To me, a life long republican, this seems to be the prevailing sentiment in the Democratic camp. Quite frankly, I am no huge fan of Bush (Dammit - the word is nu- clee -er), and if the Dems had a viable candidate I could be tempted to vote for him/her. This, however, does not appear to be the case to me.

Obviously, Kerry was the more polished debater and, I think, made his points more clearly. I agree that, when Bush was "on message", he sounded like a broken record ("Okay - they told me to say 'no mixed messages' whenever I can't think of anything to say"). I also think that when he actually was talking about his beliefs and "speaking from the heart", as it were, he was smoother and very clearly communicated his underlying convictions. However, these moments were fewer than I would have hoped.

While more polished, Kerry's entire Iraq position seems to be - "I would have disarmed Hussein but just in a better fashion. I also would have a better post-Iraq plan." As for foreign policy, it's the old global approval thing.

I started to write out my full response to Kerry's statements but realized it would take most of the day and just be waaaaaaaaay to long. So - as concisely as possible - why (as to foreign policy) I will not vote for Kerry: the USA can not and should not base it's actions on approval from the "global community". That is not to say we should act selfishly or with complete disregard to other nations, but that, ultimately, the decision as to what is in the best interests of the US must reside solely with the President. Our best interests should not be subject to a popularity contest, run up the flagpole or in any other way be determined by their approval by other nations. Despite his protestations that he will reserve the right to act preemptively - Kerry is clearly of the "only if you think its okay" school of foreign policy.

Well I could have gone on (in fact I did, I deleted 10 inches of text which was intended to be a more complete statement but which probably needed about another 10-20 inches to close all the loose ends. lol).

by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here. :food-smil

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here. :food-smil[/QUOTE]

Amen JoeRedskin!

abstractly: isn't democracy essentially a popularity contest?

people>populace>popularity

I don't think either candidate "won" the debate last night but instead the undecided voters did. We finally got to see the 2 main candidates for the presidency argue over some of the key topics we've wanted to hear them talk about. sure some of each of their responses were just repeats from what they've been saying for the past few monthes but that's to be expected from politicians. Kerry had some good moments as did Bush but neither could or should be declared the winner when most of the questions asked have been asked and answered pretty much the same ways for quite a while. I think each candidates main weaknesses or mistakes were brought to the forefront a little more and now those voters who r undecided have a better understanding of the two major candidates but hopefully this won't be the last debate and the next one will involve more telling questions as well as a few more loaded questions.

As far as 3rd party candidates, I'd love for there to be a solid candidate with a reasonable chance for success because I think this country needs a leader who can think outside of his/her party's box and is honestly out for the nations best interest and not just part of it for money or popularity. I just don't really know if I'll see that in my lifetime.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]by the way:

GO SKINS! BEAT THE BROWNS!!!

just a reminder as to why we are all here. :food-smil[/QUOTE]

PREACH ON!!!

:httr:

[QUOTE=EEich]By the way... My political idealogy is this... I'm a registered Democrat, but my ideal candidate this year was McLean. Sadly, I couldn't vote for him in the primary. I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration and would give my principles up to get that guy out of the White House. Are things clearer now?[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, much clearer. Thanks.

Lost your job, huh? Let's see. Outsourcing jobs -- all Bush's fault, right?

Let me ask you this: Around the turn of the 20th century, the internal combustion engine was really starting to take off. Obviously, as the idea caught on and people started buying automobiles, one can imagine what that did to the horse and buggy industry. So, using your logic today, would it have been fair to blame the William McKinley Administration for the loss of jobs manufacturing buggies?

To expound on that, what exactly should the president do when private companies decide to relocate certain positions overseas, where labor costs are lower? Should he [I]force [/I] them to stay here? Since he's the commander-in-chief, should he utilize the armed forces to guard the airports and harbors and physically stop corporations from transferring operations to foreign countries?

Tell me, what would foreign countries do in response? Since their workers no longer have a shot at an American company importing jobs to them, would it be fair to say that maybe they'll stop buying our products or refuse to set up shop in America in return?

Since this is a free country, EEich, anyone is free to start a business and proceed to the best of their talents and abilities to make that business profitable wouldn't you agree? So let's say you start a company producing widgets, and thanks to unions, labor laws, and minimum wage standards in this country, you see that you can produce these widgets in Malaysia for around $.30 an hour as opposed to the $8.00 an hour it would cost here. So as a practical business owner who's obviously in the business to make money and keep your company afloat, what would happen to your company if an Administration prevented you, through the force of law, from making the best decision in the interest of basic economics? You'd be out of business -- and what would our economy look like if this were the standard everyone had to abide by from the threat of the federal government?

Not only that, someone else in another country who doesn't have to deal with suicidal economic policies that you'd apparently like to see can go to Malaysia, produce those widgets, and sell them for far less than American companies can -- now, what does that do for the American company who couldn't take advantage of lower manufacturing costs like everyone else can? BINGO. That company goes out of business.

I don't know specifically what your job was that was shipped to India. But could it be said that maybe you should have had some forsight to see that what you were doing might be at risk, and therefore, it might be up to you to increase your job skills, and make yourself more marketable? How is that George Bush's fault?

[QUOTE=smootsmack]McCain's great. I wish he had won in 2000[/QUOTE]

McCain wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't for that dreadful Campaign Finance Reform law he thought of. For some reason, the notion that the government can now prohibit an individual or group of individuals from pooling money together to buy an ad on TV strikes me as sort of unAmerican -- not to mention violates free speech.

[QUOTE=EEich]Voting principles is fine...
But voting for your ideal candidate is more likely to get the greater of two evils elected.

My analogy of betting on the Cardinals is not flawed... The Cardinals have no reasonable chance to win the Superbowl... betting on them is throwing your money/vote away. It's not a matter of jumping on a bandwagon.
To prove my point, I will bet you $5 on the election and give you ten million to one odds.

Voting with your heart is fine... voting with your head makes more sense to me.[/QUOTE]

First of all, you're comparing money -- something that's liquid with value, that I could lose if I'm not smart -- and a vote. I lose nothing if the election doesn't go my way. I have stood for my principles and cast my vote for the candidate that best represents my ideals. I have lost nothing if that candidate doesn't win.

But what if neither candidate fits my ideals? You're saying I should vote for someone who I don't agree with because they have a better chance of winning? What sense does that make? Is that how you would describe "voting with your head"?

You have alot of f-ing nerve to criticize my situation and forsight without a clue. I'm pretty talented at what I do. I busted my ass on a project with a hard working team for four years. When the project development ended, support went overseas. It was the first system in our company to be outsourced, and by the time we knew, it was too late... There are thousands of people like me.

If you're comfortable with the way things are going here in the good ole USA... by all means, vote for Bush. I hope you always have the luxury of holding to your principles. Personally, I'd rather feed my family.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Oh yeah, much clearer. Thanks.

Lost your job, huh? Let's see. Outsourcing jobs -- all Bush's fault, right?

Let me ask you this: Around the turn of the 20th century, the internal combustion engine was really starting to take off. Obviously, as the idea caught on and people started buying automobiles, one can imagine what that did to the horse and buggy industry. So, using your logic today, would it have been fair to blame the William McKinley Administration for the loss of jobs manufacturing buggies?

To expound on that, what exactly should the president do when private companies decide to relocate certain positions overseas, where labor costs are lower? Should he [i]force [/i]them to stay here? Since he's the commander-in-chief, should he utilize the armed forces to guard the airports and harbors and physically stop corporations from transferring operations to foreign countries?

Tell me, what would foreign countries do in response? Since their workers no longer have a shot at an American company importing jobs to them, would it be fair to say that maybe they'll stop buying our products or refuse to set up shop in America in return?

Since this is a free country, EEich, anyone is free to start a business and proceed to the best of their talents and abilities to make that business profitable wouldn't you agree? So let's say you start a company producing widgets, and thanks to unions, labor laws, and minimum wage standards in this country, you see that you can produce these widgets in Malaysia for around $.30 an hour as opposed to the $8.00 an hour it would cost here. So as a practical business owner who's obviously in the business to make money and keep your company afloat, what would happen to your company if an Administration prevented you, through the force of law, from making the best decision in the interest of basic economics? You'd be out of business -- and what would our economy look like if this were the standard everyone had to abide by from the threat of the federal government?

Not only that, someone else in another country who doesn't have to deal with suicidal economic policies that you'd apparently like to see can go to Malaysia, produce those widgets, and sell them for far less than American companies can -- now, what does that do for the American company who couldn't take advantage of lower manufacturing costs like everyone else can? BINGO. That company goes out of business.

I don't know specifically what your job was that was shipped to India. But could it be said that maybe you should have had some forsight to see that what you were doing might be at risk, and therefore, it might be up to you to increase your job skills, and make yourself more marketable? How is that George Bush's fault?[/QUOTE]

Congratulations... you must live on an island without family and friends.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]I lose nothing if the election doesn't go my way.[/QUOTE]

I'm suggesting you vote for someone that has a realistic chance of making this country a better place than it is now.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]You're saying I should vote for someone who I don't agree with because they have a better chance of winning?[/QUOTE]

Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.

I don't know who started it... probably Clinton (NAFTA). I just know that Kerry has said he will do something about it and Bush hasn't.

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiousity, did you read my post on the matter? When you work for someone else, you're sort of at their mercy. That's the way it goes. If you started a business, and you realize that you could make more money by manufacturing a product somewhere else for less, wouldn't you do that?

It works the same way when you buy something. If you go to Circuit City and find Madden 2005 for $49.95, but Best Buy has the same thing for $39.95, what would you do? Do you suck it up and say, "well, these people at Circuit City bust their ass, I'll bite the loss because I'm a swell guy," and fork over the extra 10 bucks? Of course not!

Businesses work the same way. They maximize profits so that they can stay in business. That's the name of the game in simple, basic economics.

[QUOTE=EEich]You have alot of f-ing nerve to criticize my situation and forsight without a clue. I'm pretty talented at what I do. I busted my ass on a project with a hard working team for four years. When the project development ended, support went overseas. It was the first system in our company to be outsourced, and by the time we knew, it was too late... There are thousands of people like me.

If you're comfortable with the way things are going here in the good ole USA... by all means, vote for Bush. I hope you always have the luxury of holding to your principles. Personally, I'd rather feed my family.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not comfortable with everything here. And I'm not voting for Bush. But how you can blame him because your company gained support overseas is beyond me. Do you blame William McKinley for the jobs all those people lost manufacturing parts for buggies? What did he have to do with that?

I think the root of our disagreement lies with what we believe the function of government is. One of the things I can assure it has no control over, nor is does it have any legal obligation to protect is job losses. Like I said in my example, what is Bush or the government in general supposed to do? If it forces companies to stay here, then other companies who can manufacture a product elsewhere for less will survive and companies that are handcuffed here will go out of business.