Us presidential election 2004

[kerosene 0]

Do you have CNN or anything, there repeating each debate the following morning.

[Bernadotte 0]

He also took a question about North Korea, where Kerry had criticized him for allowing them to aquire nukes, and just started talking about Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, I noticed that too.  I think Bush got caught snoozing.

Quote[/b] ]KERRY: Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.  Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said There were weapons of mass destruction, said Mission accomplished, said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.

We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly.

LEHRER: Well, but when he used the word truth again...

BUSH: Pardon me?

LEHRER: ... talking about the truth of the matter. He used the word truth again. Did that raise any hackles with you?

BUSH: Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy. I don't take it personally.

LEHRER: OK. All right.

BUSH: You know, we looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion: that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. And I don't hold it against him that he said grave threat. I'm not going to go around the country saying he didn't tell the truth, when he looked at the same intelligence I did.

KERRY: It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it.

The president said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the U.N. and go to war as a last resort.  Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort.

Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq -- $200 billion. It's not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted.

I don't know how anyone who saw that debate could call it a draw.  In fact, one polling organisation's quick survey of viewers found that Kerry won by at least 10%.

[Bernadotte 0]

Is there something like a transcription or a log of the debate?

I've been quoting from this one.

[kerosene 0]

I got the same impression, it was the last question in the debate i thnk, and when they panned over Bush looked kind of distracted and trailed off (more than usual).

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I must admit I fell asleep after one hour. It was interesting as hell to watch it but at around 04:00 my bloodpressure collapsed and I returned to Dreamland.

[Balschoiw 0]

Navy eel

Quote[/b] ]How predictable...

Can anyone take out the fish.It´s beginning to smell

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] Akira and Balschoiws post were rather predictible. I got what I expected from each of their post. "Pfft did you see him, he stuttered what F'ing retard" and "what a dumb ass he looks funny" seemed to be the gyst of their post.

Apparently you missed the post where I said Bush had the advantage for awhile but in the end faltered.

If you don't think staring blankly at the screen and going off about Saddam when the question was about NK, then perhaps it is you that needs to look at their objectivity.

And talking about Bals posts when he didn't make any clearly shows you weren't even reading the posts anyway

They both made some points, but Bush relied on rhetoric and snappy sound bites too much ie:

"Its hard work"

"idealogy of hate"

"resolve and strong" or variations

and continually brought up

"wrong war, wrong time", which Kerry answered once and then let go.

The Bush Group is now saying that his visit to hurricane victims was "emotionally tiring" which he why they say he looked tired. He didn't seem tired to me, and up until the end, seemed to keep up pretty much with the debate.

[walker 0]

Dear Sputnik Monroe

You don't post what you got fomr it so much as you post

I quoted from the Debate obviously

Here is a transcript if you didnt see it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....30.html

or you can see it in video to make up your own minds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/093004-15v.htm

and for the poll decisions on the debate giving John F. Kerry a clear 70% plus lead in the debate, try the polls conducted on MSNBC, CBS, USA Today and CNN all gave John F. kerry the commanding Lead and said voters found John F. Kerry came across more presedential than the texan.

As to the the tone of what I was reporting even Fox News is reporting that its anti Kerry pundit Dick Morris said of the Texan "I got the feeling he was distracted, he didn't answer questions quickly, he stumbled all over himself."

Walker= Cheerleading and inquisition

Hello Politics thread here free debate; I support the other side to you. If you cannot stand the heat of a free democratic election with people voicing their opinion, which may be the oposite of yours or exersizing freedom nail up your commie colours and go live in North Korea; otherwise tough it out like a man and put your point across as forcefully.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't know how anyone who saw that debate could call it a draw.

Kerry's advisors did....

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't know how anyone who saw that debate could call it a draw.

Kerry's advisors did....

According to who?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]According to who?

C-SPAN

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Quote[/b] ]LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.â€

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't know how anyone who saw that debate could call it a draw.

Kerry's advisors did....

According to who?

The Drudge Report and the RNC

But polls show Kerry seemed to fare better.

Undoubtedly what billybob is talking about

Quote[/b] ]LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.â€

[billybob2002 0]

http://gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

Quote[/b] ]

John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush.

Lets look at the poll more....

Quote[/b] ]

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq.

(Post debate)

Kerry 43%

Bush 57%

Quote[/b] ]Similarly, viewers pointed to Bush as the candidate they would trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief -- before the debate by 55% to 42%, and after the debate by 54% to 44%.

Quote[/b] ]

Viewers saw Kerry as more articulate in the debate than Bush (60% to 32%), though they divided equally as to which candidate had a better understanding of the issues (41% each).

Quote[/b] ]

Viewers leaned toward Bush on which candidate agreed with them on issues, who was more believable, and who was more likable. And by 54% to 37%, viewers said Bush better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

[turms 0]

sample of 615 is not enough to make a gallup. IIRC the sample should be 3000 persons (or was it 1000).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]sample of 615 is not enough to make a gallup. IIRC the sample should be 3000 persons (or was it 1000).

okkkk...

[denoir 0]

Denoir seems actually rather objective.

Hey, it was 5 in the morning here when I posted that. I can't be held accountable for it  

After some more reflection, my conclusion is: slight advantage Kerry.

I think this is especially true for undecided voters. Bush did his regular routine, which apparently has not worked so far on those still undecided. Kerry provided a more coherent and analytic style of debating, which I think will appeal to the neutrals.

As for people who are already Buhs or Kerry supporters, I don't think the debate meant anything. I don't think many people were converted.

And neither of them screwed up in any significant way, so I don't think it will have a too dramatic impact on the polls.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Ok let me make this quick. I'm in a rush and need to leave so this might have a few typos.

I admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong about Balschoiw. I apologize. Your last post was about Libya and Gadaffi. I did read all the post yesterday. Some how I screwed up.

I think I confused Blakes post as being yours. A stupid mistake and I'm not quite sure how I did it. Regardless it was a stupid mistake.

So to you Balschoiw I apologize.

[billybob2002 0]

I wonder how Kerry is going to add two more divisions....

Also, about the Draft crap, the democrats in congress were asking for a draft....

[kerosene 0]

Thats true about (some) democrats talking about a draft - dont really see it though, Bush said it would be an all volunter army, which is very concrete for him. -

DId you see O'reilly interview him, when he asked him aobut about the SB vets, and Bush did that sucking in the air thing and said "not that i know of" about whether there was any involvement or co-operation with republicans - that made me laugh

Wasnt the back door draft a reference to keeping people in the service when their time is supposed to be up though?

The stuff about how is Kerry gonna sell a war he dosent support to other countries... personally i cant see any politicans in other countrys saying " yeah, fuck it, im tried of my job anyway, we'll send troops to Iraq."  

Good to hear him say he didnt have any interest in permanent military bases in Iraq or mini-nukes, definite plus. Did Bush or members of TBA ever say the permanent bases werent gonna happen? Somebody told me they did, but Bush didnt say anything in the debate to counter it, so I guess there still planned for.

I think Kerry would do a better job on Afghanistan though, which really isnt going as well as Bush made out.  40% women voters - outside of Kabul this more or less means the (male) head of a family has 2 votes.

[Akira 0]

I wonder how Kerry is going to add two more divisions....

Also, about the Draft crap, the democrats in congress were asking for a draft....

The Rep that has put a draft bill up, has done so numerous years to draw attention to the fact that its not rich white boys dying in wars (the Rep is hispanic). Also to draw attention to the fact that few in Congress actually have children in Iraq.

It is also the Democrats and one odd Libertarian that came up with a bill to abolish the Selective Services.

Quote[/b] ]Wasnt the back door draft a reference to keeping people in the service when their time is supposed to be up though?

It should be noted that teh Defense Appropriation's Acts for 2004 and 2005, give the ok to the military to keep anyone with "specialized skills" in for AT LEAST 6 years. (Authored by Two Republicans, and co-sponsored by two Dems.)

[-33ker 0]

Is there something like a transcription or a log of the debate?

I've been quoting from this one.

Thank you! It's gonna be a long read though...

Can't do anything about it, they don't repeat the whole debate on TV over here.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I wonder how Kerry is going to add two more divisions....

Also, about the Draft crap, the democrats in congress were asking for a draft....

Good point. I thought exactly the same. To withdraw some troops from europe was a good start. I think he should have talked about "restructuring" instead, but this of course, is already a running process.

He shouldnt have gone into that topic so deep.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So to you Balschoiw I apologize.

Appreciated very much. Taken

It´s good to see that some are not too proud to admit when they were wrong.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Thats true about (some) democrats talking about a draft - dont really see it though, Bush said it would be an all volunter army, which is very concrete for him. -

DId you see O'reilly interview him, when he asked him aobut about the SB vets, and Bush did that sucking in the air thing and said "not that i know of" about whether there was any involvement or co-operation with republicans - that made me laugh

Wasnt the back door draft a reference to keeping people in the service when their time is supposed to be up though?

The stuff about how is Kerry gonna sell a war he dosent support to other countries... personally i cant see any politicans in other countrys saying " yeah, fuck it, im tried of my job anyway, we'll send troops to Iraq."  

Good to hear him say he didnt have any interest in permanent military bases in Iraq or mini-nukes, definite plus.  Did Bush or members of TBA ever say the permanent bases werent gonna happen?  Somebody told me they did, but Bush didnt say anything in the debate to counter it, so I guess there still planned for.

I think Kerry would do a better job on Afghanistan though, which really isnt going as well as Bush made out.  40% women voters - outside of Kabul this more or less means the (male) head of a family has 2 votes.

I think he wasnt so wrong after all.

First of all the UN WOULD send troops if it was given the appropriate mandate. The UN is not just a melting pot of first,second and third world countries, but it is a powerful tool if the US is able to put pressure on it (in a polite way).

First of all there are nations like germany that wont send troops, not because the politicians but because of a population very sensitive to sending soldiers once again into war. But, what countries like germany CAN do and are ALREADY  doing is sending the right equipment. Currently a number of advanced light tanks is on the way into the middle East. Those tanks will not be filled with german soldiers but probably with those of arab nations.

Several other arab nations can be pushed into involving themselves if the UN pressures them. And believe me the UN has enough power to do that.

And seriously you would be surprised of the amount of capabilities the french army has. But they will only move a finger if under UN command. They would never again accept to be given orders by american generals.

There are dozens of nations whose capabilities are pretty limited but definetly better able to function in combat than iraqis. Besides, dont forget that an iraqi coalition soldier has a family, relatives and friends. Currently many of them fear for their life because their environment knows that they are fighting maybe on the wrong side. I am convinced that they would flip-flop sides depending on who pays more... they are still arabs and dont like to fight their brothers... But they do it for their living. A dangerous motivation.

I know it sounds a bit simple-minded what I write here but I am seriously convinced the UN can potentially help a lot more than they are doing now. It is worth a chance. The only thing is that you have to throw away your pride and accept the UN to take over some "real" command.

But this is NO PLAN. You cannot simply send more troops and consider this to be the solution to the problem. YOU wont survive in that country if you constantly reject to negotiate with the Mullahs. Iraq doesnt need american democracy, Iraq needs a system that reflects the iraqi culture. More soldiers cannot make up for an intelligent planning.

And excuse me, but so far I havent seen a single diplomatic move that did reflect approaching the iraqis in a arab way and not the way of "here comes america".

[kerosene 0]

I'm well aware of the capabilites of the French army, but are countries just going to fallin line because a new guy gets in, Bush has burnt a lot of bridges.  I do think the U.N should've been in charge to begin with, but now its more like they have to clean up someone elses mess.

The only thing not said in the debates is that Kerry can go to other leaders and say "I know this is a mess, but its still not in anyones intersts to let Iraq descend into anarchy."

Just because its got UN approval it dosent mean citizens of participating nations wont continue to be kidnapped or that those nations wont get a terrorist attack against them for their troubles, hes got to persaude people that need re-election.

I guess what im saying is, your more of an optimist than me.

From the angey tone of your message, you seem to be under the impression im a Bush fan?