BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 07:19 PM

Unfortunately for Alfred, he looks just like him, too: click

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 05:35 PM

No, he is very close to Alfred E Newman - except maybe he is a little worried, unlike Alfred.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 05:20 PM

Fourscore and twenty years ago I knew Alfred E Newman and, sir, you are no Alfred E Newman.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Melani
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM

It was like watching Abraham Lincoln debate Alfred E. Newman.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 02:45 PM

Right, Ron. Leave off the "boy" in Cowboy then.   Though Cowboys, supposedly, shoot from the hip---hence usually shooting themselves in the foot.

Now if we leave the "boy" out then the "cows" will be upset---so hard to be PC these days---even when writing on a PC.



Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 02:26 AM

heyacurmudgeon, did you see this is that oh-so-conservative Manchester paper?

At last week's presidential debate, Democrat John F. Kerry took note of an endorsement he received from a man with a familiar Republican name. John Eisenhower, son of the 34th president, last week wrote in a newspaper commentary that he is casting his first Democratic presidential vote in 50 years because of concern about President Bush's policies in Iraq and budget deficits at home.

Eisenhower's flight from the GOP ticket appeared in a place where important Republicans were sure to see it -- the conservative Manchester Union-Leader, in the battleground of New Hampshire. "The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar," wrote Eisenhower, 82, who has a home near the Eastern Shore community of Trappe, Md. On Iraq, he wrote, "the current Republican leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:46 PM

Don't insult cowboys Bill!!   They would not appreciate the comparision!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM

Well, Guest---why do I respond to Guests---some elections seem more important than others. I suppose it has to do with many things---Economy, Foreign Affairs, Morality of the nation, Values, and such.

Reagan/ Carter might have been about policy, JFK/Nixon may well have been about charisma, Stevenson/Eisenhower may have been about the future and how it was presented.

This election seems to me to be about Darkness and Light---shall we put it into simple movie terms? Darth Vader aka GWB vs the Jedi (Kerry--have I got that right about Jedi?) Hence why--in my lifetime---this is the most serious of all elections.

A know nothing vs a man of integrity and substance. A "cowboy" vs an intellect. A protector of family interests and corroborating "mah daddy" vs a man of the world.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:26 PM

And if he or she was actually a Bush fancier trying to be clever, the arguments would be exactly the same. Smoke and mirrors.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:38 PM

Don, save your breath.   This guest does not even realize what a hypocrit she or he is.    The guest really does not want multiple choice, it only wants one - the one that it aligns itself with. That is not a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM

"All that statement demonstrates Don, is your inability to think beyond the dualistic and oppositional frame of reference the duopolists want you to remain stuck in, so you don't rock the boat with your vote."

GUEST, you just proved my point. Just because I disagree with you, you try to claim that I am limited in my thinking. Pretty arrogant. There are damned good reasons why I take the position that I do, and it has to do with fairly extensive knowledge of the way political sysetms work in general, and how they work in this country specifically. I have explained repeatedly in other threads why your position won't work here, but you just don't want to see it because it doesn't fit with your wishful thinking.

Go read a few books on political science.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 05:21 PM

That's why they shy away from having these in British Elections - the reverential ritual would just seem like Monty Python, and what people would feel entitled to get would be the Full Monty.

Nearest we have had has been successive Question Times with just the Party Leader and an occasionally pretty savage crowd asking the questions, and David Dimbleby in the chair. I think that might be a better way of doing it actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

It would have been fun to see a free-for-all debate with the two candidates and say, Jeremy Paxman and David Frost and maybe Dimbleby interviewing - sort of like a trial in the Court of Appeal (England) withthe two canditates as teh barristers and the interviewers as teh bench.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:10 PM

Change??   Change???

Whose change? What change? It's easy to say "change", or to agree with those who use that word, but Bush wants change, too! I just want to move heaven and earth to avoid the change that he has represented for the last nearly four years.

There needs to be MUCH more specificity about what changes are proposed before that argument means anything.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 11:52 AM

And the way to solve your money problems is to buy a winning lottery ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 11:32 AM

No, the way to get rid of it is to change our voting behavior, and our behavior, which has been quite lax, regarding the performance of our daily duties of citizenship in a democracy.

Only the Democrats believe that voting the Republicans out will effect change, and only the Republicans believe that voting the Democrats out will effect change.

When the system is deadlocked, no change takes place. That is where we are at now, just as we were in 2000. Something will break this deadlock, sometime, but it won't be the results of the upcoming presidential election, and the deadlock will not be broken November 3rd when the winner of the horse race in declared.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the dire political shrieking is only the Republicans fault. That is just blind partisan belief in god/righteousness/truth being on your side, and your side only.

We've been hearing this sad refrain from both sides in US politics since the 1970s. This election is no more or less important than any other, it is just being sold on TV as more important than any other election, so people will keep watching the ads, and buying the products being peddled in the packaging, marketing, and selling of the US elections as infotainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:59 AM

"And as long as the reforms can be delayed by the dire shrieking of the "Anybody But The Other Party's Guy" voting bloc..."

But surely the way to get rid of that is to get rid of the Bush presidency that motivates all that kind of thing? Before you can hope to win people over to the idea that getting a right-wing Democrat into office isn't enough to achieve the changes you need, you need to have that right-wing Democrat in office. It might just be a beginning, but that's a start...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:51 AM

Guest:

I'm sorry but I don't buy it, and I think in this rather perilous time anything that risks edging Bush back in for four more years is WAY too expensive and risky to be a rational political approach.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:36 AM

Of course we need to both support and work towards effecting change. There has been a strong movement for change in the duopoly for the better part of a decade, which has many parallels to the same kind of grassroots political reform movement which was co-opted and crushed in the late 19th century by the current duopoly.

I believe that even in this election, we are effecting meaningful, lasting change by supporting the grassroots movement for political reform of the duopoly and the campaign finance system in the US, with our votes, with our campaign contributions, and with our political and electoral activism. We need to put much more pressure on local government, and run many, many more candidates from outside the two parties. Independents and third party candidates need to make an effort to work together as a united front for political and electoral reform. I don't agree with the "don't vote, organize" philosophy. I'm a "vote, organize, and contribute financially" believer.

But voting for Kerry won't bring about any of the necessary reforms needed to the political and electoral system. And as long as the reforms can be delayed by the dire shrieking of the "Anybody But The Other Party's Guy" voting bloc, we will see the US as we know it, continue it's now fairly rapid decline.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:20 AM

"Supporting" change is not the same as "effecting change". Real change isn't going to be achieved by voting for minority candidates, at occasional elections every few years, it's only going to come by the work that gets done in between the elections. As Joe Hill would have said "Don't vote, organize".

What voting can do is help make it a better environment for that organising, or a worse one. And from all I've heard, I can't envisage that Bush getting back will achieve anything but reduce the room for that kind of organising.

And radically minded Democrats are surely going to be much more inclined to get involved in that kind of hard work in the situation where they are disappointed by a Democrat administration that fails to deliver what they hoped it might deliver, than they would be in the setting of a new Bush administration, which would just their reinforce their dream that somehow a Democrat victory would solve everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:58 AM

"The message that GUEST appears to be trying to get across is that we should all just go sit in a corner and whimper piteously about what a horrible mess the world is in. Or vote for either Nader or Cobb, which amounts to the same thing."

All that statement demonstrates Don, is your inability to think beyond the dualistic and oppositional frame of reference the duopolists want you to remain stuck in, so you don't rock the boat with your vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:52 AM

Hey Bobert, ever notice how the literal minded are often humor-challenged.

Especially when the humor is at their brand's expense?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:51 AM

jaze, my solution is simple. Stop supporting the duopology by voting for one or the other of the two parties' candidates, and start voting in a way that is supporting change to the two party system.

Voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate is not effecting change of any sort. Rather, it is the political equivalent of changing the draperies in the front room.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:22 AM

To some extent I agree with Don there, in principle it does those things, but not too reliably - my point is that this sort of thing is a kind of acting (as Ronald Reagan demonstrated). It would be quite possible to have someone perform very effectively in this kind of situation, but be pretty clueless in reality; and the reverse is also true. It's a special sort of skill, this kind of performance.

For example, harking back to Reagan "There you go again" is a completely nonsensical way of avoiding difficult isssues - but in the mouth of an old pro, it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 02:30 AM

From the AP:

The first poll taken after the presidential debate showed Kerry running even with Bush. The Democrat had the support of 47 percent and Bush 45 percent in the Newsweek poll. Independent candidate Ralph Nader had the backing of 2 percent.

Bush was slightly up, 49-43, in the same poll in early September and up 11 points in the Newsweek poll taken right after the GOP convention. The poll of 1,013 registered voters was taken from late Thursday to early Saturday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 02:22 AM

From Knight Ridder



The debate's real winner? It depends on the measure

BY SETH BORENSTEIN

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A panoply of self-styled experts dissected Thursday's Bush-Kerry debate by monitoring smirks, smiles, posture, repetition and redundancy. They parsed sentences and counted syllables. They polled hundreds of people and measured the second-by-second feelings of a handful of undecided voters.

Some, heaven forbid, even paid attention to what the candidates were saying to judge the strengths of their arguments.

But there was one near-constant among the analyses: Sen. John Kerry won.

[...]

Republican pollster Frank Luntz ran his own focus group of 18 mostly undecided Florida voters Thursday night.

Kerry "dominated the confrontation," Luntz said. His focus group voted 16-2 that Kerry had won.

Luntz gave the participants dials that they constantly adjusted to indicate positive or negative feelings for each candidate. Those feelings were displayed in continuous-line charts like heart electrocardiograms. That "tells me what's really happening," said Luntz.

One of Kerry's themes - "I believe we need a fresh start" - scored particularly well, while President Bush's repetition of the phrase "It's hard work" soured voters.

[...]

Bush won one dubious measurement: More people, by about a 3-to-1 margin, bought toilet paper Friday emblazoned with the president's face from the online company justtoiletpaper.com. Co-owner Marc Polish said that really was a win for Kerry - for obvious reasons.


Full Article

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 10:36 PM

Bobert, we understood your attempt at satire at the start. We have moved way beyond that in the discussion. I'm not sure what you are trying to get across at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 10:21 PM

Yo, Ron Davies...

You way too literal... I had to point that out to the other Ron... Man, I write a little ubsurd satire and you don't get it... The point I was makin' was about the Bush/Gore debates in 2000 when Gore won them all too handilly... and the networks had the peanut galleries packed with NASCAR mentality voters who say, one after another, "Bush won"...

Man, you and other Ron gotta get together and start figuring out when Iz playin', which is 'bout all the time! Don't mean I don't have a few points to get accross 'cept that they is done with a certain amount o' good ol' wes ginny, ah shucks, humor....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM

Kevin, what it does show is how well they know the issues, how they view them, and how well they think under pressure. That, I think, is pretty relevant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: jack halyard
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 06:44 PM

What with Kerry and Bush debating in the US, and Howard and Latham debating in Australia, apart from all the other big-wigs debating,
It sounds like all our leaders are just mass-debaters to me.
                                       
                               Jack Halyard

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 03:57 PM

Just watched it on C-span.

It must have been a bit like one of those dreams for poor old Bush, as he strained to remember the lines he'd been given. And kept on having those interminable pauses as his mind evidently went blank about what he was supposed to say.

Of course it's absurd that people would see anything too significant in the way people perform in this artificial type of panel game. Being good at this stuff doesn't mean you'd be any good at being President, and being piss-poor doesn't mean you couldn't have a fair stab at the job. I mean, you wouldn't select a guitar player for a pick-up band on the basis of how well he or she performed in a "debate" like this, so why select a president?

But that's the way this game is played, and Bush really did appallingly, even embarrassingly, badly. But then, most people know they wouldn't be much more articulate in that kind of situation, so it might not hurt him too much. Might even help, as such people identify with Bush. The Homer Simpson effect, you could call it.

..........................

either Bush is lying or he is woefully misinformed on a wide range of international issues.

Or maybe both - they aren't mutually exzclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:44 PM

There are always those out there who assume that because you don't agree with them you're not thinking; that you are in some "camp" or other (Kerry, liberal, etc.), that you are just flat wrong, and that you refuse to consider any arguments (i.e., unsupported assertions) other that those that support the position they favor. They show every characteristic of the people they criticize.

The message that GUEST appears to be trying to get across is that we should all just go sit in a corner and whimper piteously about what a horrible mess the world is in. Or vote for either Nader or Cobb, which amounts to the same thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

From the Toronto Star:

I was on the fence but John Kerry pushed me over to his side as the clear and decisive winner. I feel for the Bush supporters who have to justify statements like "The American people know where I stand on this issue" and "I know how the world works" or "I talk to foreign leaders on the phone all the time." And just in case you need a news flash G.W., that glass was empty of water the last two times you picked it up.
Mark Langston, Virginia Beach, VA, Oct. 1

d

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 12:38 PM

This comes from an email by eli Pariser:

Even the conservative pundits gathered on Fox News had to admit that Kerry looked pretty good last night. Bill Kristol said, "I think Kerry did pretty well, and…we're going to have a real presidential race." And right-wing commentator Joe Scarborough conceded: "I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win, on points, for John Kerry."

And the voters agree. ABC News said, "John Kerry won the debate," pointing to a poll of independent voters who declared Kerry the winner, 45% to 36%. CBS News said, "John Kerry won the debate," and found Kerry up by 15 percentage points among uncommitted voters. Even Gallup, a polling firm which has consistently skewed Republican, found Kerry winning by 16 percentage points, with a whopping 46% of the viewers saying that the debate made their opinion of Kerry more favorable. On the web, clickers delivered a landslide: with over 250,000 votes cast on the CNN website, 77% of the viewers thought that Kerry won, as opposed to only 19% for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: jaze
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 12:14 PM

Guest, what is your solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM

Sorry, courageous "Guest"--I'm afraid you don't "get it".

If you think there are no differences, and significant ones, between Kerry and Bush--such as--which one thinks the way to solve foreign policy problems is bombing your adversaries to kingdom come in unilateral pre-emptive strikes?--clue: it ain't Kerry-----then you're woefully out of touch.

It's real simple. Sorry Kerry is not JFK or whoever your ideal happens to be, but at this point he's the only game in town. If you like what Bush has done, and seems likely to do, then either vote for him or stay home. If you don't like the Bush record, vote for Kerry--it's the only way to get Bush out. As several posters have already pointed out, there are actually good reasons to vote for Kerry, even if his opponent were not such a towering intellect and mighty leader, as we know he is.

Congratulations--I don't believe in shadow-boxing Ghosts, so you get the last word in our little debate. If you do want to continue, get a handle.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

Reply to most recent GUEST:

The fact is that we are going to have a president, and it's going to be one of these two. Even if one is not as enthusiastic as he'd like to be about EITHER one, there is bound to be a difference.

I'm fairly pleased with Kerry, and I would vote for him even if I were not an "anyone but Bush" person. That doesn't mean he's beyond all criticism from my point of view, but I have never seen a presidential candidate who achieved that standard.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

Like I said Ron, you just don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 10:55 AM

It would be nice, however to have a president who is 1) capable of thinking and 2) willing to think--a pleasant change from what we now have.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 10:49 AM

What a surprise that the Kerry camp doesn't agree with anyone but themselves! Here is what the Kerry camp just plain doesn't get about the majority of the American people:

"Unless you were looking for them to face off in wrestling trunks in a cage match, this was what politics should be."

No, this sham was exactly what politics in a democratic society SHOULD NOT be.

Most Americans would be more than happy to settle for the high standards set by the League of Women Voters, who now refuses to have anything to do with these "debate" shams, financed by the very same corporate robber barons that finance the Democratic and Republican parties.

The "Lehrer format" was a cruel hoax. Like I said, it is the very same format used on his daily news program. For a foreign policy discussion, they didn't talk about the politics of oil, which brings in Latin America (Venezuela, for instance), Africa (Nigeria, for instance), the entire Middle East, Russia, and all the former satellite states of the Soviet Union, ie the barely out of the middle ages states found between the Middle East and the Soviet Union.

Then there is the world banking system that supports the corporate robber barons of the post-industrial societies, at the expense of the pre-industrial and marginally industrialized societies.

The politics of oil and easy money is at the very center of US foreign policy. The US uses the threat of it's nuclear supremacy to dictate military policy to the oil rich nations of the world, and the world banking system dictates horrific economic policies and holds the purse-strings.

The result is that rather than the American system of government serving the American peoples' interests, the American people are now serving the interests of the American government.

That is what most Americans believe. They believe the government no longer works for them, and that they have been enslaved and exploited by system of government who works for it's corporate bosses rather at the expense of we, the people. And most Americans believe the Democratic party is just as bought and paid for by the robber barons as the Republican party is, they just arrange the priority list, which is the same for both parties, in a different order.

To most Americans, there is no GOOD choice for president. That is how we get a George W. Bush as president of the United States. That is why my mother, a life long Republican who is now living on Medical Assistance in a nursing home being deprived of the care she needs by a badly broken medical system that does not serve her needs, will vote for Ralph Nader this year. The first time in her 86 years that she will not vote for the Republican candidate.

That is why my father, who has been separated from my mother by my mother's illness and the worst medical system among the world's post-industrial "democracies" (if we can still call them that and mean it), who also is a life long Republican who holds to the "old school" Republican values, will not vote for president at all this year, just as he did in 2000. He won't vote for president, he says, because "there isn't one decent candidate even if you combine the two of them".

Most Americans are no longer sending their children to the slaughter in the US "volunteer" military either. They know what is up. They aren't stupid, and they aren't falling for the "support our troops" propaganda campaigns. The result? America is running out of cannon fodder for the oil wars.

But you "Anybody But Bush" people keep thinking if you just get your guy in this election cycle, it will all start to get better. The situation the US is in ain't gonna get better, because both Kerry and Bush are the oligarchy. Both Bush and Kerry belong to and represent the economic interests of the parties that have been bought and paid for by the corporate robber barons who have taken over the world's democracies.

The majority of Americans know just how corrupt both parties and both candidates are, and that is why we despair of "the freedom of choice" being "offered", between two candidates who work for the same "Boss Hog" as Bobert likes to call the American plutocracy.

That is what the Kerry camp is blind to, because they choose to keep believing that voting for their party isn't making the situation worse, when it is EXACTLY the problem.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to stay the status quo course, and keeping the American plutocrats firmly entrenched in the halls of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 08:32 AM

Interesting that Larry K. never acknowledged that he was wrong in his "facts" which he promises us, the RNC will be trumpeting to the skies soon--the alleged Kerry misstatements---which are facts--e. g. that the NY subway was in fact closed--no passage under Madison Square Garden during the Republican National Convention. Ah well, coming from a stalwart Bushite, who could be surprised?

I noticed something interesting in Bush's, as always, entirely objective description of the international situation--one of his favorite sound bites seemed to be the 10 million, including 40% women, who will soon vote in the coming Afghan election. A few problems here, inexplicably omitted by Bush---can't imagine why:


1) The 10 million appears to be wildly overstated, due in large part to the fact---, according to Human Rights Watch, which has some people actually over there--that many voters have registered more than once. When Karzai was asked about this, he evidently said it was fine with him, since it indicated how enthusiastic his people were about democracy.

2)   According to an interview I heard with one of the human rights reps just returned from Afghanistan the women are likely to vote the way their husbands tell them to--that's the stage they're at now---so the husbands will virtually get 2 votes.

3)   The warlords, who still rule Afghanistan, as it's been for a long time (the Taliban being just another of the species) are telling their respective populations how to vote.

4)   Guess who the guarantors of the objectivity of the election will be. That's right, the above warlords. Very few international observers this time, in contrast to many other elections--the US and others have provided many observers and/or money for them in other elections--too much demand elsewhere for both especially in Iraq.



On North Korea: Bush was at pains to establish the terrible affront to China if Kerry were to cut China out by having bilateral talks with North Korea. A little problem here---China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea.



The gist of all this is that either Bush is lying or he is woefully misinformed on a wide range of international issues. -- (Which is it, Larry K, Martin, Doug R et al?)-- But that doesn't stop him from spreading his wrong info to the widest possible TV audience.

Seems pretty clear that he richly deserves to retire to the ancestral home---Connecticut. It sure ain't Texas.



It seems Bobert's description of undecided voters as NASCAR Neanderthals is off the mark--according to several polling organizations most of the undecided are women 18 to 49, making between $18,000 and $50,000, who don't like Bush but needed a reason to vote for Kerry. It appears that in Thursday's "debate" Kerry gave them that reason, coming across as a credible leader who has a coherent plan.

Kerry did probably miss at least one opportunity to blow Bush out of the water. One of Bush's favorite mantras that night was "don't send mixed messages". Kerry could perhaps, if not hamstrung by the restrictive format have rhetorically queried just what was meant by this. The likely answer is, as Zell Miller has put it, to thunderous applause in the Republican convention as I recall--no bringing down the commander in chief in a time of war. That is: no criticism of the President's conduct of the war during wartime.

A few points on this:

1) Contrary to this fond myth, this has rarely been the case. Exceptions include: Lincoln on "Polk's War", Teddy Roosevelt's slashing attacks on Wilson, first for not entering World War I sooner, then on how he conducted US participation when we did enter, McArthur's view of Truman's conduct of the Korean War, not to mention the well-known Vietnam fiasco.

2) What war is Bush talking about here? He was at pains to establish that the Iraq situation is just part of the war on terror. So it's evidently the war on terror he's talking about. This war will never end. So---no criticism of the President forever?

I don't think so.

What about the little matter of freedom of speech? Somehow I was under the impression that's one of the things we're fighting to preserve. Evidently not in Bush's America.

Perhaps he's under the impression that freedom of speech is an outmoded French concept, and as French, to be shunned. Could that be it?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 08:26 PM

Hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 08:17 PM

10-4...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 07:53 PM

I got that part Bobert. I just did not want to see one thread in the archives with such a title which is the reason I stated when I started this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 07:51 PM

See yer 11:47 post.... The entire other thread was supposed to be satirical... That is the point...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 07:45 PM

Okay, I did Bobert. Now what? I realize you put it up before the debate started. And your point is....?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 07:02 PM

Guest, the questions - and answers - were circumscribed because the two men could not choose their subjects. As Jim Lehrer, the moderator, said at the beginning of the debate: "The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else."

That would also explain the fact that they reminded you of what you have seen on the Jim Lehrer shos.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 06:46 PM

Ron,

Hey, go back and reread the original post on the "Bush declared..." thread. Also look at the time I started the thread...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 06:27 PM

It might be well that this should be combined with the other thread about "Bush declared Winner" since it looks like we are talking to the "choir" here.

I too believe Kerry won. Does that translate into votes? I don't know if the Stevensonian (admirable) way he spoke is accepted by what one novelist many moons ago in a book about radio called The Great Unwashed.

Rather than repeat myself and waste cyber "ink" you might check my comments in the aforementioned thread.

That said; I can only hope that Kerry's comments and demeanor do translate into votes.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:28 PM

Okay, maybe we're biased, GUEST. But a LOT of people out there, many of them Bush supporters, thought he stunk up the joint last night. For example, Bush got clobbered by the ultraconservative Jay Nordlinger, who loves him and wants him re-elected. At the National Review.

A sample:

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly ? much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy ? not Joe Political Junkie ? I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything ? were a political naïf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time ? I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate.

As I write this column, I have not talked with anyone about the debate, and I have listened to no commentary. I am writing without influence (which is how I try to do my other criticism, by the way). What I say may be absurd in light of the general reaction ? but so be it.


As he began, Kerry spoke clearly, and at a nice pace. He was disciplined about the clock.

Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his.

Kerry was smart to mention all those military bigwigs who support him.

The senator seemed to rattle the president, about 15 minutes in ? and he stayed rattled. Also, the president was on the defensive almost all the time. Rarely did he put Kerry on the defensive. Kerry could relax, and press.

Kerry was effective in talking about parents who have lost sons or daughters in the war. Bush was fairly good, later, too ? but not quite as good, I thought.

Bush said, "We're makin' progress" a hundred times ? that seemed a little desperate. He also said "mixed messages" a hundred times ? I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, "It's hard work," or, "It's tough," a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition ? when there are oceans of material available ? is another.

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember ? talk about repetition! ? I concede this as someone who loves the man.

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over?

I'm thinking that Bush didn't respect Kerry enough. That he didn't prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment ? "For gooness' sake, the American people are with me. They know I'm doin' the necessary. They're not going to dump me for this phony-baloney."

Well, they may opt for the phony-baloney.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:18 PM

I can't agree with that Guest either.   His or her perspective fails to realize the scope of the event.   Of course there are other stories that deserve attention, but to shrug it off as a "non-event" ignores the fact that this debate gave 55 million viewers an opportunity to hear the two candidates, one of who they will elect as the next leader of this country. It is easy to be a pessimist and say it doesn't really matter, but you would be wrong.

The debate was remarkably well run. It did not have a lot of "soundbites" but rather BOTH candidates spent time dealing with the issues.   Unless you were looking for them to face off in wrestling trunks in a cage match, this was what politics should be. Lehrer did a wonderful job of keeping the subjects in line and followup questions are not part of the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

But Don, we all KNOW you are in Kerry's camp, so your spin on the debate is utterly predicatably biased, like all the other people here in the Kerry camp.

Forgive some of us for thinking the Mudcatters in the Kerry camp are more than a bit biased on this.

From an independent perspective, where some of us look a little closer and a little more critically at the debate than do those in one or the other camps, it didn't look like a debate, and it didn't look like there was a GOOD choice to be made, regardless of the fact that Kerry did better than Bush.

Where was Kerry's outrage on the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza? He never mentioned the terrorist attacks on the school children by the Chechnyan separatists when asked about Russia--hell, at least Bush did. How the war on terror is influencing the volatile oil markets, how the war on terror has resulted in MORE states going down the road of totalitarianism in the Middle East, not less.

Did anyone hear even ONE SINGLE MENTION OF SAUDI ARABIA? Of Syria and Lebanon? Of the nuclear proliferation scam passing nuclear secrets on to Islamic terrorists by our "allies" in Pakistan?

No? Funny, I didn't hear anything about those pressing issues either.

A foreign policy debate my ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:48 PM

'Fraid I can't agree with GUEST just above.

My comments on that other thread with the dingy title.

WHA???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:31 PM

I also don't lend much credence to the debates changing peoples' minds. It might influence the direction of a few undecideds, but we have to remember, this ain't rocket science. There is no "proof" of anything coming out of these media events, except that they actually took place. Other than that, it's all a very expensive multi-million dollar tightly controlled crap shoot.

Not a debate. Doesn't even remotely resemble a debate. It looked like Jim Lehrer interviewing them on the PBS nightly news, actually. They conducted the thing EXACTLY the same way Lehrer's news program always does. Trots out one from this side, one from that side, then the "moderator" of the news segment asks questions, rarely asks follow up questions, and absolutely NEVER challenges the veracity of what the person being interviewed is saying.

Not exactly earth shattering, or newsworthy. The whole fiasco doesn't even bear mentioning on a newsday with such horrific news out of Iraq, another part of the Patriot Act (which both candidates support) being ruled unconstitutional, the horrific violence in Gaza, the bombing of a mosque in Pakistan killing 25 people during Friday prayers, crude oil shooting over $50/barrel, a major American drug used by millions of people daily is recalled, and other much more newsworthy things happening than this non-event.

Perspective, people.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:30 PM

Forget the polls. We can't let them lull us into a fall sense of security. They mean absolutely nothing.   Kerry did a great job last night and for him it was "mission accomplished". That does not mean the war is over. He must keep the momentum going and get his message out.   Bush did not deliver a message, he just threw out tired partyline answers. People are seeing through his routine. Do not think for a moment that Bush will come out the same way for the next debate. You will see a different Bush, and hopefully Kerry will be ready.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:22 PM

Instapolls:

CBS: On the question of "who won?":

Kerry: 44%
Bush: 26%
tie: 30%

On the question of "who has a clearer plan for iraq?":

Kerry: 51%
Bush: 38%

And 52% of the undecideds said that their "opinion of Kerry improved" from the debate.

ABC: "Who won?":
Kerry: 45%
Bush: 36%
tie: 17%

CNN: "Who won?"
Kerry: 53%
Bush: 37%

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:04 PM

More evidence that the Bush team thinks Kerry won: Weekly Standard chief Bill Kristol, on the Fox News Channel: "I talked to a half dozen Republican officials tonight and they're all a little bit deflated."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 03:41 PM

Another Time writer also thinks Kerry won:

Who will benefit the most from the evening? It's hard to see how Bush comes out stronger out of the debate than he went into it. For months, Kerry's been lampooned as irresolute, flip flopping Frenchie. What Americans saw was someone who was in command of his facts and, at the very least, seemed resolute. Bush's body language and sour lemon glances revealed in cutaway shots diminished him. The hunched stance that seems so Clint Eastwood on the campaign trail seemed more slumped on the stage at the University of Miami. Going into the debate Kerry had the bad rap of speaking like a senator, filled with talk of process and policy. But it was Bush who dropped names like Zarqawi without explaining that he's a leader of Iraqi insurgents. Al Gore got the bad rap for sighing but Bush let out a few audible ones himself, like when he asked how Kerry would pay for his promises and then resignedly said: "Well that?s for another time." The Bush team's hope that Kerry would constantly go over his time limit turned out to be misplaced. Kerry was concise.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 03:36 PM

There's no question who won this debate. But there is a significant questiopn as to whether this will impinge on the leaden mass of the unthinking as they gravitate toward the polls of the nation like so many leaden half-digested rat-burgers on their way to the sewer.

What I mean by unthinking, just so as to make it clear, is those who prefer to use a fear-response, or a fixed idea, or a slogan, or osme other kind of symbolism, in the place of ordinary clear thinking.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 03:08 PM

Larry K said that Joe Lockhart gave an "honest reaction." I assume that's because he's a Kerry adviser who nonetheless didn't toe the party line that Kerry won hands-down.

Well, Time reports a similar honest reaction from a Bush adviser:

The Bush team would like to paint Kerry as incapable of handling serious issues of national security. Did they succeed? A Bush adviser put it bluntly: "We are on defense. We were counting on Kerry being Kerry and he came to play. We didn't expect that."

In other words, round one went to Kerry, according to the Bush team.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 02:26 PM

I watched the debate. A few minutes ago I printed out the 26-page transcript of the debate. As I study it, I expect to see some things I was not aware of. It is true that body language and facial expressions can skew one's perceptions so if I decide that, imo, Bush won, I'll say so. I challenge Larry K (Where is DougR?) to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 02:11 PM

Here's a great Bush lie from the debate, as reported in Salon:

Twice during Thursday night's debate President Bush proclaimed that Iraq now has 100,000 of its own troops ready to protect the country, and that the number will go to 125K by the end of the year, and 200K the following. Sounds like great news -- but it's not accurate.

According to the Department of Defense's own documents, obtained by Reuters, "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training."

Moreover, "of the nearly 90,000 currently in the [Iraqi] police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as 'untrained,' and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:58 PM

It is interesting that a few days ago most democrats were criticizing the polls and saying you can't believe them and today are praising the polls in declaring Kerry the winner.

I said yesterday that the debates would have no more than a 1% change in polling.    The flash polling confirms that almost nobody changed their mind from the debate.

Joe Lockheart was caught on CSPAN camera telling McCoury that they had the debate as a draw.   The most honest assesment of the evening.
The real issue if the follow up this week.

Bush did not make any gaffs- or huge blunders which the democrats needed.   Looked like he was trying to run out the clock and avoid any mistakes.

According to the RNC Kerry made 17 lies including the lie that Kerry never called Bush a liar.   The RNC will be highlighting the Kerry misstatements such as they closed the bridges and subways in NYC during the rupublican convention.

Last year the media declared Gore the winner of the first debate but he lost ground in the polls.    With wins like that who needs defeats. The only poll that counts is the one after the recount Kerry demands after he loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:44 PM

I agree that Bush looked angry while Kerry talked, and Kerry looked poised for the most part (and pained in a few instances) while Bush talked. I agree that Kerry did much better than expected by being articulate and succinct enough to answer questions in the allotted time (what could have been a big liability for him), I didn't see the questioning as substantive, nor did I view this as a debate. It looked very much to me like two men holding a press conference with a referee, saying "now it's your turn".

As to the questions being asked, they largely seemed to deal with issues that should be behind us, ie they spoke to what has happened in the past, not what is happening now.

It seemed to me a rehash of the same thing we've been hearing from both campaigns and the media covering them, ad nauseum, for the better part of the last year.

When issues were raised by the moderator, like Darfur or the relationship with Russia, neither candidate seemed to know what they were talking about. The response on Darfur was, simply put, appalling from both men.

I wasn't impressed by either candidate's performance. Both seemed perfunctory and safe. No gaffes, just like their campaign managers ordered. If I were an undecided voter, I'd still be despairing of the lack of choice for president.

If anyone won, it would be Kerry, but only because Bush looked pissed off, and stumbled a number of times when trying to remember his lines. But they were both spouting well rehearsed lines, that much was plain to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:04 PM

Who won the debate?
John Kerry 53%
George Bush 47%
Did it change the candidate you support?
No 72%
Yes, I now support Kerry 18%
Yes, I now support Bush 10%
Total Votes: 1,000,934


(AOL Report 10-1-2204 at 1300 EST)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Genie
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:03 PM

Here's why I expect that Kerry "won" the debate -- something we won't really know till we see how voter preferences stack up after the dust has settled.

Bush has been ahead of Kerry in most polls for the past few weeks, DESPITE having less than 50% support in many of the states in which he's ahead and less than 50% approval for his policies, performances, etc. In other words, the "referendum" on Bush's first term so far shows him pretty much right around 50% or lower.

Kerry has been within striking distance (within a few percentage points) in nearly all "battleground states" polls even after having his name and record dragged through the mud on the cable "news" channels and most radio talk shows (except for airamericaradio.com) for about 6 weeks.   Most voters haven't heard or seen anything of Kerry since the Dem. convention, except for slanted sound bites and the image of him promoted by Cheney, Bush, and their cronies.

The reason Kerry's been behind, IMO, is that the undecided voters and those who are still open to changing their allegiance haven't known Kerry well enough to back him.

I think Kerry looked and sounded "Presidential" last night, seemed poised and confident, yet respectful of Bush.   His language was not overly formal or stiff, for the most part. He was quite direct and succinct in most of his message. And he also smiled and laughed at appropriate times.

I don't expect Bush's support to diminish very much because of last night's debate, but I do expect Kerry's to increase a good deal. And all Kerry needs to do to win some of the "battleground states" is reach 48% to 50%, and I expect the way he came across last night went a long way to getting him there.

I also think Kerry's performance last night will make people more likely to watch the second debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Tinker
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM

AOL poll

Hopefully folks can access this. AOL (granted not scientific) asks if the debate caused you to change who you support. Although 72% of the nearly 1 million respondants so far said no, the remaining 28% has 18% going to Kerry and 10% to Bush.

The undecided and the independants will truely make the decision.

Tinker

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: curmudgeon
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:46 PM

I did not watch the debate; it was past my bedtime, I don't watch television, it wasn't a debate.

But I did look at the response garnered by two local papers. In both the liberal leaning Portsmouth Herald and the conservative Fosters Daily Democrat, Kerry was judged the winner by an overwhelming majority; 20 to 1 in the Herald. The rabidly right wing Manchester Union Leader was apparently afraid to get its readers' opinions. And all this in what was once a solid Republican state.

As i drive around I also have been noticing a similar trend in political signs on lawns. There are a few places loaded with every republican sign imaginable, but countless more with a sign for Kerry or one for another local Democrat or two.

And voter registration is up sharply - mainly independents, but a good showing for Democrats; the Republicans have lost a hundred.

Cautiously optimistic in NH -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST,Charley Noble
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:11 AM

Nicely put, Jeri.

My only problem with Kerry on Iraq is whether anyone can put that country back together again without a major civil war. Thanks, George Bush, for rushing to get into this one.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:10 AM

Exactly, DWD. It is the point I have made time and again with the faceless Nader advocate. I understand all the pure intentions, but when it comes down to pragmatic execution of the strategy for winning an election, there are two important factors. Get out the base, and appeal to the middle. Especially in close elections. Cutting off the nose to spite the face is the alternative.

Kerry did a fine job. Bush did a passable job, but exposed his flaws. In the fullness of the campaign, Kerry will be seen as having prevailed in this one.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: dwditty
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:01 AM

I thought Kerry won this debate by a wide margin, but what does it matter? From what I can gather in reading about it, watching TV, and talking with people here at work....those that support Bush thought he did great, those that like Kerry thought he did well. I heard yesterday that the debates really do nothing to sway people from one candidate to another. I think this is probably true (my dear brother in law is still right of Rush). It all comes down to how many "undecideds" were watching and what THEY thought.

dw

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 10:46 AM

I posted an opinion in the Why I Will Not Watch the Debate thread. "Split decision"...??!! I don't see that.

Kerry talked about the decision to go to war without exhausting all diplomatic channels first. Bush countered with "What kind of a message does that send our troops?" Having been one of those troops, the message it would have sent me is "This guy isn't going to get us killed because he refuses to see what's happening and just maybe realize we need to get the hell out. Just maybe Kerry can absorb a clue where Bush is incapable of it, if it means he has to change his mind and/or admit he was wrong about something. I wouldn't have wanted a Commander in Chief who singlemindedly followed one goal no matter what anybody else thought, or what happened as a result. These people are scary. The message would be "I am not perfect, and I made a mistake." This would not be a problem for a person who knows he's not perfect. Flexibility's more important than rigid belief in one's own agenda.

Kerry brought out more facts. Bush brought out more warm, fuzzy stuff. Patriotism, and "we are..., we WILL!" That whole thing with nuclear proliferation, and Kerry saying if we keep going at Bush's pace and according to his plan, we'll elimate nuclear weapons in other countries in 30 years while developing new ones (nuclear 'bunker-busters') of our own. There were facts. Bush countered with "We have..., we will." No facts, no disagreement with Kerry's time-line, and he didn't even discuss our own current development of new nuclear weapons.

Oh well... details. Bush paused for what seemed like long, painful-to-watch periods of time. At least a couple times during his responses, I had to think very hard to remember what the question had been. He got caught with some very exasperated expressions when Kerry was talking and the camera was aimed at Bush. Kerry maintained poise. One thing I'd tell Kerry (I'm expecting a personal phone call asking for advice...ha) would be to look at the camera once in a while. He's responding to the mediator's questions, but it's the people out in TV-land he's really talking TO.

Bush said, "You cannot lead if you send mixed messages . . . there must be certainty."

Kerry countered with: "It's one thing to have certainty. . . you can be certain and be wrong."

It took him forever to get to that. I was yelling "SAY it...Just SAY IT!!" at the TV. He could have drawn parallels to Vietnam, but he didn't. Nevertheless, I think maybe a few people watching got it anyway. I wonder if those who think Bush actually won that debate are of the same mindset, and think that things and people must be right simply because they've always believed them to be. Never mind any facts that might give them a clue that re-evaluation is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 10:22 AM

So... if Bush's candor and 'faith' are what people believe in him for...

It was most shocking for me to see the 'Boylyman Beeatch' showing absolutely no resepect for Kerry's well phrased points of difference... as if it is OK to show spiteful insecurities to the nation and the world... with that face of the spoiled brat not getting his way... That sort of narrow mindedness is entirely inappropriate for vigorous, incisive... and inclusive world leadership.

Like... No wonder there is Zero tollerence for diplomacy...

Kerry will do his best to make us proud... and his best seems to come from a fine collaboration between his sense of humanity, his strong ethical compunctions, and his open minded and considerate approach to the superiority of diplomacy... not to mention his realistic assessment of our national security needs...

Kerry is far and away the better choice for 'Commander in chief'...

And we haven't even gotten to the Domestic issues...

Oh... I almost forgot... IMHO... Kerry is by far the better Christian of the two.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Alice
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 09:22 AM

that should be "repeating"... sorry, I just woke up

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Alice
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 09:20 AM

Yes, Kerry did a great job. Bush was typical, reapeating his scripts. I hope voters were watching and paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 06:46 AM

I was impressed by both sides of the debate. I think Bush was more articulate under pressure than I'd ever seen him. He appeared to think quite well on his feet and showed a keen awareness of world events. Kerry perhaps for the first time presented a 'complete' and consistent position at one time and place, and was on the attack.

I know that both teams practised like hell and had such a playbook full of rules for the debate that it seemed like a straitjacket was imposed on them, but the results last night made me feel better about our choices and proved that indeed there is a choice to be made.

I'd give Kerry the edge for two reasons: A normally verbose speaker, the short rigorous time limits on the answers/ responses (2minutes/ 90seconds) could have made his answers truncated or incomplete, but instead made him perform quite intelligibly. Secondly, as a challenger, he won by 'not losing'. He looked Presidential.

This was mostly a draw, however, and its already being spun like sugar.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:41 AM

Kerry by a split decision. And this was in Bush's court. I can't wait to watch Edwards take Cheney apart like a dollar watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:47 AM

Sorry, I just found it..over at C-Span

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 04:41 AM

Anyone know an online website I can hear the debate in full?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:05 AM

I must say I was surprized by the quality and tone of the debates. Both men behaved well when they were speaking. But Bush performed poorly when Kerry was speaking. He looked defensive and testy. He also loked awkward and frustrated at times. Kerry clearly won. None of the punditocracy thought that Kerry would gain in the polls. I think he will.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:40 AM

I was pleasantly surprised by both. It seemed to be an actual debate that talked about actual issues. They both answered the questions that were asked, instead of plugging in prepared statements that might or might not fit.
But I'm still for Kerry, and I'm pleased that he did well. He certainly sounded more intelligent than Bush, and I thought he sounded very human - not showing any of the stiffness he had been accused of during the primaries.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:33 AM

Both Kerry and Bush did better than I expected. This was one time it was good to have TV. Bush can take disagreement, but he doesn't like to be told that he made mistakes.

What I remember about the Truman-Dewey campaign is that Truman had specific plans, and Dewey had cllches, much like Kerry & Bush respectively. I noticed afterwards in other elections that the man who was specific won over the man who was for god and country and mom's apple pie. Of course the theory fell down with Goldwater; he was specific about ,say, getting rid of social security but it didn't do him any good. Still, I feel better about Kerry than I did.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:18 AM

John Kerry showed conviction, a clear intelligence of the problems facing our country and the world and definitely won the first debate against Pres. Bush.

He made it clear that he has specific plans on how to rebuild America's reputation in the world; how to make our alliances with other countries stronger; and, our country safer.

Bush has squandered his time in office with a one-track agenda and our country cannot afford four more years.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:16 AM

Yes, Bush did fairly well...but Kerry did better.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: GUEST,Tom Dowling
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:16 AM

Hello Ron!!

Indeed. It sure was refreshing, not to mention informative and sobering, to hear what the contender has to say instead of the sound bites, perjorative characterizations and outright mispreprentations of his record you get from the opponent's camp.

Be well, Tom D.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:03 AM

Thanks, Ron. I concur that Kerry won. He was a gent, had better facts, was more articulate. Bush. to his credit, managed to hold his position although he stumbled here and there, and he did better than I expected.

Close, but on the whole Bush was outclassed, outgunned, out-smarted.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:57 PM

CBS did a tracking poll of 200 undecideds nationwide, and Kerry won by a mile according to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:54 PM

Right you are, Ron O. As I said on the other thread, Kerry had to establish himself as a credible leader with a consistent message.    I would think, to any undecided voter whose brain can absorb more than Bush's favorite 2 phrases in 90 minutes, he did that.

Subject: BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:47 PM

Let's get the truth out instead of that other thread.   Kerry did a great job.   Bush kept up the same talking points (Kerry changes positions) but Kerry was able to show that he has been very consistent. Bush looked unprepared at times as well as nervous. Bush stumbled, couldn't find words, and was on the defensive most of the night. Kerry was articulate and decisive. He looked comfortable, not the type of president that would have his ass glued in a chair in a grade school when a crisis arises.