BS: Kerry Declared Winner of First Debate..

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 03:41 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:53 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 - 08:17 PM

10-4...

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: 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: 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.