September 30, 2004
The Debate
I enjoyed this debate. Many people may have found it boring but not me. I thought this was one of the best debates that I have ever seen.
This debate either changed your mind, comforted you or is helping you reach your decision.
My mind didn't change because I disagree with Kerry on policy. That said, I feel that Kerry did a really good job articulating many of his postions, a first for him in my opinion. Kerry needed this debate and I think it will help him. My one quibble with Kerry is that HE NEVER TOLD US WHAT HE FUCKING PLAN IS!!!!!
I know that he thinks HIS PLAN is better than Bush's but what is it?
He says he will win the WOT with HIS PLAN, how?
I know that I can go to his website and read it but why should I have to? He wants my vote or my Mom's vote or John Doe's vote but he isn't willing to fill us in on his plan. Why should we have to go to his website to learn about him? Doesn't he know his own plan without notecards? You want our vote Senator, then you'd better start telling us your plan because it's your job to sell yourself.
Tell us your plan. You had several opportunities to do so and you didn't do it. What is the big secret?
Were you afraid that if you laid out your 4 point plan that we'd notice that it is what Bush is already doing?
The big debate was a draw.
Kerry needed a knockout and he didn't deliver. On the plus side, he didn't blow it .
Posted by rosemary at September 30, 2004 10:58 PM | TrackBackI guess my question to your question is, what is *Bush's* Iraq plan? If Kerry's is on his web site, at least he has one.
To me (big shocker), Bush just repeated platitudes. (My drinking game was, he says "liberty," you take a drink. And I'm pretty soused right now.) Kerry had substantive and specific points on each issue.
If I had a criticism of Kerry, it would be that he didn't hammer on domestic security enough. He did talk about it, but not enough, I think. Because people's positions on Iraq are pretty fixed. But as NBC's group of undecided voters showed, they are concerned about what we're doing at home to make ourselves safer, and the "security moms" like what Kerry had to say on that.
Posted by: Adam at September 30, 2004 11:11 PMI agree completely your majesty. Hey John Kerry, WTF? What if I don't have a computer and I can't go to your website???
Why don't you tell US your truth, Senator?
Did anyone else feel like Waffle Bay was going to start talking about SALT treaties? Nuclear proliferation? Is this 1984?
Honestly, neither one of them knocked it out of the park. GWB was strong with the repetition, but I think it came across as being unprepared (CaltechDad had this opinion, and I know he supports Bush). Kerry made a couple of points, but they were relatively weak and he didn't clearly emphasize them over and over, and I think he could have scored more points by doing that.
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 30, 2004 11:18 PMYou want an anti-war candidate to give you a war plan? You might as well ask a priest for tips on how to have hot sex. I believe he talked about cutting a military program for bunker busting nukes and sending that money to Russia. That's pretty much the plan as far as I can tell. Cut our military and send aid money to Russia and the Sudan.
Posted by: Ralph at September 30, 2004 11:24 PMDid you even listen to what Bush was saying, or did you just mute that and only listened when Kerry spoke?
Bush repeated his plan over and over again. Train the Iraqi military and have them defend theirselves 125k by the end of the year, 200k by the end of next year. Hold elections in Iraq, and so on.
The current sitting POTUS doesn't have to lay out a plan for the American people, he is busy implementing the policy that he feels is right.
Its not the POTUS's job to make popular decisions, its up to him to make the RIGHT ones.
As the challenger, its up to Kerry to tell us how he plans to do things better in Iraq. All we hear is I have a plan, I have a plan, but he never talks about the details of the plan.
And if Kerry says, "without a plan to win the peace" again, I'll puke. Thats the single most overused phrase by the Kerry camp.
Posted by: Jerry at September 30, 2004 11:27 PMKerry was scripted. He rarely looked into the camera. I thought he was icy, detached, responded to ideas but not to any sense there were other peop;e in the room except when Bush mentioned his daughters. Like he was depersonalized.
The questions were too complicated and I was not impressed with Jim Lehrer. The format was stiffling precluding spontaneity from either candidate but Bush did better in that area. And like the audience needed to be totally quiet.
Unreal.
Bush scored heavy points right near the end on the bilateral North Korea talks issue.
Bush looked irritated when Kerry spoke but generally had adequate replies.
I do not score either one as a winner.
I think Kerry had a better debating style and seemed more at ease. Bush seemed flustered on many occasions. The instant analysis on thiss will be that Kerry won. However, that could change over the next few days as each candidates words get spun through the mills.
And for Kerry, there were some killer mistakes that could bite him in the ass for post-analysis. For starters, the "global test". What does that mean? The US can only defend itself if it passes a multiple-choice exam? What? This just bolsters the opinions people have that he will decide America's fate based on the needs of Paris.
Plus, the post-debate spin will also tear down his handling of the facts. Yes, it appeared he handled his facts correctly. But with Bush correcting his fact on the Iran sanctions and the North Korean enriched uranium (which Kerry said we as an exper on), it may turn out that people begin to perceive Kerry to be quick with answers that are incorrect.
Here's some truth-telling on Iraqi security forces:
http://tinyurl.com/6uq4q
Even the networks were racing to debunk Bush's 100K figure, saying it's more like 50K. Big difference, and I've heard that a lot of those numbers are just in training, not ready to go.
Jerry: Bush doesn't have to lay out an Iraq plan, but Kerry does? Yeah, that makes sense.
Posted by: Adam at September 30, 2004 11:54 PMHe forgot Poland. Geez Rose, you of all people should have been proud of Bush picking up on that serious gaff by Kerry and Bush hamering him on it more than once. Our great number two ally!!
Q.: How many Polish Prime Ministers does it take to make George Bush look like a liar?
A.: Same as it takes to screw in a light bulb -- because despite all the jokes, Poles really aren't dumbasses -- Just One.
"They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.""I thought Bush scored very nice points on reminding Kerry about the Polish Brigade, but I couldn't help remembering how this nation was Gerald Ford's undoing at his debate against Carter.
I really wonder if it will play at all.
As an excersize in forensics, Kerry severly crushed POTUS. The polls and pundits give Kerry the edge on style if not substance. As for getting anyone to change their mind -- of the few truly undecideds out there who bothered to watch -- which is all that really matters, Kerry certainly swayed more people than Bush.
As for the griping about no details on the plan, just how disingenuous is it to expect that in 90 seconds? You guys are bloggers, true participants in the process. You've know what the plan is and where to find it and also know that Kerry's last two speeches address in specific detail first Iraq then the larger WoT. They were bullet points, with details, that will take about 30 minutes to fully vet and at least 5 minutes merely to list.
Do you really prefer a complex foreign policy to fit on a bumper-sticker? Why then do you go to the trouble to use the net at all? This is a medium where time and length restraints are anathama. That critique is spin and if you really are serious about what is good for this country -- instead of merely playing spectator and rooting for your team -- you know better.
Or is it more important to expose the source of Kerry's tan and wrinkle-free forehead?
It is my fervent hope that America is smarter than that, but I've been disappointed before.
Posted by: Mark Adams at October 1, 2004 12:17 AMMy favorite moment was when NBC interviewed six undecided voters, and they all picked Kerry solidly as the winner. And not just the winner of this debate, but someone they would feel comfortable with as CinC.
Posted by: Adam at October 1, 2004 12:20 AMQ.: How many Polish Prime Ministers does it take to make George Bush look like a liar?
A.: Same as it takes to screw in a light bulb -- because despite all the jokes, Poles really aren't dumbasses -- Just One.
"They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
That isn't what he said. That is not a solid translation of his words. He said that they were mislead by intelligence and that the U.S., Britain and other nations share that problem. He was blaming the intel not Bush.
You can't fool me Mark, I can read in both French and Polish, as well as English. :-)
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at October 1, 2004 06:23 AMUnfortunately, the intel WAS right, but the administration chose to ignore the majority of the reports that didn't support the option that they really wanted to pursue (taking down Saddam).
Posted by: Tim the Soldier at October 1, 2004 06:49 AMAdam:
Bush has to lay out a plan to his military. As the current POTUS he doesn't have the time to explain it to the American people. Kerry's got all the time in the world, as a Senator he can just skip votes if he wants, and explain all his policies and plans. The POTUS still has a job to do while he is campaigning. Which is why Bush was talking to hurricane victims pre-debate and Kerry was getting a manicure.
On the Iraq security forces thing: The source you linked was over 5 months old. If you think nothing has happened in those 5 months, you're kidding yourself.
Posted by: Jerry at October 1, 2004 09:50 AMJerry:
The President *doesn't have the time* to tell the American people how he's going to deal with a war he started? Let's see, maybe he can use that month of August on the Crawford "ranch" for something other than clearing brush. Go ahead, keep digging yourself deeper.
I was looking for sources online on the security forces, and that was the most comprehensive I found at the time I was posting. But as I've said, even the major media, without the resources of the blogging army, could and did easily debunk Bush's 100K figure right now, today. I also heard on TV last night (can't find a link) that they had to fire 40,000 recruits because they had shady backgrounds. The exit interviews alone will take weeks.
Posted by: Adam at October 1, 2004 10:25 AMAdam, if you really think the President does nothing when he's in Crawford but clear brush, you should check yourself into a institution and not come out until Nov 3rd, because you're unstable. The President is ALWAYS in contact, if an emergency had happened last night Bush would have been of screen and Kerry could have spent 90 minutes debating himself.
This election gets more interesting by the day. . Kerry may be a lousy campaigner, but at least he's an almost halfway decent candidate (say .46 of a Lieberman). But Bush is still the better choice for the security-minded.
John:
Oh, the "debating himself" line, huh? Good one.
As for Bush being off-screen, that might have helped him - instead of those endless shots of him looking snarky and peevish. Hooray for split screen!
Best Bush line: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that!"
I wonder how those "security-minded" people feel about Bush not securing nuclear and chemical plants here at home, because it would be expensive for those industries to do.
Posted by: Adam at October 1, 2004 12:11 PMJerry:
BTW, on security forces, here's the link I was looking for, from Reuters *a week ago*:
http://tinyurl.com/5nw7p
Sample line:
"The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training."
Enjoy.
Posted by: Adam at October 1, 2004 12:24 PMThere wasn't a knock-out punch last night, but Kerry certainly impressed me.
I thought it was funny that Bush kept drinking water from an empty glass? Was he that nervous?
For those who want to read an honest and non-partisan opinion of the debate, go read Joe Gandelman.
http://themoderatevoice.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/a_lively_presid.html
Posted by: marko at October 1, 2004 06:11 PMMy favorite moment was when Bush said "moo-lahs".
That and the global test stuff. Priceless.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 1, 2004 07:35 PMThis was one of my favorites when Bush spoke about Missy Johnson.
Bush: ...You know, it’s hard work to try to love her as best I can..."
Say what, Mr. Pissadent?
Maybe she's a large woman, if ya know what I mean...
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at October 1, 2004 08:44 PMHa Rosemary...always the comedian. ;)
Posted by: marko at October 1, 2004 09:01 PMBush love you long time!
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 1, 2004 11:30 PMSo far, the Bushies like Bush, and the Kerryites prefer their guy. Big surprise.
I don't have TV reception, and am too cheap to pay for cable (Roadrunner, however, is a basic food group). I did catch a bit of the debate on the radio.
Kerry sounded good; confident and relaxed. That should help him with the whiney image evoked by the "make 'me STOP!" complaints about the (independant) Swifties.
Bush sounded relaxed and expressive. His speech pattern impressed me as more spontaneous and fluid than usual, for the "public" Bush. I've heard he's a lot more interesting in private/off camera.
Kerry seemed to shade over into "fact checklist" wonk-land sometimes. Perhaps this is an indication of the DNC's perception that Bush really is dumb; maybe they thought they would blow his brain fuse, or something. I Dunno. I heard from several folks that Kerry was seen taking notes several times. This may impress some folks as attention to detail.
Bush (as others have noted here) did a good job of staying on message. And I must interject here that certain Bush non-admirers are either stupid, or dishonest. The Bush plan for Iraq is simple to the point of transparency: rebuild infrastructure; help the Iraqis learn how to execute basic civil services such as police and courts, while eliminating corruption; establish the rule of law; shoot every motherfucker that gets in their way.
My kinda platform! Heh. And yes, certain parts are serious, but with tounge planted firmly in cheek.
So. Is Bush constant and reliable, by staying on message, or just repetitive? Is Kerry acting like a flip-floppy dweeb, or is he revealing hitherto unknown analytical abilities with his notes?
Stay tuned, for Episode II of "Dork Wars..."