| Revision as of 17:07, 1 October 2004 editSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits Kerry clearly won the debate← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:11, 1 October 2004 edit undoSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits →Kerry clearly won the debateNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| == Kerry clearly won the debate == | == Kerry clearly won the debate == | ||
| I don't support either candidate although between the two I prefer Bush. Kerry definitely won, because Bush failed to challenge any of Kerry's "points", and kept repeating his flip-flop mantra but not in those words. Bush seemed non-plussed by Kerry's hubris and did not know how to respond. Kerry contended he would have gotten everything right, from forming a better coalition, planning better for the occupation of Iraq, to using America's best forces instead of Afghani's to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. What is the proper debate response who confidently states the hypothetical without any evidentiary basis that he would have done better? | I don't support either candidate although between the two I prefer Bush. Kerry definitely won, because Bush failed to challenge any of Kerry's "points", and kept repeating his flip-flop mantra but not in those words. Bush seemed non-plussed by Kerry's hubris and did not know how to respond. Kerry contended he would have gotten everything right, from forming a better coalition, planning better for the occupation of Iraq, to using America's best forces instead of Afghani's to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. What is the proper debate response to someone who confidently states the hypothetical without any evidentiary basis that he would have done better? | ||
| Bush could have stated that Kerry was wrong about what he would have done, that Kerry would still be negotiating with the Taliban to try to get them to turn over Bin Laden, that if Kerry had attacked Afghanistan using American forces instead of special ops with the Northern Alliance that casualties would have been much higher. In answer to Kerry's insistance that Bin Laden was the real enemy, Bush could have countered that even though Bin Laden was not captured or killed, that he is effectively neutralized, like all Al Quada, except those in Iraq, he is having to keep his head down. In Iraq, al Quada is going against hardened military targets instead of innocent US civilians, etc. | Bush could have stated that Kerry was wrong about what he would have done, that Kerry would still be negotiating with the Taliban to try to get them to turn over Bin Laden, that if Kerry had attacked Afghanistan using American forces instead of special ops with the Northern Alliance that casualties would have been much higher. In answer to Kerry's insistance that Bin Laden was the real enemy, Bush could have countered that even though Bin Laden was not captured or killed, that he is effectively neutralized, like all Al Quada, except those in Iraq, he is having to keep his head down. In Iraq, al Quada is going against hardened military targets instead of innocent US civilians, etc. | ||
| When Kerry mentioned the CIA's negative estimate of the situation, Bush could have pointed out that pre-war intelligence also mentioned civil war as a potentential result of the invasion, just as the most recent estimate has, and yet despite this his policies have successfully avoided it to this point and despite the terrorist attacks most Iraqis are already living a better life and far fewer are dying than under the sanctions and Saddam. |
When Kerry mentioned the CIA's negative estimate of the situation, Bush could have pointed out that pre-war intelligence also mentioned civil war as a potentential result of the invasion, just as the most recent estimate has, and yet despite this his policies have successfully avoided it to this point and despite the terrorist attacks most Iraqis are already living a better life and far fewer are dying than under the sanctions and Saddam. | ||
| Kerry also promised he would do much better than Bush in the future. An easy thing to contend and difficult to contest. Perhaps Bush should have used sarcasm, suggesting the Kerry with his international diplomatic skills should not even bother getting Germany and France in the coalition, when obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition. --] 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:11, 1 October 2004
Is it too early to note that Kerry won? :) Just kidding, of course the article can't really say that, though The Daily Show basically said the same thing -- Jon Stewart seemed amazed that Rudy Giuliani thought Bush won, and Wesley Clark claimed Kerry won (both were guests). Some googling doesn't reveal any other suitably prominent people claiming one way or another (some blogs, but I don't know enough to know which are prominent enough for Misplaced Pages). Stewart could be noted, but I guess it's too early. In the morning, there will be dozens of opinions available. I'm probably just antsy because I quit smoking today and this whole nicotine patch thing is clearly a bunch of bullshit, so I'm trying to keep my mind on anything but cigarettes. Grr... Don't cross me tonight, Wikipedians, or I will have you all killed... Tuf-Kat 05:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the daily show is not the most nonpartisan political source... But please don't kill me.
I think we should hold off for a while on assessing the first night... but until then, drink up if you're a kerry fan.
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53 Bush: 37
CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44 Bush: 26 Tie: 30
ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45 Bush 36: Tie: 17
Mort Kondracke: “This is the President's turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.”
Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online’s the Corner: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive."
Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's the Corner: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night."
Bob Schieffer: “The President was somewhat defensive in the beginning”
Mark Shields: "The President showed a few times obvious anger"
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: “I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate.”
Bob Schieffer: “Kerry got off to a very good start.”
Joe Scarborough: “It was John Kerry’s best performance ever…As far as the debate goes, I don’t see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry.” (MSNBC)
Andrea Mitchell: “This is the toughest we’ve ever seen John Kerry. He attacked the very core of the President’s popularity. He’s basically saying, who do you believe?” (MSNBC)
Tim Russert: “Tonight he seemed to find his voice for the Democratic view of the world.”
Fred Barnes on FNC: "Kerry did very well and we will have a Presidential race from here on out."
- JohnKerry.com --kizzle 06:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Not the first 2004 debate.
The debate tonight (9/30/04) keeps being referred to as the "first" Presidential debate of 2004. There was a Presidential debate prior to this though (9/06/04). However, both President Bush and Senator Kerry declined the invitation. Mr. Badnarik running under the Libertarian Party ticket and Mr. Cobb running under the Green Party ticket both attended. A direct link to a Real Player verion of the C-SPAN event can be found here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04090604_third.rm.
Putting the facts aside for a minute I'm going to go into non-NPOV mode and say that the September 6th Presidential debate was much more informative than the one on Sept. 30th. The latter seemed more like an infomercial. Dustin Asby 09:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Transcripts of debates
Would it be possible to include a transcript of the debate(s when more have been done) or at least a link to a website with one? Chewyman 22:45, 1 Oct 2004
Kerry clearly won the debate
I don't support either candidate although between the two I prefer Bush. Kerry definitely won, because Bush failed to challenge any of Kerry's "points", and kept repeating his flip-flop mantra but not in those words. Bush seemed non-plussed by Kerry's hubris and did not know how to respond. Kerry contended he would have gotten everything right, from forming a better coalition, planning better for the occupation of Iraq, to using America's best forces instead of Afghani's to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. What is the proper debate response to someone who confidently states the hypothetical without any evidentiary basis that he would have done better?
Bush could have stated that Kerry was wrong about what he would have done, that Kerry would still be negotiating with the Taliban to try to get them to turn over Bin Laden, that if Kerry had attacked Afghanistan using American forces instead of special ops with the Northern Alliance that casualties would have been much higher. In answer to Kerry's insistance that Bin Laden was the real enemy, Bush could have countered that even though Bin Laden was not captured or killed, that he is effectively neutralized, like all Al Quada, except those in Iraq, he is having to keep his head down. In Iraq, al Quada is going against hardened military targets instead of innocent US civilians, etc.
When Kerry mentioned the CIA's negative estimate of the situation, Bush could have pointed out that pre-war intelligence also mentioned civil war as a potentential result of the invasion, just as the most recent estimate has, and yet despite this his policies have successfully avoided it to this point and despite the terrorist attacks most Iraqis are already living a better life and far fewer are dying than under the sanctions and Saddam.
Kerry also promised he would do much better than Bush in the future. An easy thing to contend and difficult to contest. Perhaps Bush should have used sarcasm, suggesting the Kerry with his international diplomatic skills should not even bother getting Germany and France in the coalition, when obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition. --Silverback 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)