Who Won the Second Debate?

[Nepa]

[Nepa]

The poll is open.

[Felix_Nietsche]

There is nothing that Kerry won't say to get elected. His mantra is "I have a plan, but I can't tell you now".

If I was grading the debate of delivery and smoothness, then John F. Kerry won (he was John G. Kerry but he had a name change to he could be JFK, Hmmmm, I wonder why??).

If I was scoring the debate who was the most credible, then GWB won.

Kerry's delivery is smooth and I fear that many of the weak-minded undecided will actually believe his BS. If Kerry gets elected, it will be the election of another 1-term Jimmy Carter wimp. Then once again, Americans will get fed up and elect another Reagan..... Hopefully this President will know how to use a veto pen...

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
His mantra is "I have a plan, but I can't tell you now".

[/ QUOTE ]

This equals "I am full of crap...but I'm telling you what you want to hear. Vote for me!"

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His mantra is "I have a plan, but I can't tell you now".

[/ QUOTE ]

This equals "I am full of crap...but I'm telling you what you want to hear. Vote for me!"

[/ QUOTE ]He referenced his website a couple times- there are much more detailed plans there.

[yzerman18]

Can anyone tell me what the Presidents plan is because I haven't heard it either?

Honestly I believe that we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time, just like we are still in Germany, Japan, & Korea. The difference is under GWB the rest of the world is going to believe we are there for the oil (and we probally are) not protecting democracy from the Red Mence.

I don't know if Kerry can convice other nations to help share the burden in Iraq, but I know GWB can't. How long can we substain troop levels over 100,000?

[Peca277]

I can't believe someone challenges Kerry's credibility, and acts like Bush has actually told the truth during his presidency. Just because the campaign to label Kerry a flip flopper has been more effective, doesn't mean that Bush has been straight with the American people. It also amazed me that even after the press conference where Bush couldn't answer the question about mistakes he's made, he once again didn't have a reasonable answer. We all make mistakes, George W. Bush thinks he's better than the rest of us though.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe someone challenges Kerry's credibility, and acts like Bush has actually told the truth during his presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bush told the truth about Iraq. I don't understand how you can say otherwise. Every major inteligence unit in the world was saying so. I will challenge Kerry's credibility. And it's easy to do. He plays both sides of the field depending on how much its convenient. He does this way too much. Also, look at his voting record. If thats not proof, I don't know what is. I've posted tons of threads on this.


[ QUOTE ]
Just because the campaign to label Kerry a flip flopper has been more effective, doesn't mean that Bush has been straight with the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically I will agree. But I still think Bush is far more candid with the public than Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]
It also amazed me that even after the press conference where Bush couldn't answer the question about mistakes he's made, he once again didn't have a reasonable answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't see that. But I will agree, I didn't like his answer at tonights debate. He should of listed three mistakes. Instead he talked about Iraq. That is a minus in my book. He also mentioned he appointed some bad people. Ok answer, but easy out. That is a small minus in my book.


[ QUOTE ]
We all make mistakes, George W. Bush thinks he's better than the rest of us though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bush knows he has faults. Just look at his Arnold comment at the RNC.

[anatta]

Even Bush's "mistake", his appointments, reeks of an inablility to admit a mistake and the need to blame others. Implied is, those I appointed screwed up, not really me. The appointments were bad, and I don't want to embarass them by naming them. Why? It was YOUR mistake, right?

THE BUCK STOPS HERE! President Harry S. Truman (Dem.)

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Bush's "mistake", his appointments, reeks of an inablility to admit a mistake and the need to blame others. Implied is, those I appointed screwed up, not really me. The appointments were bad, and I don't want to embarass them by naming them. Why? It was YOUR mistake, right?

THE BUCK STOPS HERE! President Harry S. Truman (Dem.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This question was an obvious set-up by a liberal activist. We all know that liberal reporters have been asking this at every opportunity. They want me to admit that Iraq was a mistake, when in fact it was not a mistake.

Poor job of selecting the people to ask questions, and poor job by Gibson in keeping the topics balanced. But such tricks are to be expected from liberals.

[jdl22]

It was indeed one of several obviously biased questions on both sides.

Wouldn't a better answer have been "One mistake was not pushing harder to pass X" where X is something he pledges to do in the future? This would both admit to being human (something Bush has yet to really do) as well as keep things positive. I think another good response would have been "not getting both sides to work together in a bipartisan fashion" or something to that effect. Then he could explain that he tried and will continue to try to do so. This would open him up to something from Kerry but at least it would be something. I think avoiding really answering that question, which is a negative feeling that a lot of neutral voters have about Bush, is a mistake.

[anatta]

"Bush...reeks of an inablility to admit a mistake and the need to blame others"

Your response:

[ QUOTE ]

Poor job of selecting the people to ask questions, and poor job by Gibson in keeping the topics balance

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You really are the real GWB.

[Analyst]

Bush did a much better job than in the first debate, though that wasn't a very high hurdle to clear. Kerry was a bit weaker than before, and frequently drove me crazy by not addressing the question, but rather just going to frequently unrelated talking points. Bush was also guilty of this, though not quite as much.

HOWEVER, these debates are about selling to the undecideds, not rousing your supporters. In that respect, I think that Kerry clearly did a better job. Witness, for example, the abortion and Supreme Court questions - Kerry came accross as more moderate and more thoughtful than did Bush. The partial-birth abortion discussion showed Bush to be much more doctrinaire than Kerry, not what you want when going for those in the middle. Don't get me wrong, Bush's answers were great for those already on board, but I think that Kerry was superior at appealing to those still undecided.

[tanda]

That question was bullshit.

Tell us three mistakes and then your opp gets time to talk about those mistakes.

On the other hand, your opp does not have to answer that question and, thus, you do not get to talk about his response.

And, it's the last question so you get to go out on a low note.

Rigged, rigged, rigged.

[anatta]

The first friggin' question was like: Senator, everybody I know thinks you're a flip flopper, can you respond? Nothing like the when did you stop beating your wife right off the bat when the TV audience is the biggest, you aren't warmed up...

So they asked a question Bush has been asked before on National TV, and he still couldn't give a satisfactory answer. Some humility, some issue that he can admit didn't come out as planned. I like the other poster, "I wish I could have been more successful in ending the divisiveness in Washington, I tried my best to unite, and I will keep trying..."

[Diplomat]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush did a much better job than in the first debate, though that wasn't a very high hurdle to clear. Kerry was a bit weaker than before, and frequently drove me crazy by not addressing the question, but rather just going to frequently unrelated talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on both points, especially with Kerry getting off-topic. He needed to be more subtle when swinging a question about Iraq over to a comment on health care, for example, and probably lost some of the appearance of genuinity that was conveyed by the rest of his presentation. Had he done this better, I believe this debate would have been clearly won by Kerry.

Bush's answers were certianly less developed and refined, but he came across a bit more genuine when conveying them. That said, Bush's composure throughout the debate was a bit questionable, particularily while not answering questions. A few times he was caught clearly smirking while Kerry spoke, which may not play well with undecided...and neither will interupting the moderator.

[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, these debates are about selling to the undecideds, not rousing your supporters. In that respect, I think that Kerry clearly did a better job. Witness, for example, the abortion and Supreme Court questions - Kerry came accross as more moderate and more thoughtful than did Bush. The partial-birth abortion discussion showed Bush to be much more doctrinaire than Kerry, not what you want when going for those in the middle. Don't get me wrong, Bush's answers were great for those already on board, but I think that Kerry was superior at appealing to those still undecided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly -- at first I did not like Kerry's answer simply because I thought he could have taken a slightly more pro-life stance without compromising too much (ie. losing votes from the pro-choice advocates), but then I realized most of the pro-life advocates are already voting for Bush. Kerry's answer appealed much more to those undecided, imo, simply because it emphasized individual choice and moderation instead of personal ideology. This of course is not to say one answer is better than the other in terms of substance, but rather that Kerry's answer will probably play better among those undecided.

So: IMO Kerry did well by using a more classic approach to the town hall meeting by connecting questions together, targeting undecided and hitting on key points, but faltered slightly by pushing campaign retoric a bit too much. Bush did well in terms of genuinity, but his answers were less refined and his composure was weak at times.

I say this one goes to Kerry; now let's see how both sides spin it.

-Diplomat

[Diplomat]

Both of these questions were a bit out there, but not unreasonable considering the nature of town hall debates. If I had to judge them, I'd say the Kerry question was worse in terms of timing, but the Bush question worse in terms of substance.

The frustrating part for me regarding the questions was that there were virtually no foreign policy questions outside the realm of Iraq and terrorism...I think the closest other FP question was regarding generic drugs from Canada. No international trade questions, no international health questions, no foreign aid questions...I know they are not 'hot' topics, but they are still huge issues given the USA's global position.

-Diplomat

[anatta]

I agree that both questions were reasonable, I was trying to convince the other poster that it wasn't "rigged", so I can see how it might seem like I doubted the fairness. I am not the diplomat that you are. hahahahahahaha...get it, diplomat...oh jeez...I crack myself up.

[Diplomat]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that both questions were reasonable, I was trying to convince the other poster that it wasn't "rigged", so I can see how it might seem like I doubted the fairness. I am not the diplomat that you are. hahahahahahaha...get it, diplomat...oh jeez...I crack myself up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The 'rigged' comment reminded me of all those guys in the zoo that claim internet poker is rigged. It's funny watching people react to these sorts of things. If it's anti-Bush, then OF COURSE it's the damn liberal, jew-controlled media contorting the issues to destroy Real American Values. If it's anti-Kerry, then OF COURSE it's Cheney and the rest of his Haleberton cronies plotting against the working man.

Re. my name: Well, they say the man who can make himself laugh...will probably end up building mail bombs in a woodland shed somewhere.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Diplomat

[PITTM]

i literally am more shocked everyday by what conservatives have to say. the debate questions were rigged because both people were asked a question that was obviously leading them into addressing their past failures, but the president chose to completely ignore his question so therefore the "liberal activists" in the crowd made it rigged. give me a break. its just laughable at this point. no one has mentioned the abortion question either, which seemed like a pretty loaded question to ask kerry like that. i think the loaded questions came for both candidates, bush just chose to not answer his at all. people blame kerry for being a flip flopper, but at least he answers the questions he is asked...

rj

[Rah]

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but the questions about how the rest of the world looks upon Bushs foregin politics was hilarious and completely true. Every Bush-supporter should travel to Europe or any other country and see what the world thinks of America while being led by Bush. While discovering the foregin animosity for USA, keep in mind that it has nothing to do about Bush making "unpopular but good" decisions. It's about him making bad and unpopular decisions. We're not dumber than americans in Europe. We konw when a decision is bad and that's why they are impopular.
If he gets re-elected, american credibility will be lost for a very long time.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing that Kerry won't say to get elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding. This statement applies to just about anyone who has ever run for office. You can't get elected without telling the people what they want to hear.

[Toro]

After both debates, polling shows Bush "winning" the debates by approximately 35% of those polled. Are hard core Conservatives that intellectually dishonest that they cannot even admit when their man so obviously has lost a debate?

[Peca277]

People mention the loaded question for Bush on admitting 3 mistakes as being a poor choice by Charlie Gibson, maybe so. I think he had to pick something harsh on Bush to make up for allowing the "Will you look into the camera and pledge not to raise taxes" question for Kerry. There was only one obvious answer to that question, and we know how that worked out for GHWB. Should we just start saying one-term Kerry now? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Knockwurst]

Jeez, Felix, it sounds like your already conceding the election. While I think, Kerry did slightly better than Bush, Bush did much better than his last debate. This debate seemed to give something to everyone. If you were leaning towards Bush, then there was enough there for you to support the candidate. If you were leaning Kerry, there was enough there to go with him.

This is going to be a very close race, and may come down to how many last minute registered voters the Dems will be able to bring to the polls or how many the GOP will be able to discourage from voting through varioius acts of chicanery. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Knockwurst]

I'm finally convinced, this poster must be the President. Instead of taking responsibility for his performance, he blames it on liberal activists and that Democratic operative Charlie "Don't Surf" Gibson. Well, you did better than the last one. Four more months and you can have a nice long vacation on your Crawford ranch, clearing brush and thinking about what coloring books you'd like in your Presidential Library. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MaxPower]

I thought Bush did well on the first half when they were talking about the war and terrorism. On the face of it, Kerry's plan to bring in other nations is somewhat confusing. However, Kerry at least has a reasonable chance of doing it where Bush's chances are slim to none. Bush made some good points when talking about terrorism.

However, Kerry did better in the second half.

I watched Fox News after the debate. They had 3 commentators. Bil Kristol said Kerry won, Morton Kondracke said Kerry won, and Freddie "the Beatle" Barnes said it was a tie.

[daryn]

so much for fox news being ultra-conservative and biased eh?

[tanda]

Bush won.

When William Salentan, Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and Kos (all ultra-leftists) call it a draw or Bush win, you know Kerry tanked.

Even the mainstream media thinks it was a draw. When MSM says draw, they mean Kerry was crushed. Even, L.A. Times can't even argue for a Kerry win.

Look at the Bushies vs. Kerryites. The Bushies are much happier than Kerryites.

In light of ABC news picking the questions and Gallup stacking the audience, Bush did well.

[Peca277]

Typical far right winger complaining that EVERYBODY in the media are ultra liberals out to get Bush... except Fox News who he considers just slightly too liberal for his taste. In other words, he is out of touch with reality.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
so much for fox news being ultra-conservative and biased eh?

[/ QUOTE ]Except a few minutes later the commentators claimed the crowd was chanting "Four more years" and "Scary Kerry".

Some of the morons I know who watch FoxNews believed it wholeheartedly too, and cited it as evidence that Bush blew Kerry away ...

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush won.

When William Salentan, Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and Kos (all ultra-leftists) call it a draw or Bush win, you know Kerry tanked.

Even the mainstream media thinks it was a draw. When MSM says draw, they mean Kerry was crushed. Even, L.A. Times can't even argue for a Kerry win.

Look at the Bushies vs. Kerryites. The Bushies are much happier than Kerryites.

In light of ABC news picking the questions and Gallup stacking the audience, Bush did well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have some more Kool-aid.

By the way Andrew Sullivan, is hardly a liberal, he planned on voting for Bush, but decided against it because of his desire for a constiutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

[Diplomat]

So...you think Bush won because other people think Bush won?

-Diplomat

[Plzr]

For the life of me I cannot fathom why Rove didn't provide Bush with a couple "mistakes" that he could let loose of if that question came up. Something along those lines should have been in the playbook for the prez along with the rest of the canned rhetoric Bush let loose of during the second debate. Perhaps Karl decided that their situation was so fragile that any new openings for the Dems are to be avoided.
Sadly for all of us in the USA, the world was watching Bush display his administration's and the GOP's slavish, blind adherence to a, morally bankrupt, political ideology.

[Plzr]

http://www.criticalviewer.com/archives/000057.html

Yep he just tells it like it is during his last press conference.

[Plzr]

GWB smoothed out his delivery a tad but he still has yet to stray from his stump speeches.
Kerry is the next President.

[tanda]

I am a libertarian. Not right wing. Have not voted for a major party candidate in a presidential election since 1988.

I convinced three people into voting LP instead of Bush in 2000. Counting my vote, I was responsible for 4 people who otherwise would have voted for W. instead not voting for him.

Nice try with the label though. Better luck next time.

[tanda]

[ QUOTE ]
So...you think Bush won because other people think Bush won?

-Diplomat

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. You think these debates are about the issues? We have heard all this stuff before. It's style, baby. Neither candidate has changed their stance since the first debate, so why the different result? Because their style did change.

[tanda]

All the conservative I know that W blew in the first debate.

Most conservative columnists as well.

Also, W thought so.

[tanda]

[ QUOTE ]
People mention the loaded question for Bush on admitting 3 mistakes as being a poor choice by Charlie Gibson, maybe so. I think he had to pick something harsh on Bush to make up for allowing the "Will you look into the camera and pledge not to raise taxes" question for Kerry. There was only one obvious answer to that question, and we know how that worked out for GHWB. Should we just start saying one-term Kerry now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? That was a great question for Kerry. A tough question would have been to ask for an unqualified pledge.

The 200k limitation is pulled straight from Kerry's stump speech. Nice to get a question that meshes precisely with your platform and asks you merely to pledge no more than you have promised on the stump.

[arabie]

What evidence do you have to support your statement regarding Kerry's credibility to keep his word.

[arabie]

Kerry's abortion q&a can be related to Bush's question regarding the supreme court. He rambled about how he wants a non-biased judge to respect and delicately use the constitution. Is this not a clear hipocracy to his own actions in supporting an ammendment to change the constitution on seemingly religeous views? I think this exposes a serious difference in Kerry's vs. Bush's view on what perspective a president should take when critically analyzing and problem solving an issue.

[Freudian]

As a non-american watching the debate I think Kerry won slightly this debate but I thought both were pretty bad. Some points:

* Both of the candidates seems to focus on the negative aspects of their opponents instead of talking about themselves. It seems both campaigns are designed to scare people into voting for their guy. I guess the sad reality is that negative campaigning works.

* Bush looks awful in debates. He raises his voice in the wrong parts, studders, interrupts the questioner, smirks etc. That has been the clear difference in these two debates this far. Kerry carries himself much better and looks more confident.

* Townhall meetings are a weird form of debate. The questions are so obviously partisan.

[Kash]

1) Hmm, Bush used force when a country we were at war with (Iraq) continued to ignore the terms of the cease fire agreement we had with them (not to mention inumerable U.N. Resolutions).

2) This action screwed up the illegal side swindles many countries (like France and Germany) were working with Iraq (oil for food scam for instance)

I can see where his decisions would be unpopular

[patrick dicaprio]

I couldnt believe the results so here is another to assist in understanding the results, so the question is how many people here are democrats and republicans. I couldnt figure out how to post a poll or i would have done it. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Pat

[Cyrus]

"Bush used force when a country we were at war with (Iraq) continued to ignore the terms of the cease fire agreement we had with them (not to mention inumerable U.N. Resolutions)."

There were no violations of any cease fire agreement. American and British warplanes continuously bombarded Iraqi positions (killing a bunch of civilians in the process, but that's not the point) and then when Iraqi anti-aircraft fired back, they complained. Guess what? That silliness never made it to the Security Council because it was obviously a joke.

As to "UN Resolutions being violated by Iraq", well, where do you want me to begin? From the selective memory of the US -- ignoring a ton of Israel's violations, for example? Or from the fact that there was no UN Resolution authorising the invasion to begin with? (Kofi Anan, who should know, called the invasion "illegal".)

"This action screwed up the illegal side swindles many countries (like France and Germany) were working with Iraq (oil for food scam for instance). I can see where [Bush's] decisions would be unpopular [with the rest of the world]."

You can't be serious. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the countries around the world think very low of Bush and America's actions ..because a bunch of fraudsters lost their gravy?!

I got news for you: The vehemence of anti-American sentiment around the world has got nothing to do with oil-for-food -- or with Halliburton for that matter. It's much more serious and goes deeper than that.

[Cyrus]

"The question is how many people here are Democrats and Republicans. I couldn't figure out how to post a poll or I would have done it."

I'll take a wild guess and say you are Republican.

Am I warm? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
There were no violations of any cease fire agreement. American and British warplanes continuously bombarded Iraqi positions (killing a bunch of civilians in the process, but that's not the point) and then when Iraqi anti-aircraft fired back, they complained. Guess what? That silliness never made it to the Security Council because it was obviously a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight out of the twilight zone. American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone were fired at by Iraqi surface to air missiles in complete violation of the cease fire agreement. The only positions bombarded by our aircraft were anti-aircraft positions positioned in the no-fly zones. The Iraqis even fired at a missile at an E2-C, an aircraft that doesnt even carry weapons!

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There were no violations of any cease fire agreement. American and British warplanes continuously bombarded Iraqi positions (killing a bunch of civilians in the process, but that's not the point) and then when Iraqi anti-aircraft fired back, they complained. Guess what? That silliness never made it to the Security Council because it was obviously a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this Cyrus? Recollection tells me that Iraq fired almost daily on planes patrolling the no-fly zones, yet the US did not almost daily bomb Iraqi sites all those years. Typically the US bombed some of the anti-aircraft batteries which had been firing upon the planes. Granted the Iraqis always missed (haha) but how is firing on US planes not a violation of the cease-fire? And how is Iraq not allowing inspectors unfettered access not a violation of either/both the cease-fire agreement and the UN resolutions?