Judecorp.

Eh, I don't really love Kerry, either. But he is definitely a better debater.

From:

peaceorchestra.livejournal.com

I know..Politics get me so bloody mad.

XD

From:

Yes! Get mad! Mad people get more stuff done!

Anger leads to action. GO PISS PEOPLE OFF!

From:

thatpatti.livejournal.com

it's weird that you say that, because i was just saying to scott that i really like seeing bush talk off the cuff, as he seems much more comfortable and confident that when he's reading from a prompter.

From:

Well, I don't think he reads well off a prompter, either...

He just didn't seem all that comfortable to me. Of course I'm sure I'm biased... but it just doesn't seem like his element. The only time I ever really like Bush is when he's doing more "down and dirty" stuff, like actually interacting with people or doing some PR-type touchy-feely stuff.

From:

thatpatti.livejournal.com

i agree, and that's one of the thing i really like about him - he seems very much like a real person to me. i actually sort of like the fact that he makes up words and says stupid things and he always looks like he's got half a smile on his face.

but i'm from texas, so i'm biased, too. ;)

From:

Yeah well, I hate that smirky smile. But I do like it when he looks nervous. Like you said, he looks more like a "real person." (Or something else. Hee.)

Making up stupid words is great for, say, your best friend or even your grandfather... but for the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, I really think that person a little more polished on the vocab front. Just like when you comb through your cover letter and resume for typos so you don't look like a dork. Same idea.

From:

thatpatti.livejournal.com

i do understand what you're saying, and i don't disagree.

i couldn't help but giggle at BOTH of them during the debate. could kerry's hand gestures be more contrived and unnatural? and bush...well, he's just goofy.

From:

It's true. It was such a caricature of what I think a real debate should look like.

From:

Debate recap:

Kerry - Bush, the stuff you've done stinks.
Bush - but, you are a flip flopper!
Kerry - The war stinks.
Bush - No it doesn't, you flip flopper!

From:

Kerry - Bush, the stuff you've done stinks.
Bush - Yet you've agreed with it half of the time.
Kerry - The war stinks.
Bush - It takes conviction... flip-flopper!

From:

It seemed like any time Bush didn't know what to say, he'd repeat that he thinks Kerry's a flip flopper. Kerry would say reasons why he's not, then Bush would just repeat himself.

From:

ummm... and that's where Bush's delivery failed him.

He was pointing out the contradictions.

'you say would involve more countries, but you say it's the wrong war? why would you involve more countries in a wrong war?'

'you say you support our troops, but would send them off to a wrong war? how is that supporting our troops?'

The surity of this evening's statements by Kerry was an ironic contrast to the inconsistency he has displayed up until this evening... And that's what Bush was pointing out.

In a debate, you punch holes in the other guy's argument during the rebuttal. That's how debates are won and lost. Yet this convention was lost on a lot of people. They viewed Kerry as putting forth more substance and Bush as just repeating himself... not understanding the protocol behind the delivery (and, admittedly, rather poor delivery at that) or the background behind the assertions and rebuttals.

Substance-wise, accept it or not, Bush actually did quite well as a debater... as a campaigning politician, on the other hand, he fared quite poorly.

From:

I think that Bush just didn't get what Kerry was saying. There are 2 completely different wars that they're talking about. One is the "war on terrorism"... those are the radical Islamic groups in the middle east (and elsewhere, they certainly exist in the USA even) that work behind the scenes. Then there's countries like Iraq, N Korea, etc that are developing nuclear weapons who shouldn't be. When it comes to fighting the countries (verbally, or using force), you don't go in without the world behind you, you just don't. If Bush had done everything in his power to avoid sending troops there and still get the job done, he would have had many more countries on his side. Having 2 other countries back you up (England reluctantly, Blair had to take a lot of flack) doesn't equate to "the world". Kerry was talking about THAT war, Bush is saying "the war on terror" and combining the two, confusing the public to make them think that Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11.

I predict, that if Bush gets re-elected, either he's going to come to his senses and pull the troops out of Iraq in a stalemate with the guerillas (who easily can keep recruiting members) or he's going to be a stubborn mule and keep on letting our troops get killed in a fruitless effort. This is just another Vietnam at this point. Getting Saddam out of power was successful, but getting peace there, frankly, they're just winging that stage of the game. Bush can talk till he turns blue about having Saddam out of power meaning a safer world, and maybe that's somewhat true, but that hasn't done shit about the terrorists except piss them off more (just by being in Iraq) and let them grow bigger in numbers. And it hasn't done anything about the countries that DO pose a threat with their nuclear weapons.

If Bush had a clue about what he was talking about, there's no doubt in my mind he would've been able to articulate it decently. Instead he had to resort to "but you are a flip flopper!" [paraphrased of course] to which Kerry said every time "I agreed that something had to be done about Saddam Hussein... I didn't agree and still don't agree with how it was executed". That doesn't sound like a flip flopper to me.

From:

There are 2 completely different wars

There are plenty of people, including me, that believe those are one and the same. West Bank homocide bombers are radical islamists, and it's been proven Saddam funded those. Terrorists are in search of nuclear weapons, and NK and rogue officials in the former Soviet Union can provide those. So what you have are the terrorists, and terrorist sponser states. It's a decades-old view that was articulated just after 9/11.

Having 2 other countries back you up doesn't equate to "the world".

And "2" doesn't equate to the number of countries that back us up. See?? That's my concern, that people listen to soundbites (from an unscripted debate no less) and take what either candidate says as gospel.

confusing the public to make them think that Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11
I don't think Bush ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He raised questions about whether he was harboring Al Qaeda operitives, but those were repeatedly dismissed since UBL dislikes Saddam in general. If people "thought that Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11," it is due to their own illiteracy, not anything that President deviously planted in their minds.

I predict, that if Bush gets re-elected, either he's going to come to his senses and pull the troops out of Iraq in a stalemate with the guerillas

Otherwise known as "cut-and-run"... I too, predict it's a possibility, but one only made more real by the success of Iraqi national elections.

This is just another Vietnam at this point.

I disagree... such a statement represents an oversimplification of two compeletly different scenarios, rife with their own distinctly different problems.

Getting Saddam out of power was successful, but getting peace there, frankly, they're just winging that stage of the game.

I agree.

If Bush had a clue about what he was talking about, there's no doubt in my mind he would've been able to articulate it decently.

We all know Bush is a dismal public speaker. I see no correlation between articulation and knowledge. I've witnessed plenty of articulate bullshitters.

(your last part gets into the semantics of debate "strategery", which I won't rehash again)

From:

smurfbrother.livejournal.com

"There are plenty of people, including me, that believe those are one and the same. West Bank homocide bombers are radical islamists, and it's been proven Saddam funded those."

Palestinians are also an indigenous people who have been displaced from their ancestral lands since 1947, lands that were legally granted to them by treaty (the Balfour Documents) after World War 1. They are denied jobs and the right to travel by Israel (Palestinian unemployment approaches 90%), their schools and universities have been closed, and they have utterly no security. I would be shooting back, myself. Saddam Hussein "funded" them by paying stipends to the widows of suicide bombers, not by funding intifadist origanizations themselves.

"And "2" doesn't equate to the number of countries that back us up."

There are only 2 other countries that have contributed combat troops, the UK and Australia. The 33 or so other counties have sent tiny numbers of non-combat troops. The US has almost 140,000 troops in Iraq, the UK has less than 4000 (and the UK is bringing half of them back in January 05), and Australia has about 1500 troops. Our other allies - Poland has 300 engineers, Hungary sent 440 truck drivers (but the US provides the trucks), Japan sent 50 or so engineers...come on. This is not a coalition. Spain is out, Costa Rica out, Poland's President stated last week that he was misled into the Iraq venture...

"I don't think Bush ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11."

He has, on numerous occasions, as have Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Google 'Bush saddam 9/11' and see what you get.

There might be a lot of people who see the war in Iraq as the same thing as the war on terrorism, but that doesn't make it so.

From:

I think conviction is less important than constantly making informed decisions based on the evolving information. I think Bush's campaign is hiding behind "I have conviction!" because it keeps him from having to address a lot of the faulty intelligence and misinformation to the public about the war.

I am also disappointed in how well Kerry played into some of these conversations - how quick he was to say the war was a bad idea (which I agree with) but with no real conceivable plan for how to end it as quickly as possible while still saving some face and keeping all of those troops alive.

From:

Yeah I'm not really sure what Kerry's plan to fix the booboos is. Although it might be easier for him to say "Bush made a mistake, we're pulling out" than it would for Bush to admit anything. I dunno, to have a successful democracy in a country that's pretty much been at war with itself since the beginning of time, there's no way that can be done in the short term. The whole middle east is pretty much a f*ed up area, you can't change it overnight. Heck Russia still has problems, and we didn't go to war with them [with weapons] to force democracy on them.

From:

smurfbrother.livejournal.com

Why does John Kerry need a detailed plan for how to fix the mess in Iraq and President Bush does not? I mean, at what point do people start to see that the President doesn't have a plan, either, and never did? Not only does he not have a plan, he steadfastly refuses to generate one, because that would mean confronting many unpalatable facts.

What can John Kerry say that would make his critics happy? The facts on the ground seem to be such that the best we can hope for is that he will go around, almost hat in hand, particularly to Arab countries...I firmly believe that the best thing the next President can do is firmly enlist Turkey as our closest ally, though that's a fairly Faustian bargain itself.

From:

It's true that you can't change anything overnight, either in the Middle East or here. But I don't think it's too much to ask for a presidential candidate to have an actual plan for the next couple of years, and the ability to articulate it.

I just don't think either candidate has that.

From:

I'm loathe to admit: but I, too, fear Kerry "won" tonight's debate... if one considers winning the debate means generating confidence and trust in the voting public.

Not on anything Kerry said, mind you, but simply the demeanor and poise with which he spoke. And, unfortunately, with the vast majority of the voting public ignorant of the background and intracacies of the issues at play, presence and demeanor are all they are equipped to judge. And I firmly believe that, had the former vice-president not made similar gaffes, Al Gore would be in office today.

I was disappointed with the President tonight. I know he is capable of presenting his ideas better... He did it during the GOP convention and again during last week's O'Reilly interview. I hope he and his staff can constructively review tonight's shortcomings so they won't be repeated during the next debate.

From:

Kerry just repeated what I'd thought about the war in the first place. Had nothing to do with his demeanor (I listened to it on the radio). I wasn't real sure about who this Kerry guy was before the debate, and now it's obvious, he's got a solid head on his shoulders, a solid plan, and he's not one to rush into things and make poor decisions like Bush does.

I find it interesting that when Bush changes his mind over something, it's because he changed his mind for the better. (It's kind of interesting that Bush has been quoted as saying that gay marriage should be left up to the states and now he thinks it should be a constitutional amendment). If Kerry changes his mind over something, it's because he's indecisive.

From:

Had nothing to do with his demeanor (I listened to it on the radio).
I think tone of voice and speaking articulatly carries just as well over the radio as it does on tv, and is just as convincing.

I wasn't real sure about who this Kerry guy was before the debate,
hence my comment about people not knowing the background and intracacy of the issues at play.

he's got a solid head on his shoulders
and hence my comment that demeanor and presentation means everything.

I'll be honest with you, if i didn't know who he was up until this point either, I would have been fairly impressed too.

solid plan

but like Jude says, he really didn't offer much of a plan... the steps he suggested that are not taken directly from the White House's textbook are too vague to be viewed seriously. International support? Do you believe other countries like Germany and France are going to put forth troops simply because a different guy is in the White House? Decisions like that are made mitigating by cost against self-interest, all in the context of available resources. Kerry can't promise support from other nations in the next four years than Bush can. And bilateral talks with N.K. as opposed to multilateral talks? Almost everybody 'in the know' agrees that it's a bad idea and, if implimented, he would piss off 4 other nations (one of which would be China) right off the bat, without the slightest guaranteed progress whatsoever.

But... Ideas like that sounded good when he offered them in such a brief, confident manner... and therefore you believe them, in no small part because you want to. And I don't blame you for wanting to. And that's whats problematic, given the actual complexities of the issues.

If Kerry changes his mind over something, it's because he's indecisive

I think the difference is when Bush has changed his mind, it's been once, or at least repeated progressions in the same direction. When Kerry does it, he does it like eleven or seventeen times... on the same issue, in different directions.

From:

I think the difference is when Bush has changed his mind, it's been once, or at least repeated progressions in the same direction. When Kerry does it, he does it like eleven or seventeen times... on the same issue, in different directions.

I've gotta disagree on this one. I think /everyone/ changes their minds about things. I think it's not only human nature to always be looking for "the better option," but it's also good practice to continue to reevaluate one's decisions or beliefs based on continued evidence.

Sometimes having "convictions" are a good thing. But I think there is flawed logic in, say, refusing to admit that there was a war fought on flawed intelligence and then reassessing the situation as a whole. Sometimes part of life is trying on certain ideas, seeing how they fit, and discarding them if they don't. Is it possible for a politician to have voted for a post-9/11 kneejerk policy, for example, and then get a better understanding of the intricacies of that policy and change one's mind? Absolutely.

From:

think /everyone/ changes their minds about things.

And that's ok, even preferable... but to vascillate umpteen times between opposing, contradictory positions is counterproductive to making progress. Such reversals are fine in the classroom or cofeeshop, but not for leaders in business, military, or government organizations.

And I'm not covinced that his repeated policy reversals on Iraq has more to do with better understanding than simple political opportunism.

I definitely thought irony ran rampant last night, with the supposed flip-flopper speaking with confidence and bluster, while the supposed guy with conviction stammered and stuttered.

From:

Well, there's no guarantee that EITHER candidate's position on /any/ topic is fueled more by honest introspection rather than political opportunism. After all, W may not be changing his mind about certain things, but I'm certain it's not entirely altruistic on his part. ;)

From:

I could probably argue/debate all this all morning but I gotta get stuff done at work, I've got a baby due next week, don't know what day the baby'll decide to show up, so if I don't have my shit together at work, I'm going to be having people bitching at me while I'm in labor "My computer's not working, how come you didn't get to it before you left? blah blah blah"

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

From:

He was definitely more poised and sharp. He's just a better speaker, IMO. Since the debate (as I predicted) had little to do with substance and all about image (is this a presidential election or a soap opera?), I think Kerry had it in the bag.

That's not to say that any of the ideas he presented were inherently better (other than that I agree with some of them, so that's better - HA!), because there weren't too many original ideas on the stage last night. But he presented his thoughts with more confidence and more determination, while Bush (to me) came across looking like he was floundering at sea with a leaky liferaft. There was a lot of stammering, a lot of shifting weight, that sort of thing... it is counterproductive to the idea of "conviction" that is being thrown around so hastily during this election.

From:

I agree wholeheartedly.

From:

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HEAR THOSE WORDS COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. ;)

From:

etherial.livejournal.com

Yeah, the latest season of survivor is great. When they shot the polar bear and had this huge debate about where the gun came from, who was the criminal, etc.? Pure awesomeness. I'm glad they ditched the pretense of "reality."

From: