BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


US presidential debates

 
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
 
w1rebaby
21:45 / 08.10.04
Amusingly, I was joking about this in the van to work the other day, and one of the central themes of my Bush Press Conference Response Generator was that he takes a little time to "warm up". At the time I wrote:

Whenever someone asks him a question here he waffles for a bit, with some embarrassing gaps and "er"s - the pauses are a liability at this stage, they start to slip into the sentences themselves - then he gradually goes into rhetorical mode. There's no full-length speech that he can use, so he has to put together several chunks and hope that they fit, which they usually don't, but that's standard political interview technique, not answering the question, it's not unique to him and he's at least competent once he gets to that stage. (It's a little jarring when he sandwiches two entirely inappropriate chunks though.)
 
 
Nobody's girl
02:16 / 09.10.04
So what's the verdict on the second one then? I'm incredibly biased in Kerry's favour, so I'm aware what I saw is not necessarily what others saw.
Personally, I think Kerry started strong and got a bit thrown by questions on moral issues- stem cells and abortion.
Bush was better this time (damnit!) and obviously warmed up to a favourite topics, but seemed much less confident than Kerry. In alpha male stakes I think Kerry showed more actual stature and Bush was more shouty.

I loved seeing Bush bicker with and bully the moderator. Very much a loss of control, whereas Kerry hummed and hawed a bit but I didn't see him lose control and he actually got the moderator to laugh. Problem is- most people wont be watching the whole thing, just the clips.

Now, lets watch the spin unfold.
 
 
ibis the being
02:34 / 09.10.04
From my couch it appeared Bush completely lost his composure. He was yelling, pacing, condescending the audience members who were asking him questions... he was incoherent, forgetting names (including Kerry's, who he called "Senator Kennedy"), trailing off incomplete sentences. About midway through he seemed to catch himself and began to speak in a calmer tone, but for a while there I thought he had totally lost his grip. I'm sorry, but even if you disagree with Kerry's actual policies, anyone who calls this a Bush win was either not watching the debate, or is lying.

I was nervous about Kerry's answers on stem cell research and abortion. But honestly, though I think he took a risk in his answers but they were clear, umambiguous, and I happen to agree with him. To sum up those two - he said embryonic stem cell research doesn't generate abortions, it utilizes fertility clinic leftovers and could save lives. And abortion is not the black & white issue Bush would have you believe - there are cases when you have to consider the rights and circumstances of the mother. I think he really nailed the abortion question when he said, if a 16-yr-old girl is raped by her father, then no, Kerry would not require her to get her father's consent for an abortion.

At this point I'm thoroughly sick of hearing people say Kerry isn't clear, he's a flip-flopper, he's wishy-washy, blah blah. He's been very clear, and if you're still denying that then you're just buying into the Republican spin machine, and (thank God) Kerry even said as much.
 
 
Nobody's girl
02:49 / 09.10.04
Yeah, I agree he was clear on his answers about abortions and stem cells. Kerry's point using the hypothetical teen pregnant by her father was strong but a follow-up answer so most people had already made up their minds. I do whole-heartedly agree with his points. Kerry's answer on this issue wasn't an immediately clear soundbite for short attention spans, and there's the rub.

Otherwise I'd say Kerry prevailed.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
04:02 / 09.10.04
I actually only caught the last two thirds but ended up happy for a few reasons, a bit disappointed in Kerry not completely lambasting Bush for not answering the simplest fucking question (3 Mistakes, way to lose that lady's vote, dipshit), but mostly pleased. As much as he believes one way or another because of his faith, it was really the first time I can remember someone finally fucking standing up to the American people and saying, "Look folks, it's irrelevant. Here's 'belief', here's 'the law'." It's now abundantly clear that America has a choice to make, and, naturally it's free to. But this is indeed the turning point. I, an optimist, personally believe that there are more reasonable than unreasonable people in America and that Kerry finally made abundantly clear the difference between the two of them. His abortion answer was, to the rational person, devestating enough to Bush, but then for Bush to counter with a dismissal of the beyond salient point that Kerry made, actually saying, basically that there was no grey zone on live television, was astonishing.

Another obvious land mine was Stem Cells and Bush once again alienated everyone in America except his base.

That, I think, is the fundamental flaw in Bush's debate strategy. Spinners will have a ball calling this debate for this guy or that debate for the other guy, but the fundamental characteristic of the undecided voter, one would assume, is that they're thinking. There was nary a trace of rational thought in the Bush arguments I saw tonight. And that's going to destroy him in November.

Here's why, from The National Review (quoted by Sully):

There is some good news for the president. Zogby says "Kerry's edge on the economy is gone. Among those who cite the economy as the top issue, the candidates are in a dead heat — Bush holding a slight edge," (46 percent to 44 percent). And this: Bush "also leads among those who cite the War on Terror as the top issue" (68 percent to 26 percent)."
But by far the most interesting — and disturbing — finding in his poll is that "among undecided voters, only 15% feel the President deserves to be re-elected, while 39% say it is time for someone new."
What if the undecideds break 2-to-1 against the president less than 30 days from now? We could be looking at a Kerry landslide.


The guy who wrote this clearly just stepped out of a Delorean and is off to refill Mr. Fusion.

Bill Maher said it best a little over an hour after the debate ended. His closing bit was off a New Rule entitled "Girl George" in which he described nearly every move of the Bush presidency as the act of a petulant and defensive teenager. No press conferences?
"I'm not talking to them." Kerry: Flip-Flopper? "Two faced bitch." "Kerry shouldn't criticize our coalition because it might hurt their feelings." It was so spot on, it was ridiculous. Maher conceded that in terms of Iraq, he was the typical dunderheaded husband, lost but unwilling to ask for directions. His final recommendation? Divorce.
 
 
Simplist
04:59 / 09.10.04
I thought it was basically a draw. Kerry won on substance, but of course I agree with more of his positions, so I'm biased in that assessment. Energetically, though, Bush held his ground, didn't get backed into any bad corners, didn't pause and fumble his words (except on the environment question), etc. Kerry kept on the offensive, basically replicating his performance (and many of his lines) in the first debate. Ultimately it was the kind of debate in which Bush supporters will think Bush won, Kerry supporters will think Kerry won, and undecideds will be unpredictable in their response.

Kos is reporting the following SUSA Snap Polls of Western states:

Colorado (511 adults who watched entire debate)
42% Bush
41% Kerry
16% No Clear Winner

California (510 adults who watched entire debate)

38% Bush
48% Kerry
13% No Clear Winner

Oregon (532 adults who watched entire debate)

38% Bush
47% Kerry
15% No Clear Winner

Washington (498 adults who watched debate in full)

36% Bush
49% Kerry
14% No Clear Winner

Actually better than I would've expected for Kerry, but ultimately I suspect Colorado will end up being more representative of the U.S. at large than the three West Coast states.
 
 
Jack Fear
10:00 / 09.10.04
My favorte moment: when our President, who spent much of the preceding time assuring the American people that he is not afraid to take politically-unpopular stances based on principle, came out strongly against the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

That's a gutsy move, if you're running for reelection in, say, 1852.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:49 / 09.10.04
Erm, refresh my memory?
 
 
w1rebaby
13:17 / 09.10.04
That was the ruling that "seperate but equal" was constitutional. Bold iconoclasm, George.
 
 
Nobody's girl
13:54 / 09.10.04
Oh and fuck George Bush for his jibes at France. "...if you want to be popular in Europe", "...certain capitals in Europe".

I'm a little sick of the racism against the French in the US.
 
 
Simplist
15:10 / 09.10.04
Looks like I was wrong in my prediction (that the debate would be a draw in the polls and given to Bush by the punditocracy). Today the polls are giving the win to Kerry and the pundits are mostly following suit, though noting that Bush did much better than last time. Liberals have obviously gotten much better at the spin cycle phase of these things--in 2000 the cons killed them in the post-debate gabfests, but this time it's the cons that are on the run. Kerry may win this thing yet...
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:08 / 09.10.04
Heh heh. Yeah, I'm with Jack -- I looked around the room at that point (when Bush was discussing what qualities he would want in a Supreme Court justice) and cried, "Did he just take a bold stance against SLAVERY? Is THAT how he's trying to get the black vote?!"

Still, I'm relieved the spin is toward Kerry...frankly, even though I thought he did an excellent job on certain points (the Iraq war being the big one), he dropped the ball more than once on issues that he should have owned (the environment being the big one there -- Bush's stance as an "environmentalist" is so fucking laughable that Kerry should have been able to crucify him on it, but not so much). The "oh, shit" moment for me came when that beautiful little blonde thing stood up all doe-eyes and asked about abortion, and referred to it as "murder" with an expression like she'd just watched Senator Kerry crush her little puppy's head with his jackboot and wanted to know why, why, why? My heart sank, and I don't think Kerry fielded it real well. For whatever reason, though, this hasn't been endlessly repeated in the media the way I was positive it would be (not yet, anyhow), and thank Christ.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:14 / 09.10.04
By the way...has there been any speculation on what Kerry and Bush said to each other at the end of the debate? THAT was bizarre. On PBS, at least, the camera pulled back to show the applauding audience, and you saw the two of them shake hands, Kerry say something, and Bush laugh and -- for the first time in two hours -- smile with what appeared to be sincerity. I'm not conspiracy theorizing here at all, I'm just genuinely very curious.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:32 / 09.10.04
That was the ruling that "seperate but equal" was constitutional.

Nope, that was (IIRC) Marbury v. Madison. Plessy v. ferguson, AKA the Dred Scott decision, was a pre-Civil War decision. From memory (so excuse any lapses), Dred Scott was a slave whose master took him along on a business trip North. During the trip, Scott escaped and claimed that he was no longer his master's property, since he was now in (and had no intention of leaving) a territory where slavery was illegal. The court case went against him, and it was proclaimed that his master's property rights must be upheld across state boundaries.

It was a ruling at odds with many notions of state's rights--e.g., one state cannot be compelled to recognize as valid a marriage performed in another--and it was a huge fucking deal at the time. Or in your junior high school history class.

Personally, I thought that Kerry fielded the abortion question brilliantly. The questioner looked heartbroken, yes, but so did he--it's plain that he regards abortion (as do many people, including myself) as a regrettable necessity. His sincerity and gravity were unquestionable And he articulated, simply and concisely, the essential notion that some moral principles cannot and should not be given the force of law.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:25 / 09.10.04
Not wishing to rot too much, but Plessy v Ferguson:

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, approving legal racial segregation in public facilities, and ruling that, despite having mostly European ancestors, having any black ancestry at all was grounds for classification as a black and prohibition of the use of white facilities.

In 1890, the State of Louisiana passed a law that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. Concerned, several black and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to the repeal of that law. They eventually persuaded Homer Plessy, an octoroon (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent), to test it. On June 7, 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington. The railroad company had been informed already as to Plessy's racial lineage, and after Plessy had taken a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it and sit instead in the blacks-only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately.
 
 
Jack Fear
22:54 / 09.10.04
You know what? I'm a fucking moron,in the throes of an extended brain-fart.

You are entirely correct about Plessy. Scott brought suit on his own behalf, and the case is recorded as Dred Scott v. Sandford, hence (commonly) "the Dred Scott decision."

Marbury is entirely unrelated to either issue, being an early case that established the Supreme Court's authority to determine whether or not legislative and executive acts were constitutional or not. I have no goddam idea why the name popped into my head.

Here closeth the parenthesis, with my promise that I'll do my research before I start spouting off about shit I vaguely remember from Social Studies class.
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:22 / 10.10.04
The Quote re: Dred Scott

QUESTIONER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

Bush: ...I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
 
 
FinderWolf
03:00 / 10.10.04
I'd say this 2nd Prez debate was mostly a draw, with people giving the edge to the candidates they prefer. It's really sad to think that about half this country likes Bush and sees him as a competent, strong leader with good judgement, but that's the reality of America today. We can just hope and pray that Nov. hands us a Kerry victory.

Bush clearly recovered a bit from his sputtering first debate performance (and like an earlier poster, I say 'damn!' to that). Kerry was good and made some excellent points but still doesn't have the charm and panache of someone like Edwards or Clinton.
 
 
ibis the being
15:24 / 10.10.04
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.


Isn't it weird how he botches even the simplest points? His explanation of the Dred Scott case is totally garbled to begin with, then he goes on and can't even spit it out that the Constitution says we're all -- you know -- uh -- I mean, the word is EQUAL, Georgie, wtf? In the next sentence he screws up his phrasing and essentially says the Constitution doesn't speak to the equality of America. Is that just poor public speaking, or severe ADD?
 
 
ibis the being
18:23 / 10.10.04
More on Dred Scott! Someone at Daily Kos did some research into Bush's odd use of the Dred Scott case in his answer about Supreme Court judges.

Here's just one example -
The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same "beings of an inferior order" that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago.

Turns out that Pro-Lifers routinely drag out Dred Scott as a counterargument to Roe v Wade. Interestingly enough, Bush was dropping a bit of Pro-Life code into his answer that anyone not familiar with anti-abortion propaganda likely missed, and discreetly sending a message to his base that he'll appoint Pro-Life Justices in the future.
 
 
PatrickMM
01:52 / 11.10.04
I didn't catch the second presidential debate, so maybe things have changed, but is anyone really passionate about Kerry, not as a counterpoint to Bush, but as a candidate in his own right?

When I watch, I find myself getting really annoyed by Bush or Cheney, and am pretty happy when Kerry insults Bush and his positions. But, the stuff that Kerry says he's planning to do sounds pretty similar to Bush's rhetoric. I don't like a president who's trying to score points by saying he's going to hunt and kill terrorists, I'd rather see someone who wants to wipe out the roots of terrorism. Everything he talks about seems to be defined by what Bush is doing, and while it's good to change Bush's things, I don't get the sense of someone with a real personal vision for the country.

I don't mean to agree with Bush, but his position on the Iraq war is unneccessarily convoluted. Just come out and say to Bush, "You misled me, and a lot of the nation into war, after seeing that Sadaam was not really an imminent threat, I changed my view on the war, and was able to admit America's mistake." What he's got going now is just too convoluted, and, as Bush says, really does feel more like politics than a genuine belief.

I just don't feel inspired by what Kerry's been saying, he's totally defined by his oppositions to Bush, not by anything that he himself seems to stand for.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:12 / 11.10.04
Watching one of these debates in full is fascinating in terms of how it highlights where 'mainstream' political discourse is in the USA right now. I might be wrong, but I got the impression that Kerry is visibly constrained by this. The far-right control the terms of the debate. So Kerry has to talk not about preventing terrorism, but about how he will actually kill terrorists (what, himself?). When Bush calls him a liberal, he can't say "yes, and what's wrong with that, you Nazi fuck?", he has to say "labels don't mean anything". When Bush calls him someone who "chaynzez puzzihshunz" (that's as close a textual approximation of the drawl as I can do), he can't say "of course I fucking change positions if new evidence emerges, you terrifyingly insane extremist", he has to say that he didn't, and so on...
 
 
FinderWolf
12:16 / 11.10.04
>> I might be wrong, but I got the impression that Kerry is visibly constrained by this. The far-right control the terms of the debate.

Yep. Kerry can't appear to be too left or he'll lose the midwest and south. Sad, but true.
 
 
Ganesh
14:34 / 11.10.04
I'd rather see someone who wants to wipe out the roots of terrorism. Everything he talks about seems to be defined by what Bush is doing, and while it's good to change Bush's things, I don't get the sense of someone with a real personal vision for the country.

Problem being, America's vision of itself as a country - and, in particular, the "real personal vision" espoused by Bush and the neocons - is, in many instances, deeply, historically intertwined with "the roots of terrorism"...
 
 
PatrickMM
15:38 / 11.10.04
I think the problem boils down to the fact that Bush calls himself a conservative, it's seen as a good thing. Bush calls Kerry a liberal it's an insult. Unfortunately, that's where our political system is at this point.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:48 / 11.10.04
For whatever reason, though, this hasn't been endlessly repeated in the media the way I was positive it would be (not yet, anyhow), and thank Christ.

I can tell you why- because when they got on to the subject of partial birth abortion, Kerry said it's sometimes necessary to save one person and Bush completely ignored him. The Republicans can't bring the point up now because they know that it could put Bush in a really bad light if the media focused on the fact that Bush didn't respond to an extremely clear point. The fact that Bush really believes abortion is wrong is common knowledge, the fact that he hasn't really thought about the particulars of saving life is something they have to avoid publicising at all cost.
 
 
grant
17:22 / 11.10.04
forgetting names (including Kerry's, who he called "Senator Kennedy"),

That was intentional, I'm almost sure; Kennedy is the butt of all the liberal jokes that right-wingers tell, the epitome of the kind of politics (and sex/death scandal) that Bush is supposed to save the country from. Any elision between Kerry (moderate, even hawkish Democrat) and Kennedy (Massachusetts liberal) is gonna make a Bush Republican chuckle.
 
 
FinderWolf
12:55 / 12.10.04
#3 coming up Wed. night -- it'll be interesting to see how the tone of #3 differs from #s 1 and 2...
 
 
FinderWolf
13:05 / 13.10.04
Bush is already testing his zinger lines for the debate - "He can run but he can't hide...from his record" and something else which I forget. Kerry needs to make sure he explains the 'terrorism nuisance' comment and use as evidence the Bush admin. memo from 2 years ago that also says 'hopefully we can get terrorism down to a nuisance level' to show that he's not a wacko.

Kerry also needs to show how he'll pay for his tax & health plan.

I'm amazed Kerry doesn't use Tony Blair's apology for the intelligence being wrong as evidence against Bush - i.e. that Bush can't even apologize for going to war on faulty intelligence like his greatest ally did, even if he still thinks the world is better off without Hussein in power blah blah blah.
 
 
_Boboss
13:34 / 13.10.04
'tony blair's apology'

don't know what they're telling you over there, but there's been no such thing.
 
 
_Boboss
14:20 / 13.10.04
oop, tell a lie, he just did as much as he's gonna at pmq's. can't speak for my fellow voters of course, but personally i'm less than convinced or appeased.
 
 
FinderWolf
16:34 / 13.10.04
I'm also amazed Kerry hasn't brought up the Abu Gharib (or however the hell you spell it) prison abuse scandal ONCE in the debates. That's prime ammo right there, yo.
 
 
CameronStewart
17:15 / 13.10.04
Maybe we should get a wire in his ear and remind him of this stuff during the debate...
 
 
Ganesh
18:51 / 13.10.04
can't speak for my fellow voters of course, but personally i'm less than convinced or appeased.

You're right, though. Tony briefly said he could apologise for blah blah fishcakes, but he WOULDN'T apologise for blah blah blah fishcakes. At no point did he actually state that he did apologise. For anything.
 
 
diz
19:32 / 13.10.04
You're right, though. Tony briefly said he could apologise for blah blah fishcakes, but he WOULDN'T apologise for blah blah blah fishcakes. At no point did he actually state that he did apologise. For anything.

well, you know, most of the thousands of people who have been maimed, mutilated, and murdered as a result of Blair's lies and half-truths and sucking up to Bush have been, well, you know... *whispers* brown. i think the Bush rulebook he's reading clearly states that you don't have to apologize if they're brown.

it also states that they worship false idols and that the sloping of their brows indicates underdeveloped brains with nefarious intent.
 
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
  
Add Your Reply