Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues
    #3202341 - 10/01/04 02:08 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

As I said before,I didn't watch the debate, and I can't see any replays. I have no television, and even though FOX has video of the whole thing I'm not gonna tie up my steam powered modem for twelve hours or so to download it.

I have been looking through the transcript though, and no matter how hard I try I can't see how Kerry did himself any good at all on this. I readily admit that without being able to watch gestures, expressions, tone of voice, stammers and other body language cues I am at a disadvantage when it comes to judging the showmanship part of the spectacle, but after reading through it twice I can't see a single question where Kerry "stomped" Bush. Bush won on the issues. Whether or not that will help him in the polls is another thing, of course.

I'm gonna try to do a complete analysis of it, but my time is at an end for tonight. I'll post what I have so far and will attempt to add more tomorrow. I'm gonna lock the thread right after I post what I have so far, and open a response thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...amp;PHPSESSID=l . This will allow y'all to shoot me down without cluttering up any additions I make later on. You can cut and paste my comments and address them in the response thread if you feel like it.

Or you can just ignore my comments completely. Your choice.

Questions from Lehrer are green, Bush responses (shortened for space) in blue, Kerry responses (shortened for space) in red, my commentary in black. I am working from the transcript found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html



Question to Kerry: Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

Kerry's response -- Says he could do better by leading the world and leading alliances. Says Bush has "shattered alliances". Repeats over and over that he has a "better plan" for:

- homeland security (to be dealt with more specifically later in the show. How he knows there will be more questions about it, I don't know)

- strengthening military (how? reinstituting the draft? increasing defense budget?)

- strengthening intelligence by going after the financing more authoritatively

- rebuild the alliances (with whom? France and germany? See my recent post on that!)

- reaching out to the Muslim world (how?)

- isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America. (how do we "isolate" them?)

- have a summit with all of the allies (which "allies"? Thirty countries in coalition already, whom Kerry dismisses as "the coerced and the bribed", France and Germany adamant they will not be involved)

- better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves (how? Bush administration has already persuaded NATO to help with training)

- better job of preparing for (Iraqi) elections (A bit late for that -- if elected, Iraqi elections will take place less than four weeks after he assumes office)

Basically Kerry is claiming he will do pretty much everything Bush is already doing, but somehow will do it better. No specifics, and some of his proposals fly in the face of known reality -- i.e. France and Germany's refusal to get involved in Iraq, where the majority of active Islamic terrorists are currently operating. Not only that, but he his nonspecific claims of "strengthening" the military and intelligence ring pretty hollow when one considers his voting record on strengthening military and intelligence is the worst in the Senate.

Bush's rebuttal -- Says that since 9/11 America has pursued a multi-pronged strategy to keep country safer, specifically:

- seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders captured, the rest on the run

- upheld the doctrine if you harbor a terrorist, you're as guilty as the terrorist (reference to Taliban, Iraq)

- Taliban no longer in power. Ten million registered to vote in Afghanistan

- Hussein in prison. America and the world safer for it.

- continue to pursue policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction (Libya, AQ Khan reference)

- pursuing strategy of freedom around world, because free nations reject terror. Free nations help us achieve peace (in this he is absolutely correct)


To be fair to Kerry, Bush had no way of losing on this question. He can point to concrete accomplishments, while Kerry as a senator cannot. There has been no attack by foreign terrorists on American soil since he implemented these measures, whether one agrees with the measures or not. Still, Kerry dropped the ball on this one.

Conclusion -- Bush wins this one hands down. Yes, it was one only a fool could lose, but he still won it. Bush gets an "A", Kerry gets a "C".

***************************************************************

Question to Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

Bush's response: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. (Neat dodge of a loaded question designed to elicit a derogatory comment on Kerry. Lehrer should be ashamed of himself for that one)

- America has solemn duty to defeat ideology of hate. (like it or not, many Americans agree with this)

- This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that'll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will. (true, and Americans know it's true)

- We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren (resonates with the "but think of the children" crowd)

- best way to win is never waver, be strong, use every asset at our disposal, constantly stay on offensive, spread liberty (extremely tough to argue with any of this. Again, demonstrates his understanding of the American psyche. Also the use of "waver" is a sly dig at Kerry's flip-flopping on this issue)

- Ten million Afghanis registered to vote - phenomenal statistic. Been given a chance to be free, will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent are women. (While true, I'm not sure this is as big a deal with many Americans as Bush thinks. They've forgotten already what a terrorist nest Afghanistan was)

- In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough, incredibly hard work because the enemy realizes the stakes; understands a free Iraq will be major defeat, that's why they're fighting so viciously (no sugarcoating the job at hand -- he gets points for honesty and being realistic)

- if we lose our will, we lose, if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. (sly dig at Kerry's defeatism. Kerry doesn't want to win, Kerry wants to cut and run).

Very good response. Bush refuses to take the bait and rather than denigrate Kerry directly he instead uses the opportunity to add to the points he outlined in the previous question -- stomping the terrorists and freeing the countries in which they used to operate is the best longterm strategy for preventing another 9-11. Basically saying if you're going to fight, then fight to win. Subtle reference to Viet Nam, perhaps, when the American military wasn't allowed by their government to win? Maybe. Would most of the viewers make the connection? Dunno.

Kerry's rebuttal -- I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. (good answer, but what else can he say? Kerry knows Bush has been implying Kerry lacks the resolve to do what it takes, and Kerry wants to put that to rest in no uncertain terms. However, this is a case of "Methinks he doth protest too much". If you need to say you'll be tough, you aren't tough. Reminds me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" line.)

- But we also have to be smart, which means not diverting attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against ObL (no proof ObL is even in Afghanistan anymore. If he is, he no longer has govt support there)

- and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein (bullshit, and many Americans know this. No connection between Hussein and 9-11, okay. No connection between Al-Q and Iraq? Nonsense)

- and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. (again, most Americans recognize there was more to the war than WMD -- which Kerry always said were there anyway. Besides, Kerry himself voted for the "Iraq Regime Change" bill when Clinton was pres, as well as voting to authorize Bush to go to war. He has even said that knowing what we know now he would still have voted for that authorization)

- president has made colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president (tough to make this "judgment" charge stick given Kerry's past statements on Hussein, WMD, Iraq, voting for war, etc. Kerry can't win on this no matter what he says because his prior statements impeach him. Grievous tactical error to go on the attack here because he himself is so vulnerable to devastating counterattack. The only reason he can get away with it is that he is the last to speak here. He needs to hope Lehrer doesn't do a followup. Fortunately, since Lehrer is a Libbie himself, there's little chance of that.)

- proud that important military figures support me -- Shalikashvili; Eisenhower's son, Admiral William Crown; General McBeak (yeah. all ex military. Big whoop. Extremely lame. "These guys think I'd be better, and they should know, cuz they used to be generals.")

- ObL escaped, we had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the president outsourced that job too. (Huge error there! You can bet your bottom dollar your average American didn't appreciate the "outsourcing" comment in this context!)

Weak response from Kerry. Lists a few ex-Generals, blames Bush for not micro-managing the commanders in charge of the Tora Bora campaign, uses the tired old "diversion of resources" saw. A big mistake in trying to claim there was no connection between Hussein and terrorism, even knowing that most Americans believe there were. Hell, a significant portion still believe Hussein was involved in 9-11 itself! His many many "stances" on the war in Iraq will hurt him here as well. The "outsourcing" comment was a blunder, pure and simple.

Conclusion -- Bush wins this one handily, despite the cheap shot question he was handed. Lehrer should be ashamed of himself for that one. Bush gets a "B+", Kerry gets a "C-"

That's all I have time for right now. Respond (if you wish) in the thread titled "Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here" http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1


pinky

***********************************************

Okay... a new day, some more analysis. Dissecting this question by question is going to take forever. I'll do a summary instead.

First of all, as expected, Lehrer served up softballs to Kerry and hardballs to Bush. He made it clear why Clinton's handlers used to call him "our moderator" when the 1996 debates took place.

No questions to Kerry about:

-- his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations, or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by $6 billion a year after the 1993 WTC bombing,or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.

-- why he joined up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his "band of brothers" were still on the battlefield or in POW camps, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals." Most Americans would consider the answers to those questions quite relevant to the selection of the U.S. commander in chief during a time of war.

But not Jim Lehrer. Instead, he focused on Iraq with question after question worded to suggest Bush had blown it.

Here's a sampling:

To Bush -- "You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq, What was it and how did it happen?"

To Kerry -- "What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion has President Bush made in these areas [Iraq]?"

To Bush: -- "Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives -10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?"

To Kerry: -- "You've repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq."

But despite his focus on Iraq, he never asked Kerry why he voted to authorize the war, then voted against the legislation to fund it. Or why he voted against authorization for the first Gulf War, even though Bush One had assembled just the kind of coalition Kerry says the U.S. needs now.

Did he ask Kerry about recent statements from France and Germany that they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq even if Kerry is elected? Given that Kerry's Iraq policy rests almost solely on the promise that he'll somehow persuade Old Europe to pitch in and take some of the load off U.S. forces, it strikes me as a dereliction of duty for the moderator of the debate to ignore the adamant stance of Old Europe.

So much for Lehrer. Now on to Kerry. The more I go over his statements the more I'm convinced he shot himself in the foot repeatedly. If the "debate" had been a one time event with no commentary from the pundits (either liberal and conservative) and with no discussion amongst voters themselves, then yes, I can see that Kerry's style on camera might boost his chances more than the substance of his words on camera would hurt them. But that's not the case, is it? People do discuss what was said. So do the talking heads on TV, the letter-writers in newspapers, and the talk radio show crowd. The way people feel about it an hour after seeing it is not always the way they'll feel about it after a few days mulling it over.

Kerry's "global test" pratfall and the "we can't be trusted with bunker busters" reversion to his nuclear freeze days are howlers. But so is this, perhaps the most illuminating of all Kerry's answers:

"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us.?Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us.?And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains.?With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.?

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That's the enemy that attacked us.?That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains.?That's the enemy that is now in sixty countries, with stronger recruits."


Where to start with this? First of all, a president can't micromanage the decisions of the commanders on the ground. As has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout the long history of warfare, the tactics of waging war are best left to the professionals. If the commanders at the scene judged it was best to let those who lived there and knew the area far better than the Special Forces team take the lead, so be it.

Next, would the many terrorist attacks since 9/11 in Bali, Madrid, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Beslan and elsewhere still have occurred even if the United States focused all of its efforts on Afghanistan?? Yes. Would Zarqawi still be roaming freely throughout Iraq and the middle east, building his networks? Yes. Would killing Osama at Tora Bora have stopped the Islamist fanatics around the globe?? No.

Kerry doesn't understand the enemy. He doesn't understand the war we are in, or how it must be fought. He doesn't understand the reason Libya disarmed. He just doesn't get what's going on at all. Bush was smart to stay on message, stay focused and communicate again and again that he knows what we are up against. Kerry doesn't know what we're up against. Kerry thinks the way to beat them is through summits with allies and inspections and UN resolutions and nuance and sensitivity.

And of course, Kerry manages to slip in four references to his Viet Nam service, five if you count his closing statement. Given the revelations about his service, you'd think Kerry would know better than that by now. I didn't see the debate, but even just reading the transcript I could visualize millions of pairs of eyeballs rolling upwards at each one. The man is tone deaf.

Here's the one that just leaps out at me. Despite his claiming that he won't seek permission from the UN to act, he lays this on the audience:

Kerry -- But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

This may be the biggest blunder he made, and I can guarantee you it will join the "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" classic Kerryism list. Americans do not give a flying fuck about passing any "global test", and let's remember he isn't addressing the UN General Assembly here, he's addressing American voters. Appallingly stupid statement. Not only does he not understand the nature of the enemy, he doesn't even understand the nature of the average American. And no, I'm not talking about the Chomskybots and the Mooreites and the ANSWER/DemocraticUnderground/MoveOn crowd, I'm talking about the average American voter.

Here's another: "We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.?Not this president.?I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

Another demonstration that he knows nothing about any Americans who don't eat quiche. Americans know they can't be equated with a group of Mad Mullahs (or even Moo-lahs) when it comes to nukes. And even the dimbulbs out there realize that "proliferation" refers to more players attaining nukes, not the upgrading of the stocks the existing players have. It's his Eighties "unilateral nuclear freeze" mentality all over again. And to make it even worse, he trots out his insane plan of supplying the nuclear fuel to Iran. Is the man on crack? Yeah, like that's an effective way to stop nuclear proliferation. I mean, what the fuck?!

A quick and probably incomplete list of untruths from Kerry (not that every American will catch them, but enough of them will) --

- This president has left them (alliances) in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs. (What alliances? France and Germany? What alliances did the US have pre-invasion that they don't today? Have France and Germany withdrawn from NATO? Cancelled any treaties? Initiated any boycotts? Filed condemnatory resolutions in the UN? This is a bullshit statement, pure and simple. As for the 90% figure, it holds true only if you don't consider Iraq's security forces to be allies.)

- And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq. (Bullshit. The 200 billion figure he has been tossing around so casually includes more than just money spent on Iraq and he knows it. It includes the money spent on Afghanistan as well.)

- And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. (But I thought there were no weapons of mass destruction, senator.)

- That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. (More bullshit. The subway system wasn't closed during the RNC. Our members who live in New York can confirm this, as can anyone who follows the news)

- When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone." (What the fuck? When Annan offered the UN to do what? To pull out in the first month?)

- Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word(lying), as you did just then. (Another whopper. He has indeed used that word. And of course his surrogates have used it many more times than Kerry himself)

- With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. (Bullshit. They didn't initiate it. They certainly are assisting in the negotiations, but they didn't "initiate" the effort.)

- I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," (as kerry did himself, repeatedly) said "Mission accomplished," (Bullshit, Bush said no such thing and Kerry damn well knows it) said we could fight the war on the cheap (more bullshit. Bush has never said that either. Two lies out of three phrases in the sentence.)

I'll get into Bush's points later tonight.

Feel free to respond in this thread here: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...&PHPSESSID=


pinky

*********************************************************************

Part three: Much as I'd like to go even further into this, my faltering telecom (things still aren't back to normal here after Hurrican Jeanne whomped us) and offline commitments will make that difficult in the near future. Besides, the fact that this thread has been locked for a whole twenty hours appears to have ruffled the feathers of some of you. So I'll just add a few parting thoughts on Kerry's performance and unlock the thing.

I was struck by something else as I was reading the transcript. Maybe the readers could help me identify what that might be....

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But?.?.?."

"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But?.?.?."

"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But?.?.?."

"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But?.?.?."

"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But?.?.?."

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But?.?.?."

"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But?.?.?."

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But?.?.?."

"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But?.?.?."


This kind of verbal tic has been described elsewhere as the "yeah, but" syndrome. Whenever you hear someone talking like this, you know that everything before the "but" is a sort of obligatory rhetorical throat-clearing. The speaker doesn't actually believe what he is saying at all, but feels compelled in the interests of appearing fair that he should at least pay lip service to your comments. One of the more common examples of this is the Libbie intro "Yes, yes, we all know Osama bin laden is a terrible person. But..." and then we're off into a rant on how bin Laden was funded by the CIA or donated money to day care centers or whatever.

And I can guarantee you I'm not the only one who has run across people who do this. If you're anywhere over the age of about fourteen or so you're well aware of the mindset behind it. Did every American voter who watched the debate catch this? Nope. But you can be damned sure a hell of a lot of them did.

There is no way that Kerry won this debate on substance. On style -- sure. Hands down. No question about it. But on the issues? Not a hope in hell.

And I haven't even touched on his insanely convoluted utterings on North Korea! When asked if he preferred multilateral or bilateral talks on the NK nuke issue, what was Kerry's position?

Why, (surprise, surprise) he wants both! If that isn't Kerry to a "T", nothing is.

Okay. Thread unlocked. Flail away at it here or if you prefer, comment at http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1

pinky


Edited by pinksharkmark (10/01/04 11:59 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3205359 - 10/02/04 12:02 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3207027 - 10/02/04 04:54 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

overall I found your analysis of the debate to be shrill, uninformed and laughably biased. I noticed several instances where you completely missed the meaning of what was said in the debate (I'm sure others caught it as well). And when you concluded that Bush won "on the issues", was this assessment based on the actual debate that took place live in front of millions of viewers? or was it based on that imaginary debate that took place in your head as you were reading the transcript? please don't confuse the two


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,267
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 59 minutes
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3207098 - 10/02/04 05:16 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I'm pretty sure Pinky picked it up wherever he found his debate blog.

"Bush loses on presentation but wins on issues," has been the Conservative mantra since the debate.

Pinky couldn't be the brains behind that line... he read it somewhere first... then quickly pinned it to the top of this forum.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3207190 - 10/02/04 05:57 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

infidelGod writes:

I noticed several instances where you completely missed the meaning of what was said in the debate (I'm sure others caught it as well).

And those instances would be..... ?

And when you concluded that Bush won "on the issues", was this assessment based on the actual debate that took place live in front of millions of viewers? or was it based on that imaginary debate that took place in your head as you were reading the transcript?

As you are well aware, I didn't watch it or listen to it. I am capable of reading, however. Unless the transcript I am working from is inaccurate, there is no way Kerry won on the issues. He got away with some untruths and demonstrated his appalling lack of knowledge of the real world. If you believe the way to bring allies on board is to complain that their contributions are essentially meaningless, or that the way to persuade fence-sitters to help out is to characterize the arena in which you need help as "a grand diversion" and "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", then it is no wonder you feel my observations are uninformed.

Not only did Kerry flip-flop on the campaign trail, he flip-flopped during the debate itself. Lehrer let it slide, and unfortunately so did Bush. Bush had plenty of opportunities to skewer Kerry that he missed.

Unless you can show me the transcript is inaccurate, I stand by all my comments.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Rose]
    #3207214 - 10/02/04 06:05 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Cervantes writes:

I'm pretty sure Pinky picked it up wherever he found his debate blog.

Picked what up?

Pinky couldn't be the brains behind that line... he read it somewhere first... then quickly pinned it to the top of this forum.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't rip that line off from anyone. There are only so many ways to express the same thing, after all -- presentation vs issues, style vs substance, sizzle vs steak.

Imagine yourself deciding on a line to describe a debate where Kerry had won on the issues but had come across as sweaty, pumpkin-colored, Botoxed, manicured, jittery, effete, pompous, confused, sneering and arrogant -- in other words, he was right on the issues but had a lousy presentation. What would your headline be, Cervantes?

Be honest now.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3207296 - 10/02/04 06:29 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

pinky,

One comment you need to back away from is when you implied Bush had won the debate because he "crossed the finish line first," using SpecialEd's analogy. You and I agree that if the debate had a purpose/goal/finish line, it was to get across to undecided voters. Every poll that has come out has shown that undecided voters thought Kerry won the debate. And more undecided voters had a raised opinion of Kerry after the debate than Bush. And these victories were not by small margins. Kerry accomplished the goal of the debate better than Bush. Bottom line. He crossed the finish line first.

You're insistence that Bush 'won on the issues' isn't neccesarily wrong (though it comes off as more of a senseless mauling than the thought out systematic killings I associate with you). The point is that the issues weren't the overall goal of Thursday night. I think you can understand that. And I think you can understand that there weren't two different victories. There was one.

You ask what your headline should have been...

Kerry's Performance Tops Bush's Substance

This would have been a better choice for you.
:cheers:


Edited by Gijith (10/02/04 08:36 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,267
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 59 minutes
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3207381 - 10/02/04 06:50 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

The Newsweek poll just kame out.

If the election were held today, who would you vote for?

Kerry 49%
Bush 46%

Margin of error: + or - 4%

Good thing polls don't matter.

If they did, it'd look like your guy lost big.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Rose]
    #3207384 - 10/02/04 06:50 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

one can only hope!!!

:dancing:


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3207395 - 10/02/04 06:53 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Pinky, I don't have time for a full response, but I think you are right. However I don't think the issues as presented by Bush were stronger than Kerry's public speaking. I know what his positions are, and what the correct response to Kerry's statements should have been, but he missed almost all of them. If they had put Bush's pres secratary or somebody else in his cabinet against Kerry it would have been an easy win.

The problem was, Bush fumbled his own issues, so even though I believe he was right, he did not articulate or even bring up those issues. I might forgive this because I already know what he means to say, but the average person who hasn't followed Bush closely would get only the vagueist picture of Bush's policies.

It makes me kind of mad. If Bush loses it was because he blew that chance. The things about Bush that really do anger me are how badly he presents his own position and how he shoots himself in the foot when comes to PR. I have to say, if he loses it his own damn fault as a candidate. I'll probobly still vote for him unless he does this again, but it is very frustrating when the man you support makes a fool of himself. No doubt alot of other Bush supporters are very angry at him. It's insulting that he neglects to put the proper time, effort and self-consciousness into public speaking making us look stupid.
( I say this knowing full well that the next post will probobly read something like this: "He makes you look stupid because he is stupid!" or "Because of his policies", "Because you don't see through he his sinister web of propaganda and lies!" or lastly "Because you ARE stupid!" Well, I've saved you the time)


Edited by Divided_Sky (10/02/04 07:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineWorf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3207607 - 10/02/04 07:54 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

The fact is that you don't come off as sweaty, nervous, and anxious unless you are losing on the issues. Someone mentioned it before somewhere but you can tell when a football team is losing because of their body language. It's a basic psychological function.


It isn't because they are tired and thats why they are losing, they are losing and thats why they look tired.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3207688 - 10/02/04 08:34 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate?s winner, Bush?s lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president?s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent?s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday?s debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose flip-flopper by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president?s performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.

Kerry?s perceived victory may be attributed to the fact that, by a wide margin (62 percent to 26 percent), debate watchers felt the senator came across as more confident than the president. More than half (56 percent) also see Kerry has having a better command of the facts than Bush (37 percent). As a result, the challenger?s favorability ratings (52 percent, versus 40 percent unfavorable) are better than Bush?s, who at 49 percent (and 46 percent unfavorable), has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time since July. Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president?s 41 percent).

In fact, Kerry?s numbers have improved across the board, while Bush?s vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush?s steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush?s 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).

Meanwhile, Bush?s approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.

Neither man was seen as a particularly stronger leader (44 percent Bush, 47 percent Kerry), more negative (37 percent Bush, 36 percent Kerry) or more honest (43 percent Bush, 45 percent Kerry).

Perhaps because the debate topic focused on foreign policy and largely was dominated by the war in Iraq that issue rates higher as a voter concern than it did a month ago. Twenty percent of all voters say Iraq is the issue that will most determine their vote, up from 15 percent. Tied with Iraq is the economy (21 percent), and still leading the list is terrorism and homeland security (26 percent). And key for the president is the fact that he is the preferred man on the issues more important to voters. On homeland security, Bush is preferred 52 percent to Kerry?s 40 percent (a significant spread, but a narrowing one: Last month the spread, in the president?s favor, was 58 percent to 34 percent). On Iraq Bush is preferred 49 percent to 44 percent (compared to 54 percent versus 39 percent a month ago). Kerry is even with the president on the question of which man is better suited to guide foreign policy in general (48 percent Bush to the challenger?s 46 percent) and clamping down on the proliferation of nuclear materiel (47 percent Bush, 43 percent Kerry).

Where Kerry clearly leads is on domestic issues, which will be the focus of the third debate on Oct. 13, in Tempe, Ariz. The Democrat is preferred to Bush by double-digit spreads on who would be better at handling the economy (52 percent to 39 percent), foreign competition (54 percent to 36 percent) and health care (56 percent to 34 percent).

Although the subject of the draft was only briefly addressed during the debate, four in ten voters (38 percent) believe that because of the war in Iraq which 50 percent of all voters now view as unnecessary, a second Bush administration would reinstate the draft. Just 18 percent feel the same would happen if Kerry were elected. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) feel a draft should not be considered at this time and 28 percent said a draft should at least be considered. But only 46 percent feel going to war was the right decision in the first place with just as many (45 percent) under the impression that the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, echoing a recurring refrain of Kerry?s, more than half of all voters (51 percent) think the Bush administration has not done enough to engage other nations (43 percent feel they have done enough or even gone too far in that direction as it is).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,267
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 59 minutes
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3207811 - 10/02/04 09:20 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Well, that settles it. :smile:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Rose]
    #3208437 - 10/02/04 11:52 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

There are polls and then there are polls. The Gallup poll I quoted shows that both candidates picked up one percentage point after the debate compared to their pre-debate standings.

Since I don't live in the US and since it's pretty unlikely the 'splodeydopes will ever bother targeting the Dominican Republic, it matters little to me if the appeasing poodle gets elected. I'm much more likely to buy the farm in a hurricane or by having a coconut fall on my noggin from thirty-five feet up. I've just missed being hit by one seven times in the seventeen years I've lived here, by the way. I guess God loves me. Or something.

But any American who thinks thye'll be safer with John flipflop Kerry in the Oval Office deserves what they get. Not that I wish you any harm, you understand. Just saying, is all.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,267
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 59 minutes
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3208456 - 10/02/04 11:59 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Sounds like God's coconut throwing arm is no better than Kerry's pitching arm.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3208928 - 10/03/04 03:37 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

But any American who thinks thye'll be safer with John flipflop Kerry in the Oval Office deserves what they get. Not that I wish you any harm, you understand. Just saying, is all.



I mean, we are so much safer with Bush.

ahahahahahahahahahaha

Remember when the worst thing in Iraq was a brutal tryrant that killed 0 americans............

Hey, when Saddam was in power, how many car bombs in Bahgdad were there?

But wait, its a vital front on the war on terror.....

Funny Funny.


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3209080 - 10/03/04 05:21 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

he won on the issue of being stupid and slow


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3209311 - 10/03/04 10:21 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

But any American who thinks thye'll be safer with John flipflop Kerry in the Oval Office deserves what they get. Not that I wish you any harm, you understand. Just saying, is all.




Of course you dont mean us any harm. Your statement just says that those of us who support Kerry deserve a safer America and thats just what well get. How does a safer America translate into wishing us harm?
Bush let N.Korea and Iran get nukes. I bet Kerry would have had the balls to create a coalition to confront those countrys and get inspectors in or face worldwide isolation and severe economic consequences. Diplomacy, inspections, and sanctions save lives, money, time, and respect. Military bullheadedness makes you N.Korea. Bush=Kim Jong Il.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,520
Loc: North Carolina
Re: Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues [Re: Phred]
    #3212774 - 10/04/04 07:30 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

The only thing Bush won that night was the contest to see who can say "freedom" the most...35-40 times i think it was.

Is anyone actually suprised that kerry won? I sure as hell am not. It's just as i predicted quite awhile ago, actually. I mean...theres a reason Bush has granted fewer press conferences than any president in the last 20 years or whatever. Questions just confuse him way to much and exspose him for the phony con artist that he is.

It will be a wonderful day in january next year when he is thrown out on his ass and i don't have listen to the pathetic explanations of his policies and his repetitive propaganda one liners. I guess i will have to listen to conservatives whine like little babies over stupid non-issues but theres just nothing you can do about that i suppose


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush losing re-election support? adrug 1,109 14 09/29/03 01:34 AM
by SquattingMarmot
* Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can"
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,174 51 08/03/06 06:22 AM
by Phred
* bush loses.. SCOTUS legalizes ayahuasca...
Annapurna1
522 5 02/22/06 11:37 PM
by Adden
* Where does Bush Stand on the issues? 1stimer 811 10 10/22/04 01:36 PM
by oggleman
* Putin: Bush Must Win or Terrorists Will Triumph Great_Satan 648 5 01/07/05 02:42 PM
by DNKYD
* If you use the rhetoric "Bush lost on presentation...
( 1 2 all )
SpecialEd 1,981 36 10/04/04 12:13 AM
by GabbaDj
* Stop with all the defeatism , OK? Bush IS a goner fft2 440 2 09/21/04 10:28 PM
by Phred
* Bush is in deep trouble: An analysis of the post-convention fft2 479 1 08/19/04 06:54 PM
by Divided_Sky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,201 topic views. 4 members, 3 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.195 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 14 queries.