GreekChat.com Forums - Kerry appears more presidential then Bush during the Debate

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - Kerry appears more presidential then Bush during the Debate (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=57640)

Kerry laid out his plan really well unlike Bush he (Kerry) went into details, Bush on the other hand was his usual vague and petty self opting to attack Kerry instead of explaining his plans for Iraq. Dispite all the spin it was clear that Kerry beat Bush @ his own game National Security & Terrorism if Bush couldn't defend his policies in the war on terrorism how can he hope to explain his failed domestic policies like the economy.

Re: My impressions

Quote:

Originally posted by Rain Man
Great debate, kept my attention MUCH longer than I had originally anticipated, saw about the 1st hour of it.

Simply put,

Bush has very strong convictions, and was very tenacious about winning the war on terror and freeing Iraq from its former dictatorship so it can become a democracy, but IMHO has neglected to take care of the homefront. He often became non-plussed (ie, stuttering and stammering) when backed in a corner with a loaded question.

Kerry, OTOH, held his own very well, answered questions head on and full force, challenged Bush on unresolved difficult issues, however the basis of his responses were due to after-the-fact results. Kerry epitomizes the term "Monday morning quarterback", hence his uncanny knack at flip-flopping the issues.

So considering the nature of the event, Kerry clearly won the debate, but seeing that neither candidate impresses me very much, I will be voting for an independent candidate who I think is more qualified then those professional BS artists.

ETA: There has been way too much mudslinging from both of them during this whole campaign. As the saying goes, "When you do nothing but throw mud, all you do is lose ground."

I will NOT vote for either of them.

The thing is that in American politics, we've moved towards a 2 party dominated system. The Republican party was the party that really started it because it was formed by uniting several issues - the major one being anti-slavery. I don't see things changing until people stop clinging to one party. For example, if blacks as a voting group were evenly split between Democrat and Republican then the 2 parties would compete head on to get their vote OR another party would emerge that would represent their beliefs more.

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally posted by AXEAM
Kerry laid out his plan really well unlike Bush he (Kerry) went into details, Bush on the other hand was his usual vague and petty self opting to attack Kerry instead of explaining his plans for Iraq. Dispite all the spin it was clear that Kerry beat Bush @ his own game National Security & Terrorism if Bush couldn't defend his policies in the war on terrorism how can he hope to explain his failed domestic policies like the economy.

He laid out his plan?? Really he attacked Bush on the war on Iraq - the same war he voted for. He made comments about building a coalition and the only mention of a plan was holding a summit. This isn't summer camp. Presidents and leaders around the world do not want to participate in Iraq as it stands and have made not even one hint that they would if John Kerry was president. In fact it's dangerous to even consider that other countries could make demands on who we should vote for - but they don't. Kerry laid out no plan. In fact he went on to attack the countries that are currently participating in the coalition just like in the past.

And stop putting out BS by throwing words like "failed" behind the phrase domestic policies.

-Rudey

Bush should have mentioned how some of the countries that aren't a part of the coalition are likely involved with the oil for food scam.

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Of course the immediate 'outcome' of a debate can change over a few days time, so watch to see if after the initial assessment by debate watchers who were in locations to be polled (one of those was on our campus and both political parties were trying to get as many people on their side of the spectrum there as possible) follows through with the polling conducted over the next few days of a greater sample of the population.

ETA: the sample of Americans in the debate watchers polling is not always comparable to the average voting population and thus extraction to say 'this is what most people who watched thought' is flawed.

Yes. Also I'd like to see who is being polled here. It's obvious that people try to influence the polls. In fact in a forum on Greekchat, they are trying to get other Democrats to go influence the polls.

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Yes. Also I'd like to see who is being polled here. It's obvious that people try to influence the polls. In fact in a forum on Greekchat, they are trying to get other Democrats to go influence the polls.

-Rudey

Eww! This is why I _hate_ when anyone publishes the results of webpolls as fact (increasingly popular btw). If you're going to poll the population - do it right!

I got really drunk. Drink everytime Bush said 9/11, War on Terror, Terrorist, or Mixed Messages. Drink everytime Kerry said um...I forget I went through like five beers by the third question. f

Quote:

Originally posted by AGDee
I found the debate to be more engaging than I had expected. When it was over, I was surprised that 90 minutes had passed already.

As a known Kerry supporter here, I have these observations:

Bush was flustered at times, searching for the words he wanted and Kerry did not have that problem. I was disgusted with him though, as I usually am.

I completely agree with Bush that he rules from the heart and his values system. I completely believe that he BELIEVES he is right and has strong convictions which do not change. This is also what frightens me. It is what is comforting to some people. I think our President should be ruling with his head, not his heart. Some believe that the President should rule with his heart and never waver from his own belief systems. Ultimately, I am frightened by his belief systems. He sees things as black and white. Things are right or wrong, period. There are no grey areas. We will win. We had to go war when we did. Homosexuals should not marry. Iraq was a threat to the US. Marriage is essential in our society (by heterosexuals). I completely believe that Bush thinks his views are correct and I admire him in some ways for that, but at the same time, I don't agree with his value systems and views, so it frightens me that he is so unwavering. I can say that he is sincere.

I prefer a leader who, with more facts, can change his mind about an issue. l prefer a leader who can see the grey areas and know that sometimes he might not personally agree with something, but that doesn't make it right, Constitutionally. I don't want someone to be so convinced that his way of thinking is the only way of a thinking that all policies are based on that alone. There are 275,000 million people in this country and we aren't all going to agree that what one man believes is the best thing for our country. It doesn't mean that we're unpatriotic or heathens. We just have a different point of view.

I very much agree with this. I think it's clear to anybody who follows politics even in a shallow way that both parties have done their share of "flip-flopping," but as you said, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I would love to have a president who is able to say, "Given the information we had at the time, I voted this way, but now that we have different information, I've changed the way I think on this issue." How many of y'all have never had a political opinion swayed by the introduction of new information? I think being able to admit that political situations are very nuanced, being able see things in shades of gray instead of black and white, and to be able to admit that circumstances are constantly changing is a sign of maturity and intelligence, not a bad thing at all.

But I think a lot of people are comforted by the fact that with Bush, you pretty much know what you get (or at least you think you do). And that's great for them, but I would rather have a consistently intelligent leader than a consistently consistent one. But given the last election, it's become clear that the majority of the American public would prefer a charismatic leader rather than one they can't relate to (i.e. one who is clearly far smarter than they are). Charisma isn't necessarily the wrong way to pick a president, and of course in our wonderful democracy you can vote for the president who has the cutest dog if you want to, but it's not really how I want to pick who's in charge.

I have to admit that I checked out at a couple times during the debates, but even so, I was frustrated by the way that Bush kept responding to Kerry with the same three arguments ("You send mixed messages," "We're only going to win the war on terror," and "Since you don't approve of the way I'm running the war, you clearly hate all American servicemen"). It was pretty clear that he was coached to hammer on a few certain points, so when he couldn't respond decently to what Kerry was saying, he just went back to one of those three. I also thought his slip-ups confusing Osama and Saddam (as well as Giuliani's mix-ups in the post-show interview) were pretty telling, and frightening, but since so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 I don't think it will hurt Bush much.

Like I said last night, I think Kerry pretty clearly got the edge here, but I expect Bush to be much more prepared in the next debate, so anything could happen.

Quote:

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Yea its so funny how appears to be so.................human.

Oh, you mean kind of like changing your mind on an issue?

Quote:

Holy shit I was drunk this morning.

as far as bush appearing flustered and stuff.....i think he was tired, and with good reason. bush showed once again how passionate he is about what is going on....i don't see what's so bad about that. the hmm-ing and umm-ing, well, first of all: everyone knows bush isn't the greatest speaker on the planet, including himself. second of all, he had been with FL hurricane victims all day while, from what i hear, kerry had been at a SPA. i'm not saying the man shouldn't have been at a spa b/c i'm sure he's exhausted and all (and that "glow" needed to go), but bush didn't have a relaxing day to calm down and focus......you can only do so much and appear chipper.

Again, there is a difference between being dynamic and responding to changes in the world and never clearly responding to something for political reasons.

Kerry talks about the gray but really he only talks about black and white and is nowhere in the gray.

-Rudey
--Kerry and Edwards both voted for war in Iraq

Quote:

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I very much agree with this. I think it's clear to anybody who follows politics even in a shallow way that both parties have done their share of "flip-flopping," but as you said, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I would love to have a president who is able to say, "Given the information we had at the time, I voted this way, but now that we have different information, I've changed the way I think on this issue." How many of y'all have never had a political opinion swayed by the introduction of new information? I think being able to admit that political situations are very nuanced, being able see things in shades of gray instead of black and white, and to be able to admit that circumstances are constantly changing is a sign of maturity and intelligence, not a bad thing at all.

But I think a lot of people are comforted by the fact that with Bush, you pretty much know what you get (or at least you think you do). And that's great for them, but I would rather have a consistently intelligent leader than a consistently consistent one. But given the last election, it's become clear that the majority of the American public would prefer a charismatic leader rather than one they can't relate to (i.e. one who is clearly far smarter than they are). Charisma isn't necessarily the wrong way to pick a president, and of course in our wonderful democracy you can vote for the president who has the cutest dog if you want to, but it's not really how I want to pick who's in charge.

I have to admit that I checked out at a couple times during the debates, but even so, I was frustrated by the way that Bush kept responding to Kerry with the same three arguments ("You send mixed messages," "We're only going to win the war on terror," and "Since you don't approve of the way I'm running the war, you clearly hate all American servicemen"). It was pretty clear that he was coached to hammer on a few certain points, so when he couldn't respond decently to what Kerry was saying, he just went back to one of those three. I also thought his slip-ups confusing Osama and Saddam (as well as Giuliani's mix-ups in the post-show interview) were pretty telling, and frightening, but since so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 I don't think it will hurt Bush much.

Like I said last night, I think Kerry pretty clearly got the edge here, but I expect Bush to be much more prepared in the next debate, so anything could happen.

Kerry did WONDERFUL in the debate and he proved that he's still in this game. Even Republicans last night admitted that Kerry did better than they expected.

It was surprising because this first debate was supposed to be in favor of Bush. I was shocked that he didn't do better.

So, do you think they used the Skull and Bones "grip" when they shook hands?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
So, do you think they used the Skull and Bones "grip" when they shook hands?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Speaking of which, I though one of Bush's best quips of the evening was "And I don't hold it against him that he went to Yale." I think that really shows his personality. Even though I'm not a Bush fan, I found it endearing.