Presidential Debate Number Three...

[DeltAlum]

Is tonight, of course.

After hearing some pollster pundit on NPR this morning say that President Bush may be losing ground because of the *negativity in the last debate and overall campaign I started thinking.

Of course that means that this is pure "blue sky" speculation, but maybe the eventual winner of the debates and even the election turns out to be the one who backs off and actually is more respectfull? People always say they're tired of attack ads and dirty campaigning!

Could that happen?

Nah! Just wishfull thinking.

*Actually, I don't quite understand why he thinks Bush was much more negative than Kerry in the last go 'round -- there was enough sniping from both directions to make me want to throw something at the TV.

[AlphaGamDiva]

i don't wanna start a new thread, so i'll put this in here:

comments on kerry's comment on cheney's daughter being a lesbian?

[PhiPsiRuss]

I fell asleep half way through. The best thing about these debates is that they make sleeping pills obsolete.

Good thing I TiVoed it to watch the rest, which I did. I thought that Bush would get clocked, because this debate had the same format as the first one. Bush did well, and in absolute terms (not factoring in expectations,) I thought that Bush did better because he came across as more personable, and the American People care more about who they would rather invite to dinner.

Most of the time, Bush did invoke the image of Forrest Gump. In fact, this was the first debate where, most of the time, he appeared presidential.

Again, they both had their moments when they were completely full of shit. The both warped facts.

Now for the bottom line. These debates will quickly become a distant memory because we're now enetering the real stage of the election: spending money on media.

[LXAAlum]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Is tonight, of course.

After hearing some pollster pundit on NPR this morning say that President Bush may be losing ground because of the *negativity in the last debate and overall campaign I started thinking.

Of course that means that this is pure "blue sky" speculation, but maybe the eventual winner of the debates and even the election turns out to be the one who backs off and actually is more respectfull? People always say they're tired of attack ads and dirty campaigning!

Could that happen?

Nah! Just wishfull thinking.

Yep...the only problem with negative ads, and attacks...is...they work. It's a sad, but unfortunate fact. If they didn't, we wouldn't see them all the time.

I can't think of any election in recent times that didn't have some form of negative mudslinging. Also, fold in the 527 groups, and you have a guarantee of bashing one candidate over another. This election is much more Bush-bashing than Kerry simply from a financial standpoint. Kerry backed 527's as of early August had over $100MILLION in combined funds to Bush-backed 527's around 2-3% of that. As I saw somewhere in an Op/Ed..."for Bush, soft money is just a dab of TX perfume, for Kerry, it's oxygen"

What is almost unique about these attacks, from both 2000 and 2004, is the amount of vitriolic attacks. Prior to 2000, most negative ads were direct attacks on records and/or issues...since 2000, it's much more PERSONAL in nature.

I'd love to see "respectful" ads as well, but, the sad fact is, they don't work with the same impact, which is ironic since everyone I know wishes they wouldn't see so much negative stuff. But in the broader aspect, they unfortunately have more impact.

FWIW, as far as the debates go, I would have to say that Kerry won the first one running away, which surprised me. Cheney took Edwards to the woodshed in the VP debate, which didn't. Debate 2 was a tie: Kerry won on style, Bush on substance, and #3 would be a narrow win for Bush (Kerry seemed more like Bush in debate #1 last night). Kerry will always win on style, as Bush can't give an eloquent address all that often...he's too down-to-earth in personality, but that is what is appealing to me - he's says what he says AS HE IS, he doesn't put on airs, as Kerry seems to be able to do very well.

Kerry's attack on Cheney's daughter was a big mistake - it turned off a lot of people...over the top and uncalled for. Even Edwards backed off of this in the VP debate...it was much more a glancing blow. What really angered me was Edward's wife this morning saying that the only conclusion she could reach was that Cheney "is ashamed of his own daughter." Even more over the top than Kerry was.

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally posted by LXAAlum
What really angered me was Edward's wife this morning saying that the only conclusion she could reach was that Cheney "is ashamed of his own daughter." Even more over the top than Kerry was.

holy geez... i hadn't heard that.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I haven't heard anything about that, but I haven't watched tv today.

I don't like candidates or reporters dragging the personal lives of the children into the discussion. These children didn't decide to be in politics; their parent did. I didn't like when reporters asked Dan Quayle would it be ok if his daughter had an abortion if she were raped. I didn't like when reporters referred to 12 year old Chelsea Clinton as the family dog and ugly. I don't like Dick Cheney's daughter's personal life being dragged out for public consumption. I'm sure some people disagree with me, but I just think it's wrong and unfair.

[WCUgirl]

Originally posted by LXAAlum
Kerry's attack on Cheney's daughter was a big mistake - it turned off a lot of people...over the top and uncalled for. Even Edwards backed off of this in the VP debate...it was much more a glancing blow. What really angered me was Edward's wife this morning saying that the only conclusion she could reach was that Cheney "is ashamed of his own daughter." Even more over the top than Kerry was.

Okay, I don't know where people are get that Kerry attacked Cheney's daughter. Kerry said (exact quote), "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Umm, I don't see it. How is that an attack? How is that even negative?

[LXAAlum]

ABC News Story

Here is the story about Edwards wife's comments, and various reactions to it. Even the Kerry campaign admitted that statement "was not his best moment."

It's an attack when you start drawing out your opponents family members to score political points. On the positive side, the majority of feedback seems to indicate this is backfiring.

[WCUgirl]

I have heard far worse comments not called an attack.

As I said before, I don't think it was a negative comment in any way. I think Cheney just wanted to attack Kerry, so he a big stink about it.

It's obvious that Edwards' wife's comment was in response to Cheney's wife's comment, even though it was a crappy comment.

Hell, if you want to get technical, Elizabeth Edwards' comment was more of an attack than was Kerry's!

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
I don't like candidates or reporters dragging the personal lives of the children into the discussion. These children didn't decide to be in politics; their parent did. I didn't like when reporters asked Dan Quayle would it be ok if his daughter had an abortion if she were raped. I didn't like when reporters referred to 12 year old Chelsea Clinton as the family dog and ugly. I don't like Dick Cheney's daughter's personal life being dragged out for public consumption. I'm sure some people disagree with me, but I just think it's wrong and unfair.

I agree with you here. Their children & the private lives of their children should be kept out of the debates. Though I am a Kerry supporter, I did not like this comment. The lifestyle that the Cheney daughter chooses to live should not be held up to the limelight just to prove a point. There are better ways of doing it.
It did not sound like an attack but I do believe that he could have expressed his view in a different way w/out bringing up her wa of life.