How's The Debate Going

[cormacobear]

How about some real time commentary? Please :(

[iwwobblie]

Kerry is definitely winning,Bush is stumbling all over the place.

[NovelGentry]

I'd agree... as I've said, he's falling back on mere assertion and opinionated stuff.

- He won't say exactly HOW Kerry flipflopped, just that he did
- In return Kerry keeps defending his position and why he voted to give the President the Power (which is logical, but Kerry shouldn't have been so stupid to believe Bush)

- Bush likes to say a lot of things like "there's lots of people working hard"
- Kerry is offering no assertion that that's right, instead he's giving cold and very outlines positions on why the war is wrong, Bush just wants to justify it by saying people are working hard, which apparently makes things right.


The problem is, they both suck. They both want to build the military and continue Iraq, they're just differing on how to do that. So screw both of them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Their both being reactionary shits.
John Kerry fucked up a little by using the term "global test" to explain when pre-emptive military action is warranted. That was just stupid! Looking for international approval is exactly the shit that republicans like to bash democrats for. But other than that Jonny's kickin ass.

Edit: Jonny just got through talking about nuclear weapons. He says that nuclear proliferation is the biggets threat, bla bla bla. Bush beats around the bush and says that Saddam was bad and his war was good. Doesn't really give an objective answer.

[dopediana]

yeah, i'm listening to it on the radio. kerry nailed bush on the nuclear proliferation issue. all bush can go on about is kerry's inconsistency and saying that america needs someone with certainty. and then kerry came around with a zinger, saying that you can be certain about something completely wrong and not recognize it. and then bush came around saying that his administration was going to change tactics anyway.... i was smilin'.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It was pure gold when Kerry said that it was inconsistent to go to war with countries for nuclear proliferation while currently working on a new atomic bomb that can penetrate bunkers. And he said it right after Bush had made his little piece about Kerry being inconsistent and repeating the phrase "mixed messages" about 10 times.

[dopediana]

kerry sounded so appealing tonight. who knows what percentage was bullshit, but he mopped the floor with dubya. i think his greatest moments were the nuclear proliferation and the spiel on certainty.

[Zingu]

Bush sounded like a broken garbled record babbling out the same play of fear and how "we must stay resolute and strong" and that same damn quote about "mixed standings" got so annoying.
If people at school think Bush was the better one, I'm going to shoot myself about how people can be so shallow minded. I don't agree with Kerry's ideas, but he definitaly better than Bush.
I wish they pressed the subject about Bush's "Nuclear bunker-busters", I would have loved to see him squirm. Too bad I was listening on the radio.
Bush I think couldn't even pass a job interview he was so bad tonight.

[Sabocat]

Here's a Socialist perspective on the debate.

Bush-Kerry debate: two candidates committed to war
By Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party presidential candidate
1 October 2004


The first of the presidential debates between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry presented the American public with an empty choice between two candidates committed to continuing the war in Iraq and escalating US militarism around the world.

The deep-felt sentiments of millions of Americans, who want an end to the criminal war against the Iraqi people, found no expression in the debate. On a day that ranked as one of the bloodiest in recent months in Iraq, neither candidate made any direct reference to the ongoing carnage and the suffering of the Iraqi people due to the US invasion.

Much of what passes for political analysis in the corporate media will focus on the facial expressions and “body language” of the two candidates, as the pundits decide who won the contest at the University of Miami. Bush, who squirmed and grimaced through much of the 90-minute encounter, could do little more than repeat by rote a series of talking points attacking Kerry as inconsistent in his backing for the Iraqi intervention. He sprinkled his remarks with catchphrases meant to demonstrate his religious piety and appeal to his base among the Christian right.

For his part, Kerry managed to pull virtually every punch in his criticism of the Bush administration’s foreign and military policies, while nodding as his opponent mouthed lies and stupidities.

What predominated, amidst the media hype and the candidates’ bluster, was the extremely narrow range of substantive differences between Kerry and Bush. Behind the barbs and double-talk, both candidates defend the same strategic interests of the US financial oligarchy.

Kerry condemned Bush for “misleading” the American people about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq and called the intervention a “colossal error of judgment.” Bush denounced Kerry for sending “mixed messages” and exhibiting an inconsistency that disqualified him from assuming the mantle of commander-in-chief.

But they both promoted their candidacies by fomenting fear and claiming their opponent would leave the country less safe. Both pledged to continue the war in Iraq until victory was secured, saying they would train Iraqi security forces for the job. Both vowed to intensify “homeland security” enforcement, and they agreed that halting nuclear proliferation and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists was the top foreign policy priority.

Kerry’s remarks were, as always, riddled with political duplicity. He condemned the war as a mistake and a policy based on lies. In the next breath, he affirmed his commitment to remain in Iraq and win the war. His differences with Bush on Iraq were entirely of a tactical nature, and his basic argument—directed above all to the ruling elite—was that he could carry out the imperialist enterprise more competently and effectively than the incumbent.

At one point, moderator Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting System quoted back to Kerry the remark he made during his denunciation of the war in Vietnam before a Senate panel more than three decades ago: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Asked whether US soldiers were currently “dying in Iraq for a mistake,” Kerry replied: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering. I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”

In one of his more chilling remarks, the Democratic candidate denounced the Bush administration for failing to prosecute the war with sufficient ruthlessness. “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,” he said. “And you have to do that by beginning to not back off from the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists.”

With US commanders openly discussing plans for a military offensive against major urban areas such as Fallujah, Kerry’s statement amounted to an advance endorsement of the bloodletting to come.

Kerry further indicated that the war in Iraq would not be the last war of aggression, no matter who won the election in November. Asked his position “on the whole concept of preemptive war,” the Democratic candidate responded: “The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War... No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”

This is a falsification of history. During the Cold War, successive administrations pursued a policy of “containment” against the Soviet Union. Many of those who now hold leading positions in the Bush administration were identified with the drive under Reagan to replace that strategy with one of “rollback,” based on an escalation of the arms race, confrontation with the USSR, and the attempt to develop weapons systems that would make aggressive nuclear war possible.

The “preemptive war” doctrine developed by the Bush administration, however, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. As spelled out in the 2002 “National Security Strategy” document, it promotes Washington’s “right” to launch unprovoked war against any nation that it believes poses—or may pose in the future—a threat to US interests. This is not, in strict diplomatic terms, a policy of preemptive war, but rather one of preventive war, which is a war crime under international law.

Kerry indicated he was prepared to utilize the same methods employed by Bush against Iraq in what would inevitably be far more dangerous acts of militarism, including a possible nuclear war. “Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous,” he said. “Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don’t know yet. But I’ll tell you this: as president, I’ll never take my eye off that ball.”

In his closing remarks, Kerry reiterated his commitment to continue the war and occupation in Iraq. “I have a plan for Iraq,” he said. “I believe we can be successful. I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.”

Significantly, there was no mention either from the moderator or the candidates of the torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, or any of the other war crimes committed in the name of the crusade against terrorism.

Whatever his criticisms of Bush, Kerry’s performance made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of winning the election by appealing to the sentiments of many millions of Americans who rightly consider the war in Iraq a crime and want US troops to leave the ravaged country.

The first presidential debate has underscored the narrow and right-wing parameters of the US two-party system. Independent and third-party candidates, including those of the Socialist Equality Party, were excluded. The ban extended to Ralph Nader, who won more than 2,800,000 votes in 2000 as the presidential candidate of the Green Party.

The interests and concerns of the vast majority of the American people find no expression in a political system monopolized by two parties of big business.

The Socialist Equality Party will continue to advance a genuine alternative to the two corporate-controlled parties, demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. Our campaign is directed at preparing the independent political movement of the working class that will be required in the coming struggles, no matter whether the Democrats or Republicans win the November election.

Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/deba-o01.shtml)

[fuerzasocialista]

I feel that Dubya started out on par with Kerry and both canidates looked strong but as the debate progressed, Kerry just started pulling ahead while Dubya started to repeat himself and stumble over his own words. Also the reaction shots of Dubya as Kerry gave his rebuttle was very reminiscent of when Dubya was told the US was under attack on 9/11- a deer in the headlights. It was a clear, concise win for Kerry but I don't think he is going to sway many voters being that so many people have a strong opinion one way or another. Many people just don't comprehend the faults and critical mistakes of Dubya and figure that they just may as well stick with him. But Kerry made a statement to the effect that he would be even more commited to winning the war- more casualties either way with a disgruntled nation being occupied by american forces while the natives are chopping off heads of whatever foreigners they can find. One positive note that Kerry did mention was his willingness to reach out to other countries shunned by the current administration in order to stabalize Iraq among other things. Question is, will the countries of the world reach back? :blink:

[Guerrilla22]

Bush ran out of things to say after about a half an hour. His people probaly should have prepared a little more dialouge for him, or maybe he just forgot, who knows.

[insurgency03]

idiots the both of them, but bushes ADD was feinately showing that night, what i cannot wait for is to see the vice-presidential debate and watch cheny get his ass beat because theirs no question on how stupid that fat-ass is.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It reminded me of a response Bush gave to a question regarding tribal sovereignty. :lol: Look for it. I think it can be found at ebaums wolrd.

Anyways, he was pretty incompetent.

[redtrigger]

I think Kerry will win the election. Bush should have slaughtered him in this debate, by him not it just proves how incompetent he is. :lol: