Official Presidential Debate Reaction Thread

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-01 10:57am

Bush vs Kerry in a debate is like pitting a retarded kid against a normal kid in a math contest. You can almost hear his parents saying "But he's retarded! It's not fair!"

Anyway, the real question is: did this debate change anyones' minds? Because if it didn't, then it doesn't mean shit.

One thing I observed in post-debate commentary was that people even moderately leaning toward Bush admitted that their half-trained monkey boy made himself look like an idiot, but they were fighting the debate for him in their own minds as it was going on, making up rebuttals to what Kerry was saying etc. So unless the number of undecided yet still committed enough to go to the polling booth voters are large enough to make a difference, this debate won't make a difference. Thanks to four years of incompetence, Bush supporters have become so accustomed to explaining away their monkey boy's bullshit for him that it's second-nature to them.

Kerry's problem is that while he does come off as more intelligent and well-spoken than Bush (who wouldn't?), he needed to articulate a policy position that was substantially different than what his enemies have been making fun of in the weeks leading up to this debate, otherwise the well-couched rebuttals would be rattled off instantly and reflexively. And let's face it: the "status quo + allies" plan is no plan at all. If he thinks any of us are going to send troops to Iraq or that it would make a difference if we did, he's on drugs. It's far too late to garner international support (of the sort that his father had during the first Gulf War, and which he and his supporters arrogantly deemed irrelevant before this one). And he won't use that "I supported it in the past because I was fooled by the Bush Administration just like the rest of the American people" gambit that I mentioned a while ago or anything like it, because he's afraid of looking "weak" (remember: it's considered "weak" to admit error regardless of whether it's true), so the best he can do is produce a well-articulated but still-muddled position.

Bush constantly harping on "flip-flop" makes him look childish, as if he has nothing else to offer by way of rebuttal, but ultimately, it's still a problem that needs to be addressed by the Kerry campaign and probably won't be: this whole "strength" and "decisiveness" rhetorical trick on the part of the Bush Administration. Complex problems don't always have a razor-sharp black/white answer, but George W. Bush thinks that they do (and he knows that a lot of simple-minded people out there agree with him), so he slings the accusation of "weakness" at anyone who doesn't pick black or white and then obstinately stick to it.

At this point, what no one wants to admit is that there is no solution, because it was a fucking stupid project in the first place. America embarked on a grand but cretinous endeavour to forcibly "democratize and westernize" the Middle East. Their own version of the Domino Theory, backed up with a lot of messy neo-conservative wanking about how everyone in the world wants to be American. It was based on the same kind of arrogance that led America to try and eradicate communism everywhere in the world by hook or by crook during the Cold War, usually without lasting effect and often at the cost of fomenting lasting anger over this interference (gee, does that sound familiar?)

Harsh reality time: people keep asking how Kerry is going to solve the problem. This question implies that it can be solved at this point, and it can't. It's a quagmire, and the best you can hope for is to manage it and hope to contain the damage. But as the growth of the budget deficit shows us, people don't like harsh reality. They prefer fantasy, and both candidates are trying to give them what they want.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-10-01 11:07am

Ok, at work we have 4 crazies, 1 ditto head, and one saunch anti communist from overseas. now the crazies have been going way out in left field all summer long (bush planned 9-11, neo-cons want to bring back slavery, etc), the ditto head was going on about how we need to support our country through this chrisis right or wrong.

me I am staying out of it (as I don't talk politics on the job)

actually since most of the lower class conservative voters watched wrestling or something else instead.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-01 11:19am

Mike, whichever candidate is the first to admit that Iraq is a lost cause will be the one making the Dreaded Phone Call on November 2nd.

What I think this debate did for Kerry was it energized his base. Up until now, we've been seeing a lukewarm candidate whose campaign has been a catastrophe, repeatedly turning the other cheek to dirty politics and mud-slinging. Last night we got to see Kerry actually go head-to-head (albeit with 32 pages of restrictions) with Bush.

The voters got to see the real George W. Bush last night: a very confused, stubborn, inarticulate and nervous little man, clinging to the basic premise that blowing sunshine up Americans' asses is the best way to win the War on Terror and that he is above criticism because any doubt might make the troops in Iraq question why they're there. And I imagine that Kerry's base is just starting to realize that he's not invincible and that he can get hammered into the ground beyond his spinster's ability to control. He can sling all the mud he wants at Kerry, but Kerry looked more presidential than the president. No amount of spin is going to change that for the average American voter.

Iceberg wrote:Bob Novak:

Bush: B content, B- presentation
Kerry: D content, A presentation

No comments

So the Douchebag of Liberty gave Kerry a D on content? Why, because he didn't recite the names of active CIA agents overseas?

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2004-10-01 11:30am

Did anyone notice that Kerry was wearing a red tie, while Bush was wearing a blue tie? Think about it: the contrast draws the eye to Kerry.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 11:31am

Mike:

The problem is, what exactly can Kerry say on Iraq that wouldn't be a negative move for him? At least half of the American public thinks that making the wrong decision with conviction makes for a better leader than someone who makes course corrections or thinks that if you messed up, you should be able to change your position (which they consider indecisive and wishy-washy respectively). With that sort of mentality, Kerry could come up with the perfect plan and he'd lose miserably simply due to the fact that that would mean not sticking with the status quo. That's why Bush has a solid chance of winning, because he'll take some sort of stance, and stick with it long after it was due to scrap that stance for a better one because they don't see "stubborn stupid bullheadedness" but "conviction, optimism and faith". Nothing Kerry can do at this point could make him as bullheadedly stup... I mean, optimistically faithful as George Bush on the Iraq issue or any issue.

It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's how our politics works, nowadays, and how President Bush wins elections.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-01 11:36am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Mike:

The problem is, what exactly can Kerry say on Iraq that wouldn't be a negative move for him? At least half of the American public thinks that making the wrong decision with conviction makes for a better leader than someone who makes course corrections or thinks that if you messed up, you should be able to change your position (which they consider indecisive and wishy-washy respectively). With that sort of mentality, Kerry could come up with the perfect plan and he'd lose miserably simply due to the fact that that would mean not sticking with the status quo. That's why Bush has a solid chance of winning, because he'll take some sort of stance, and stick with it long after it was due to scrap that stance for a better one because they don't see "stubborn stupid bullheadedness" but "conviction, optimism and faith". Nothing Kerry can do at this point could make him as bullheadedly stup... I mean, optimistically faithful as George Bush on the Iraq issue or any issue.

It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's how our politics works, nowadays, and how President Bush wins elections.

Did I ever contest that? I finished my post by saying that people prefer fantasies, so both candidates have to try and sell them one. I don't know why you and Durandal think that I don't already know this. I'm just pointing out what a sad state of affairs it is. It has been said that in a democracy, you get the leader you deserve, and the minority of Americans who think about policy rather than mindlessly following a party line are finding this out the hard way (the rest, of course, couldn't care less).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 11:37am

Damn it, I hate this school keyboard, it entered my post too earlier..

To continue...

It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's how our politics works, nowadays, and how President Bush wins elections. (continuing) If John Kerry completely followed your advice and said there is no solution to the problem, so we'd better tie together the lose ends and let it the hell go due to no solution to the problem, he'd lose horribly. Yours is completely sensible, but common sense doesn't win elections. Kerry would be immediately accused of lacking faith, he'd be immediately slammed for being negative and non-decisive, and he'd never recover from that blow politically. Admitting that there is no solution would do nothing but making Karl Roves impotent zombie dick hard again and prove in the eyes of about half of the American people everything that the Bush Administration has been pushing on him was right on the money. The election would be a landslide for Bush.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 11:39am

Darth Wong wrote:Did I ever contest that? I finished my post by saying that people prefer fantasies, so both candidates have to try and sell them one. I don't know why you and Durandal think that I don't already know this. I'm just pointing out what a sad state of affairs it is. It has been said that in a democracy, you get the leader you deserve, and the minority of Americans who think about policy rather than mindlessly following a party line are finding this out the hard way (the rest, of course, couldn't care less).

I'm just responding that there is absolutely nothing Kerry can do about it at this point, nothing more.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-01 12:06pm

"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-10-01 12:12pm

Now, you really know what the sad thing is? Have you seen Bush's speech this morning?? He is still parroting the same sad lines you heard him delivering in the debates, to cheers and boos that sound almost prompted. Anyways, local polls, granted in a liberal state, show that 15 percent of previously undecided voters changed their minds because of this debate. So this is not just a debate victory for Kerry, this is most likely a political victory for him as well.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-10-01 12:30pm

How do you think right-wing radio will paint Kerry in light of his juicey soundbites from last night. About the UN and etcetera, if they can stop talking about his nails, I think they will try to turn him into a communist, internationalist, pacifist, and so on and on.

I wouldn't be worried if Rush (oh and check out this piece of work) is preaching to the choir, but hate radio hooks alot of moderates who have nothing else to listen to. Thoughts?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-01 12:36pm

I usually don't make comments about other countries internal politics (I figure that's really not my business), but I will do so in this election, since the President of the United States affects the whole international community.

I didn't see the debate live, as it was in the middle of the night here in Sweden, but Swedish television aired in the day, thankfully as the Swedish television news constantly proclaimed Kerry as a winner. It was a good debate, in which both President Bush and Senator Kerry behaved admirably. They both stuck to their timelimits

One thing that came through in this debate is that it seems that Kerry don't have any real plans for anything, just words and plattitudes.
Kerry annoyed me several times by not answering the questions the moderator, one question in particular was avoided by Kerry. After Kerry had attacked President Bush about his exit-strategy from Iraq, the moderator asked Kerry about Kerry's exit-plan, details, timeplan and scenarios. Kerry avoided the question by babbling about "new dynamics" and by criticizing Iraq's Prime Minister Allawi. By not answering this vital question, Kerry lost all his credibility in my eyes.
A similar thing was when Kerry talked about nuclear materials in the fmr. Soviet Union, and that it had taken 13 years to remove the materials, but that he would do it in four. Good luck, not all matters can be decided by the American President. He's trying to simplify matters far too much. The issues are far more complex than he realizes.
Kerry also made a big number about all the people in the military supporting him, John Eisenhower, the General this and the Admiral that. Is that support very important for the Americans?

Kerry is a "flip-flop", but I thought that President Bush repeated this far too many times, but Kerry will find if he becomes President, that it's far more difficult to change position in important issues the way he does now.

I prefer Bush over Kerry in international issues, there are many domestic issues that I don't want to comment on, because that's really none of my business.

But, I would like to reiterate. No matter what candidate you support, it's important that you actually go to vote on the election day.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-10-01 12:45pm

Iceberg wrote:"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

December 7th 1941, a day that will live in infamy, and we know that those dirty, zoot suited, savages to the south will rape our women, and pillage our land while we go off to fight the Japanese and the Hun. So let's just over run the whole damn country and get it over with like we should have done after Poncho Villa

yeah, that would be what would have been said right?

sorry, I have a far too vivid imagination...

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-01 01:02pm

aten_vs_ra wrote:How do you think right-wing radio will paint Kerry in light of his juicey soundbites from last night. About the UN and etcetera, if they can stop talking about his nails, I think they will try to turn him into a communist, internationalist, pacifist, and so on and on.

I wouldn't be worried if Rush (oh and check out this piece of work) is preaching to the choir, but hate radio hooks alot of moderates who have nothing else to listen to. Thoughts?

I'd believe they'd paint it the way I see it. Kerry won on style, but his substance wasn't anything spectacular. Hopefully people will look through the lack of substance.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-01 01:05pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Hopefully people will look through the lack of substance.

The question is if there will be enough of them to vote Bush out of the White House.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-01 01:24pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I'm just responding that there is absolutely nothing Kerry can do about it at this point, nothing more.

Oh I doubt that, it was a fairly big step forward in the debate. Now atleast he is on the playing field.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-01 01:33pm

Iceberg wrote:"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid. While Saddam had no confirmed ties with Al-Qaida (or Al-Qaeda as it's often written in English), Saddam Hussein advocated terrorism. He hide Abu Nidal, whose terrorist organization was responsible for several hijackings, a.o. the hijacking of a Pan Am flight in Pakistan 1985 where 22 people died. Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad, and some claims that he was murdered by the Iraqi regime because he wasn't willing to train Al-Quaida fighters in Iraq (+http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... idal25.xml). Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism also struck the United Nations, the regime even planned to murder the former chief-weapon inspector, the Swede Rolf Ekéus, by tallium poisoning 1997. The plans were unraveled by an informer.
Even though no weapons of mass-destruction has been found, Iraq had the capabilities and the wish to produce them. Blueprints for long-distance missiles has been found.
That the Iraqi regime was removed has made the world more secure.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-10-01 01:38pm

Mange the Swede wrote: Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid.

Thanks for the nitpick.

Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism also struck the United Nations, the regime even planned to murder the former chief-weapon inspector, the Swede Rolf Ekéus, by tallium poisoning 1997. The plans were unraveled by an informer.

Oh I'd love to see a source on this,

Even though no weapons of mass-destruction has been found, Iraq had the capabilities and the wish to produce them. Blueprints for long-distance missiles has been found.

So? Doesn't call for invasion and we had Saddam by the balls for 12 years through illegal no fly zones and whathaveyou.

That the Iraqi regime was removed has made the world more secure.

So paving the way for Iraq to become an Islamic, terrorist ridden hellhole makes the world secure? Dumbass.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-01 01:45pm

Hamel wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote: Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid.
Thanks for the nitpick.

Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism also struck the United Nations, the regime even planned to murder the former chief-weapon inspector, the Swede Rolf Ekéus, by tallium poisoning 1997. The plans were unraveled by an informer.
Oh I'd love to see a source on this,

Even though no weapons of mass-destruction has been found, Iraq had the capabilities and the wish to produce them. Blueprints for long-distance missiles has been found.
So? Doesn't call for invasion and we had Saddam by the balls for 12 years through illegal no fly zones and whathaveyou.

That the Iraqi regime was removed has made the world more secure.
So paving the way for Iraq to become an Islamic, terrorist ridden hellhole makes the world secure? Dumbass.

Thank you for the kind word. You're really mature. You wanted a source for the plot to kill Rolf Ekeus, well do you speak Swedish? Here's a link to the Swedish (government sponsored) public-service which ran the news some seven years ago:
+http://www.svt.se/svt24/1997/971117/ekeus.htm

I guess there are a couple of free translators out there on the web. I could translate it for you, but I feel that your brain could use some work. I feel that the invasion of Iraq was justified.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-01 01:48pm

Mange the Swede wrote:
Iceberg wrote:"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid.

That wasn't the point —the point was that invading Iraq had as much relevance to the fight against Al-Qaeda as invading Mexico would have had in response to Pearl Harbour.

While Saddam had no confirmed ties with Al-Qaida (or Al-Qaeda as it's often written in English), Saddam Hussein advocated terrorism. He hide Abu Nidal, whose terrorist organization was responsible for several hijackings, a.o. the hijacking of a Pan Am flight in Pakistan 1985 where 22 people died. Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad, and some claims that he was murdered by the Iraqi regime because he wasn't willing to train Al-Quaida fighters in Iraq Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism also struck the United Nations, the regime even planned to murder the former chief-weapon inspector, the Swede Rolf Ekéus, by tallium poisoning 1997. The plans were unraveled by an informer.

All of which is stunningly irreleveant to the issue as to whether or not Iraq presented a military threat to the United States or any state in the region in 2002, which it very clearly did not.

Even though no weapons of mass-destruction has been found, Iraq had the capabilities and the wish to produce them. Blueprints for long-distance missiles has been found.

Iraq in 2003 didn't have the capability to do dick. Their entire industrial and technical infrastructure was crumbling to ruin under the sanctions regime, the economy was smashed, one-third of the country was effectively out of the regime's control, and Iraq was unable to rebuild from wartime damage dating to 1991 and its army and airforce —not exactly in the best shape to begin with in 1991— were shells of their former selves. Blueprints and the desire to do a thing are meaningless without the actual capacity to do it.

That the Iraqi regime was removed has made the world more secure.

A destabilised Iraq which shows every danger of collapsing into a three-way civil war has not made the world more secure one way or the other and certainly poses a longterm danger to the stability of the Middle East.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-01 01:59pm

You can't engage in a logical argument about the merits of invading Iraq with someone who never bothers providing evidence for his claims that it's been a positive move in the first place. Mange the Swede just says "I believe" and as far as he's concerned, he's proven his point.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-01 02:02pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:
Iceberg wrote:"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid.

That wasn't the point —the point was that invading Iraq had as much relevance to the fight against Al-Qaeda as invading Mexico would have had in response to Pearl Harbour.
The analogy was extremely poor, and it had no relevance whatsoever.

While Saddam had no confirmed ties with Al-Qaida (or Al-Qaeda as it's often written in English), Saddam Hussein advocated terrorism. He hide Abu Nidal, whose terrorist organization was responsible for several hijackings, a.o. the hijacking of a Pan Am flight in Pakistan 1985 where 22 people died. Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad, and some claims that he was murdered by the Iraqi regime because he wasn't willing to train Al-Quaida fighters in Iraq Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism also struck the United Nations, the regime even planned to murder the former chief-weapon inspector, the Swede Rolf Ekéus, by tallium poisoning 1997. The plans were unraveled by an informer.

All of which is stunningly irreleveant to the issue as to whether or not Iraq presented a military threat to the United States or any state in the region in 2002, which it very clearly did not.
No, that's not irrelevant. If that indeed was the case, it shows that Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism. Militarily, he was no threat at that point. There was no way on Earth that sanctions could be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein was in power (or his sons).

Even though no weapons of mass-destruction has been found, Iraq had the capabilities and the wish to produce them. Blueprints for long-distance missiles has been found.

Iraq in 2003 didn't have the capability to do dick. Their entire industrial and technical infrastructure was crumbling to ruin under the sanctions regime, the economy was smashed, one-third of the country was effectively out of the regime's control, and Iraq was unable to rebuild from wartime damage dating to 1991 and its army and airforce —not exactly in the best shape to begin with in 1991— were shells of their former selves. Blueprints and the desire to do a thing are meaningless without the actual capacity to do it.
Which he could have achieved if he had been given the time to do it. As I stated earlier in the post, the sanctions against Iraq could NEVER have been lifted as long as he was the leader of Iraq.

That the Iraqi regime was removed has made the world more secure.

A destabilised Iraq which shows every danger of collapsing into a three-way civil war has not made the world more secure one way or the other and certainly poses a longterm danger to the stability of the Middle East.

I agree. The situation right now is frightening, but I doubt that Kerry can resolve it better than Bush can. The situation will certainly be improved in the future, when all the foreign fighters and Saddam loyalists has become irrelevant. Granted, the UN must be given a larger role, and I am also of the opinion that peace keepers from Muslim countries could be very useful. Now that Syria has closed its border to Iraq, that will also have an effect.
There are some ways to deal with the terrorists, house-to-house searches by Iraqi national guard troops and cerfews in areas where there are unrest could be effective means.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-01 02:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:You can't engage in a logical argument about the merits of invading Iraq with someone who never bothers providing evidence for his claims that it's been a positive move in the first place. Mange the Swede just says "I believe" and as far as he's concerned, he's proven his point.

I always try provide evidence for my case, but right now time was against me as that would require both on-and off-line searches. I had no intention to be involved in a debate of this kind, just to post my reaction. I don't think the invasion was executed very well (even though I technically support the invasion itself), the administration lacked a clear strategy, and President Bush has failed to present any totally convincing counter arguments on this point.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-01 02:34pm

"Of course I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us! Do you think another round of sanctions would have caused Saddam to disarm?" ACTUAL BUSH QUOTE, VERBATIM.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-01 02:40pm

Mange the Swede wrote:
Iceberg wrote:"Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
Yes, that was an idiotic comparison by Senator Kerry. In what way did Mexico consider themselves an enemy to the United States in 1941? Stupid.

Actually, that's a pretty decent comparison by Senator Kerry. During the early 20th century, Mexico was plauged with internal strife as various factions vied for power. With the Mexican president overthrown, others tried to take his place. Among those were a Victoriano Huerta, and Venustiano Carranza, who used to be an associate of Villa. Of those, Huerta suceeded and soon there was another civil war. Long story short, Carranza later tried to kill Villa, the US backs Carranza for Presidency in Mexico, Villa is pissed and crosses the US/Mexico boarder and raids US outposts, the US army responds but fails to ever catch Villa.

Now comes Pearl Harbor. Its the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor and its the Japanese who were responsible for the 2000 or so deaths. Kerry says, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

1+1=2 QED