Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Debates Tonight 56

Journal by pudge

A bunch of people on the TV and online said Bush looked bad in the debate tonight. Something about being "testy." I have absolutely no idea where this is coming from. I thought he looked and sounded great. What am I missing? Or maybe it's the media elite not getting it? I am leaning toward the latter ...

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debates Tonight More

Debates Tonight

Comments Filter:
  • I only caught parts of the debate on the radio replay, and both sounded much more combative. Since it was a town hall forum, I anticipated less vitriolic speech and more of a Q & A atmosphere.

    They both sounded angry in their answers to audience members. I know the anger is directed at one another's accusations, but it was as though they were going through the motions to have someone read a question, and then verbally pummeling one another.

    I mean, if Bush and or Kerry were the only one present, and
    • I heard only audio at first, and I thought they were reaming the audience for asking the questions. I later saw it on CSPAN. Complete difference on TV, they were both being more explanitory. Well, Bush sounded like one of the group, Kerry talked to the audience like they were a jury and he was a laywer putting Bush on trial.

      Many of the jokes appeared to be delivered better to while watching it. The audio just couldn't convey the body language.
  • What more is there to know?

    That's why I'm sitting out most of the political discussions right now.

  • Could it be... (Score:3)

    by cascadefx ( 174894 ) * <morlockhq@ g m a il.com> on Saturday October 09, 2004 @03:42AM (#10477743) Journal
    Well, for one, Bush kept pumping up the volume...

    Bush started pacing hurredly around when Kerry landed shots about "Orwellian phrases" in reference to the "Clear Skies Act" and when he said that labels didn't mean anything... for instance "Compassionate Conservative" and then listing items that weren't very compassionate. Bush can't hide when he is ticked... WHAT the hell was he doing with his JAW?

    Then there was the time that he completely ignored the rules and verbally walked all over the moderator (completely throwing the moderator off). He exploded there and just barely got it back under control.

    How about how he handled Nikki when she appeared to be asking an honest question about how we are really viewed by the world. It concerned her and Bush just gave an agitated answer that it didn't matter.

    How about how he handled the little old lady who asked the final question????

    • How about how he handled Nikki when she appeared to be asking an honest question about how we are really viewed by the world. It concerned her and Bush just gave an agitated answer that it didn't matter.

      I thought his answer was dead on. He told her that not every decision a President makes is going to be a popular one with the rest of the world, but as President he going to continue make choices that are right for America whether they are popular or not. He is not going to let popularity in the eyes of th
      • I think Bush didn't answer the question as well as he could have. What he said was fine, and I agreed with it, and it was on topic, but he never actually answered what he would do to fix the problem (which was the question). Of course, neither did Kerry, he just attacked Bush for the problem.
      • My point was his demeanor. He was agitated and it showed.
        • When I make a milkshake, it's agitated. But not in a bad way.

          Ross Perot was perpetually agitated, and it won whim nearly 20% of the nationwide vote.

          I guess maybe the problem I'm having is all those pundits who just assumed that Bush looked bad, just because he was more excited this time around. I thought his animation was great. I thought his excitement was infectious (again, in a good way :-).
          • Hey, I'll be happy if Bush gets 20% too ... ;-)

            Sorry but the President really needs to switch to decaf. He was shouting at the audience during much of the debate and got snippy with the moderator and a couple of the audience members asking questions.

            In other words he looked angry.

            It actualy made me hope that the joke about Cheney really running things is true.
            • In other words he looked angry.

              To you. To me and everyone I talked to who doesn't hate Bush, he looked good.
              • Of course my/your candidate looks good to us. You gotta view the debates from the viewpoint of an undecided. IMHO, Bush is preaching to his base. While Kerry is doing a much better job speaking to the undecideds.

                All boiling down to another 2000.
                • Of course my/your candidate looks good to us. You gotta view the debates from the viewpoint of an undecided. IMHO, Bush is preaching to his base. While Kerry is doing a much better job speaking to the undecideds.

                  I don't see that at all. I don't see how bashing our allies and discouraging our troops and lying about your previous view on the war works well with undecideds. And if they knew how badly Kerry was lying about his mythical middle class tax cut, they'd be even more pissed.
                  • From reading your earlier thoughts you said you rarely use the flip-flopper argument, so what didn't Kerry
                    • sum

                    up in the first (think he repeated in the second as well) debate when he said "I made a mistake talking about the war, the president made a mistake going to war, which is worse?".

                    Kerry backed his president to use force as the end of the process. Bush let him and us down.

                    I know you're not going to be swayed or anything or if i'm just rehashing the dem talking points much like many republicans do,

                    • He said he made a mistake talking about the war. But he also said he has remained consistent on the war. His mistake talking about the war, I believe that he was referring to, was saying Hussein had WMD, not the part about "right decision," else he could not be saying he has remained consistent, because he has clearly, on this point, been inconsistent.
                    • ...and it said something like "Kerry's position on Iraq has changed almost as many times as Bush's reason for going to war".

                      That, and I haven't seen a single out and out contradictory pair of statements from Kerry on Iraq. It is possible to say that the world is better off without Saddam and also say it was wrong to invade when we should be spending those reasourses on a much more important enemy.
                    • ...and it said something like "Kerry's position on Iraq has changed almost as many times as Bush's reason for going to war".

                      The problem is that Bush's reason for going to war has NOT changed, because he has never had only one reason. Which reason he chooses to emphasize the most has changed, certainly. But there's nothing wrong with having many reasons to go to war -- as long as they are not conflicting, which his are not -- while there is something wrong with having -- and arguing -- conflicting positi
              • I will agree that he looked better than he did in the last debate but that wasn't exactly a high bar to clear.

                Except for a few hard-core Bush supporters most people I've talked to thought he looked angry.

                This includes my Republican Uncle who, while not a big Bush fan, would as soon vote for a communist as most Democrats. When I talked to him he was trying to decide between holding his nose and voting for Kerry or voting Libertarian.

                Also several people who I know who aren't political junkies and don't rea
                • Also several people who I know who aren't political junkies and don't really follow politics or the news all thought Bush seemed angry, especially the women.

                  The women I've talked to, especially, thought Bush looked better in the debate.

                  If the press had covered this the same way they covered the "Dean Scream" CNN alone would have played the clip of Bush shouting down Gibson 600 times by now.

                  I wish they would. I thought that was great.
                  • I wish they would. I thought that was great.

                    If you would like to see Bush elected I don't think that would be a good idea.

                    For one thing, Bush is President, you know Commander in Chief, guy with his finger on the button, etc.

                    While it may show his "regular guyness" or that he is "a macho cowboy" it didn't look very Presidential. Most people expect at least a little decorum from the President, not the guy in the next lane over screaming out his window and leaning on his horn.

                    I honestly didn't think the ro
                    • While it may show his "regular guyness" or that he is "a macho cowboy" it didn't look very Presidential.

                      Says you.

                      Most people expect at least a little decorum from the President, not the guy in the next lane over screaming out his window and leaning on his horn.

                      I thought it showed plenty of decorum, and not at all what you describe it as.

                      I honestly didn't think the road-rage thing played well with anyone who wasn't a partisan Republican.

                      I honestly don't think it looked anything like road rage.

                      What
                    • He shouted down the freaking moderator! It was rude in the extreme and something one would expect on talk radio or Fox News not a Presidential debate. Certainly not from the President himself.

                      Imagine Kerry had done the same thing or behaved the same way President Bush did during the first half of Friday's debate. The Bush/Cheney campaign, GOP, and Bush supporters would all be crowing about Kerry coming "unhinged", how he was "too angry" and "too shrill", and the "Dean like meltdown". Am I wrong?
                    • He shouted down the freaking moderator!

                      He didn't shout.

                      It was rude in the extreme

                      No it wasn't.

                      and something one would expect on talk radio or Fox News not a Presidential debate. Certainly not from the President himself.

                      Since I see nothing remotely wrong with what happened, I see no reason why it doesn't belong in a debate from the President.

                      Imagine Kerry had done the same thing or behaved the same way President Bush did during the first half of Friday's debate. The Bush/Cheney campaign, GOP, and
    • Yeah, the final question was sad. I missed all but the last two or three questions, but for Bush not to be able to think of any mistakes he's made -- other than hiring Paul O'Neill and retaining Richard Clarke -- in short, other than not completely surrounding himself with brainwashed sycophants -- was just pathetic.

      The stuff I'm reading online says that Bush got weirdly aggressive early in the debate, cutting people off and reacting almost angrily to questions. I forgot to set TiVo so I missed that; eh,

      • HA! Shows you how much I remember when my sleep schedule gets screwed up. My brain conflated the $87 billion back-and-forth -- also stupid, but at least Bush didn't throw in a lame last word -- with this, which is what I was thinking of:

        Kerry: ...with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial interv

        • I have to agree with you on those two responses, the run and hide remark and the three specific examples of mistkes remark. Bush was leading the debate until he answered those two questions very poorly. That doesn't mean Kerry answered his questions perfectly either, he had a few pitiful responses.

          OK, back to work now. People say Slashdot has bugs, but I can't think of anything that I would program differently. Stay the course. My opponent Pudge coded 87 lines of perl, and then coded against it.

          But
        • "You can run but you can't hide"? That's a rebuttal on an abortion question?
          He did the same thing on the health care law suits questions; dragged in something completly unrelated when he called Kerry liberal.. I wrote about that in my journal yesterday.
          I think these things are pre-planned statements that are targeted on the "core-group. The strategy is to just throw them out randomly.
      • The stuff I'm reading online says that Bush got weirdly aggressive early in the debate, cutting people off and reacting almost angrily to questions.

        And that's the part I don't get. Yeah, he came out swinging, but so what? I think the people who are complaining are the people who dislike Bush. Most people I talked to complained about Kerry being snide and insulting, but for some reason that wasn't mentioned in the liberal spin I saw. Go figure.

        I wish he'd just say "the report proves sanctions were wo
        • Except that is provably false

          Provably false if your entire argument depends on the Chewbaca Defense.

          Last night, he said things like, "Bush is trying to make you think I can't be President by saying I am bad at whatever." Yeah, and you're doing the same thing to him; do you think we don't know that?

          What he should have brought up rather than that (women's issues are so very done anyway) was Bush's answer to a question at one of the GOP primary debates back in 2000. The question was, who was their favor
          • Except if you're really a borne (sic) again Christian, Christ wasn't a philosopher, he was the frikkin Son of God.

            Sorry, no. Jesus was often called "rabbi," and rabbis were the philosophers of that culture.

      • I wish he'd just say "the report proves sanctions were working

        I thought he did say that [debates.org].

        BUSH: [...] Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.

        GIBSON: Senator?

        KERRY: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objecti

    • Let me throw this one out there about "Darling Nikki's" question, we don't have to care what France, Germany, or the UN in general thinks of us. This isn't some popularity contest, it's about doing things that promote the US's best interests. Now that there is evidence of France and Germany profiting under the "Re-arm Saddam" program, is there any wonder why they were so opposed to US cutting off their supply of cheap oil.
      • Well, just to be fair, we don't HAVE to care what other nations think...but the real question here, as it boils down, is this: does the majority of the country think we SHOULD care?

        Ironically, I'm a hardcore libertarian/off-and-on-liberal and I think the idea of a global test is bullshit...but one of my stone-cold right-wing friends thinks that it's absolutely critical we work with the rest of the world, to the point of occasionally letting them have veto power.

        Weird election this time around. No matter
        • Ironically, I'm a hardcore libertarian/off-and-on-liberal and I think the idea of a global test is bullshit...but one of my stone-cold right-wing friends thinks that it's absolutely critical we work with the rest of the world, to the point of occasionally letting them have veto power.

          I can see us letting the world have some sort of veto power if it means we benefit from the arrangement in the long run -- such as the WTO, for example -- but NEVER on the issue of national security.
          • I think it depends on your POV...the aforementioned right-winger thinks international bases are 100% critial to our national security, and thus we should strive for consensus wherever possible, the better to maintain basing and combat-overflight rights in as large a world area as possible.

            Me, personally, I think we need to minimize international commitments and instead work towards an ocean-mobile force centered around the forthcoming CVX carriers and new helo assualt carriers, the better to be able to rea
      • Again, the content wasn't as important as his demeanor which had a whole lot of "Fuck you" and "Fuck them" in it. Pudge didn't see why people think he was ANGRY... this is an example of it. More and more reports are saying that while Bush probably did better in this debate, that he needs ANGER MANAGEMENT.
        • I think (and I'm guessing Bush thinks) there are enough votes from people ready to say "fuck france, fuck germany, and fuck the UN", why beat around the Bush about it. Reagan's posturing in the face of the Soviets made them think he was crazy enough to push the button, the real JFK stood up to the Soviets in harsh terms, it is a policy that has worked, by politicians on both sides of the isle for the last 60 years. Let's say we do get free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, you realy believe that the rule
        • Yes, why do people think he was angry? He was animated, he was engaged, but angry? I didn't see it. I think people are making it up.
          • If people are making it up... a heck of a lot of people, including me, saw him as angry and, frankly, it hurt him. Of course, we'll see how it ends up helping or hurting him. You didn't think the Charlie Gibson thing was anger???? Hmmm...
            • If people are making it up... a heck of a lot of people, including me, saw him as angry and, frankly, it hurt him.

              I can't see how. Again, the only people I've heard say this are people who already dislike him. I don't see how that constitutes hurting him.
              • I have heard it plenty on the news, even on very pro-bush pro-party stations like Fox News.
                • I have heard it plenty on the news, even on very pro-bush pro-party stations like Fox News.

                  Yes, but I've only heard Bush-haters *assert* it. I've heard people mention that people are talking about it. And note that there are many Bush-haters on Fox News (like Juan Williams and Alan Colmes) so simply saying it is on Fox News doesn't mean much.
      • I think it was a good topic but poorly phrased.

        People are using "other countries" in two different senses. There's other countries' governments, and then their people. Nikki's question talked about them all at the same time.

        The French gov't has its own agenda for Iraq, but that's not why the French people dislike Bush.

        In the rest of the world, Bush isn't exactly seen as steadfast. More like sociopathic. A lot of efforts, like Kyoto and the ICC, he just rejects out of hand, or proposes that the rules appl
        • If Bush really wanted to pull the trigger on the ICC question he could have asked Kerry if he would have turned over his "band of brothers" who he testified in congress as having comitted atrocities in Vietnam (and maybe Cambodia, he isn't sure).

          FWIW, Bush does have to walk a fine line on ICC, which the swiftee's didn't. Kerry never admitted to congress he commited war crimes, he was just relaying hearsay. That raises another question, were atrocities like Mai Lai, par for the course as Kerry and his a
        • A lot of efforts, like Kyoto and the ICC, he just rejects out of hand, or proposes that the rules apply to everyone except America. He doesn't even propose alternatives, just nukes the treaties he doesn't like. At least that's the perception

          It's an incorrect perception.

          First, "out of hand" is wrong. His opposition to both of those are based on very longstanding and widely held principles.

          Second, applying to everyone except America. One of the big problems with Kyoto was that it was NOT applying to eve
          • We'll clean up our air etc., you clean up yours.

            There's a reason it's not called "USA warming" or "Canada warming".

            exemptions [...] but I've not heard Bush say that.

            I don't know if Bush himself said it, but the administration has acted that way. See Amnesty International [amnesty.org] for more.

            As to the ICC, we've always done a fair job of prosecuting our soldiers, as best I can tell.

            Countries like France, England, and Canada are strong backers of the ICC, and not because we think our courts are deficient. It's
            • There's a reason it's not called "USA warming" or "Canada warming".

              That misses the point. The US air *is* significantly cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. As long as we're doing fine on our own, why do we need to enter a treaty with other nations, when that treaty doesn't help us at all?

              As to the fear of politically motivated cases in the ICC, Amnesty says: Amnesty International believes that the US concerns that the ICC will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions against US nationals
              • why do we need to enter a treaty with other nations

                To avoid the tragedy of the commons involved in global warming. No country wants to be at a relative economic disadvantage by switching to green technologies.

                China and other asian nations are industrializing rapidly. Having Kyoto in place won't change anything tomorrow, but it's a first step. Better sooner than later.

                Re: the ICC, the flaws you mention still sound like virtues to me. And sure, few enemies escape the direct wrath of the USA. But what abou
                • To avoid the tragedy of the commons involved in global warming. No country wants to be at a relative economic disadvantage by switching to green technologies.

                  So you're saying the US should join Kyoto not so the US will be cleaner, but so other nations will be cleaner? Again, the US is doing fine in fixing its own environmental problems. And our lack of joining does not appear to have deterred others from joining, so I don't see the problem.

                  Re: the ICC, the flaws you mention still sound like virtues to
                  • Greenhouse gases emitted in one country eventually warm up the whole planet. So Florida has an interest in Shanghai's factories. Isn't this the most basic fact about global warming? Or do you not accept the science?

                    Why would the US join a treaty only to benefit others, to its own detriment?

                    Some people have come to believe the USA is indeed affected by what third world dictators do.

                    Anyway, re: the ICC, I don't expect it to be the first line of defense against despotism, but I thought it was a step forwa
                    • Greenhouse gases emitted in one country eventually warm up the whole planet. So Florida has an interest in Shanghai's factories.

                      China already ratified Kyoto, though.

                      Some people have come to believe the USA is indeed affected by what third world dictators do.

                      Then that would bee a benefit to the US. I am saying I don't see how the ICC does benefit us, because I don't see how the ICC is an improvement on what we had before.

                      And yeah, maybe someday I will be proven wrong. But the UN has really soured me
  • Tonight was the most interesting debate thus far, and I'm just going to enjoy it rather than care who won.

  • Two comments on each. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bombcar ( 16057 ) <racbmobNO@SPAMbombcar.com> on Saturday October 09, 2004 @11:46AM (#10479362) Homepage Journal
    Kerry looked (or sounded) real bad when he couldn't say paraplegic, and when he was squirming under the abortion question.

    Bush came off as much more at ease, both with joking, "Need some wood?" and answering the questions. I felt that Bush really believed in what he said, and I think he really did enjoy it.

    And Kerry wants to provide Constitutional Rights for those who can't afford them, so I want to know, "Where is my Free Gun?"

  • Kerry said something to the effect of, "I don't think we should have conservative judges, or liberal judges, just judges who know the law."

    Later, he made a comment to that one later who had a question regarding the federal government paying for abortions, and he basically said that not only does the Constition provide a right to have an abortion, but that the government should be required to pay for it. That was beyond bizarre for me.

    And I'm sorry, but in his effort to make it sound like he "respected

    • Yes! We thought the same thing. My wife said several times, "don't patronize me" to Kerry on the TV.

      And I had commented last night about the court thing too. Who says there is a Constitutional right to abortion? As best I can tell, Roe v Wade doesn't even say that. It says there is a Constitutional right to privacy that includes abortion, which is something I disagree with entirely, and only IMO "liberal" judges would agree with. Meanwhile, Bush talked about strict constructionism, which is something

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.

Close