The 2nd Debate: Bush vs Kerry

[Devils731]

Well the polls seem to agree Kerry won by 80%. lol. Sorry if I don't find those credible. I mean the DNC went out an email telling everyone to go vote in these polls as soon as they were up giving out web address' and such.

Edit: Definitely an unbiased website as I read their front page "Kerry wins! (See analyses below), Bush did better than his pitiful performance in the first debate. Hardly a challenge."

-Scott

Edited October 9, 2004 by Devils731

[Don]

[A] If you want to give another site with links to the polls, you are quite welcome to.

The gallup poll (phone - not online) cited has Kerry winning as well. By the gallup poll, 38% of those interviewed came away from the debate with a more favorable feeling towards Kerry as opposed to 31% for Bush.

[LetsGoDevils]

Excellent debate. Bush getting the edge with his closing statement. Anyone else look at the audience while either of them spoke? I did, while listening, just to see who I thought was Pro-Bush and Pro-Kerry. Some you saw nod while each spoke, others were like reading a wall.

[David Puddy]

Well the polls seem to agree Kerry won by 80%. lol.  Sorry if I don't find those credible.  I mean the DNC went out an email telling everyone to go vote in these polls as soon as they were up giving out web address' and such.

Edit:  Definitely an unbiased website as I read their front page "Kerry wins! (See analyses below), Bush did better than his pitiful performance in the first debate. Hardly a challenge." 

-Scott

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Polls are a tool, not a meter. Plenty of people don't want to think for themselves.

Edited October 9, 2004 by David Puddy

[Don]

I think that Kerry screwed up at the end. Bush offered to make his closing statement first. I think it's always good to be the last person to speak. It's the last thing people here and it's what they take home with them.

LGD:

Yes, I agree. The people in the audience were supposed to be non-partisan; people who had not made up their minds yet. But you could tell by the looks on some peoples faces who they were planning on voting for.

[David Puddy]

Ooh, and this is a good quote, too...

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons"

[Don]

I don't know why Kerry doesn't counter-attack the 87B quote Bush keeps citing.

Okay, Kerry mis-spoke. But there are whole BOOKS of Bushisms. Hell, that one about his administration "never stop thinking about ways to harm our country or our people" would do nicely.

Or "I don't like decision makers making decisions for the American people".

Or "It's clearly a budget. It has a lot of numbers in it."

Or "Is our children learning?"

Or even the "internets" last night. Or the Kennedy reference. ANYTHING. Kerry mis-spoke and Bush is hanging him on it when Bush mis-speaks quite often. Approximatly equal to the number of times he opens his mouth.

[Don]

From Factcheck.org (since I was curious, and probably many others here as well):

[Devils731]

I'm just guessing but I'm assuming the Repub party has done polls and found the 87 B dollar quote really hits home with voters on why Kerry might be seen as a flip-flopper. So I'll also assume the Dems have found those quotes, while funny, don't really score any points with anyone.

-Scott

[Devils731]

"Kerry charged, "The president has presided over an economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs."

Kerry meant

[Jimmy Leeds]

I don't know why Kerry doesn't counter-attack the 87B quote Bush keeps citing.

Okay, Kerry mis-spoke. .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Misspoke my arse. He also lied on the Good Morning America Show when he told Diane Sawyer it was late at night and he misspoke.

Fact was, it was a 12 Noon rally.

Another lie.

[PeteyNice]

OMG Kerry got the time of something wrong! That has to be a huge story! That's almost as bad as lying about Kerry's health care plan (Bush) or lying about having met Edwards (Cheney).....oh wait.....no it's not.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Well, when it's the biggest "misspoke' that he made, his coverup doesn't cut it.

[PeteyNice]

If that's the "biggest "misspoke' that he made" then he is doing really well!

[Jimmy Leeds]

"Misspoke", not his confirmed flip-flopping like a fish out of water.

I still don't understand why GW hasn't pointed out in the debates that after the '93 Tower bombings, Kerry voted to slash the intelligence funding by $7,000,000,000.

Just like a good liberal would.

Edited October 9, 2004 by Jimmy Leeds

[Swede]

"Kerry charged, "The president has presided over an economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs."

Kerry meant

[Swede]

"Misspoke", not his confirmed flip-flopping like a fish out of water.

I still don't understand why GW hasn't pointed out in the debates that after the '93 Tower bombings, Kerry voted to slash the intelligence funding by $7,000,000,000.

Just  like a good liberal would.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how big is the intelligence budget? what was the bill (or what you call it) he voted for? was this the whole thing or just a small part? Who else voted for this?

that number seems very big, but out of context it doesnt mean much JL.

[SueNJ97]

this is kinda interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the republicans usually stand for a smaller government (public sector)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They used to, Swede, and there is still a part of the party that does, no matter what. It's people like McCain and Giuliani, mostly. But what has happened here is that now that they have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there is no reason for the party as a whole to check spending. They are no different in terms of spending from the Democrats when they had control of Congress and the Presidency, no matter what they say. That's one of the reasons I'm an Independent.

When Clinton was President and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they fought him over spending, because he was a Democrat. So we were able to balance the budget. Combine that with the fact that, at that time, we had an expanding economy, we actually managed to run a SURPLUS which allowed us to start paying down the debt. While I know that many people viewed the fights between the two sides as gridlock, and I hated it too, I'm beginning to believe that in terms of fiscal sanity it's the only way to go. The President and the Congress CANNOT be from the same party. Otherwise spending spirals out of control.

[Jimmy Leeds]

From Factcheck.org (since I was curious, and probably many others here as well):

 

[Don]

Kerry was quoting an article BY factcheck, so wasn't making it up off the top of his head. Factcheck usually check their facts.

And in any case, in his 2003 financial disclosure, he declared his earnings from the timber company AFTER they got into the timber business. So he likely still does have part ownership.

[Jimmy Leeds]

They got it wrong and it's been changed.

They got INTO the timber AFTER he had no part.

[Chris]

"You know, there's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that -- that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free, and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are, you know -- a different color than white can self-govern. And, the Prime Minister -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but -- I think he shares that great sense of optimism and possibility."

- George W. Bush, the great Civil Rights activist

[LetsGoDevils]

Okay, a thought just struck me. Kerry mentioned he would increase our armed forces by 40.000 troops. Now, seeing that we are in a war and everyone is crying about slagging enlistments and extended stop/loss dates on active forces, just how does he expect to get these addtional 40,000 troops?

Um..draft?

Edited October 11, 2004 by LetsGoDevils

[Don]

Yep. He explains it in the debate, but rather than quote from what he said, you would rather come up with your insinuated explaination.

The reasons for the slagging enlistments is because of (1)low pay, (2) because other countries are not involved in Iraq there is a belief that enlisting is an automatic assignment to Iraq (they don't feel safe in the military), and (3) a belief that because the U.S. don't have other countries involved that they would end up in Iraq for mulitple rotations. So, presumably based on that, he would increase their pay and also try to get more international involvement so that the U.S. doesn't make up the vast majority of troops in Iraq. That, he believes, will increase enlistments.

Of course, that is what I'm getting from the debate transcript. Your blind conjecture based on no real fact may of course be more valid than what I got right out of the debate transcript.

[LetsGoDevils]

Yep. He explains it in the debate, but rather than quote from what he said, you would rather come up with your insinuated explaination.

The reasons for the slagging enlistments is because of (1)low pay, (2) because other countries are not involved in Iraq there is a belief that enlisting is an automatic assignment to Iraq (they don't feel safe in the military), and (3) a belief that because the U.S. don't have other countries involved that they would end up in Iraq for mulitple rotations. So, presumably based on that, he would increase their pay and also try to get more international involvement so that the U.S. doesn't make up the vast majority of troops in Iraq. That, he believes, will increase enlistments.

Of course, that is what I'm getting from the debate transcript. Your blind conjecture based on no real fact may of course be more valid than what I got right out of the debate transcript. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Baring you snippy reply to a question, this doesn't cut it.

1) Military pay will always be a far cry from civilian pay. You're not going to get rich in the military. (Been there done that) Offering more money does nothing towards enlistment goals.

2) Fear of being deployed while being in the military? Welcome to the real world, can happen at anytime your in uniform. That's why its called military service.

3) Don't join military because other militaries aren't there to support you and fear rotations? Downsizing in the late 90's is more responsible than that suggestion. I left the reserves in 96 when my Reserve unit was dissolved and seeing no other unit I'd like to be in (gee...supply or transportation) I elected to get out.

Try again, Don.