Presidental Debate #3

[Jimmy Leeds]

He's got a "plan" to tell us how to pay for his 'plans'.

Of course, that's a myth too.

[Don]

CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup debate reaction poll (not an online poll)

Who won the debate?

Kerry: 47%

Bush: 45%

How many people perceive the following candidate more favorably as a result of the debate?

Kerry: 38%

Bush: 20%

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

BTW - honesty points go to Bush for admiting he can't speak English.

[COdevsfan]

I've been reading the political forum but not wanting to comment. But since the debate was on domestic issues and I am studying education policy at the moment I think it was hilarious how Bush kept touting No Child Left Behind. It's a disaster! His practical application of accountability will harm public schools and punish kids. It is in fact not helping the acheivement gap and instead it is burdening the low performing public schools, taking away school options from low income families. Bush and Paige applaud states that have set their proficiency targets low to ensure that they get a high percentage of kids passing and therefore do not have to fall under the laws sanctions. The model is based on Texas which is now under investigations and scrutiny because they possibly lied about scores in order to make schools performance look better. Basically the law isn't based on any sound education policy . . . it was the lawmakers making policy and not taking education experts advice!

[NJD Jester]

Substance = Bush 3-0

Emotion = Kerry 3-0

That's why i guess most people say Kerry won cause their intellect doesn't stretch past then hollow slogans and a politician playing on their emotion. Kerry is a pro-debater, so he knows how to say something and he'll know how to defend any position, that's why he APPEARS to have won. That fact is, I still have no idea how he's going to do 99% of the stuff he said he's going to to...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, your opinion on who won on style or substance is completely at odds with a vast majority of analysts who have scored the three debates. There's no question that Bush connects better on certain issues than Kerry, but when it comes to substance, Kerry had it all over Bush in every single debate. Kerry was spelling out policy or being critical of the administration's; Bush was left muttering on about evil doers who hate us for our freedom, Mass. liberals and how hard his job is.

How can a debater who knows how to defend any position he states "appear" to have won the debate? That's what debate is. The difference is that Kerry didn't have to warp the truth or flat out lie to defend his position, like when the President pretended he never said Bin Laden was't his concern any longer. That was the biggest goof in any of the four debates, and to me, the kind of gaff they should replay along with the Lloyd Benson slam dunk on Quayle.

I read something on Andrew Sullivan's site that was interesting. Everyone slammed Gore for coming to each 2000 debate with a different guise. Remember how he sighed through the first debate, and then was a robot in Debate 2 and then an attack dog in the third one? Bush was the sighing Texan in the first debate, the passionate (re: impatient and rude)Texan in the second and then he dropped the accent and played the goofy frat boy in the third.

<JESTER>

[SueNJ97]

A couple of points about questions people have raised:

1. About the minimum wage: If Bush says he is in favor of raising it, that's a change in position. In every position paper I have seen from his campaign he is against both raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits. So he either (1) changed his mind or (2) "misspoke".

2. About the difference in Kerry's position on abortion vs. his position on gay marriage. Yes, I think he's definitely a confused puppy here. I wished for better from him. However, his position IS better than Bush's. Once again, I have read several position papers from both candidates and here are their positions on Gay Rights:

Bush fully supports the Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage but is somewhat OPPOSED to Equal Rights for Civil Unions. In other words, they can't get married, and he's not particularly thrilled about them having ANY rights as partners.

Kerry says that he somewhat favors the Constitional Amendment, which really disappoints me, but strongly SUPPORTS Equal Rights for Civil Unions. That's why I say I find his position to be better on Gay Rights than Bush's.

BTW, as laws currently stand, Kerry's stand on abortion and Gay Marriage do make a perverse kind of sense - if you are just talking about someone who says his purpose is not to impose his beliefs on others. A woman can get an abortion in NJ and it causes no "carry-over issues" if she moves to another state later. The same cannot be said if a gay couple gets married in MA and moves to OH, I guess.

Edited October 14, 2004 by SueNJ97

[David Puddy]

I bet Kerry knows a marriage amendment will never get through, and is just using that position to get middle-ground voters. Frankly, I expect that issue to disappear quietly after the campaign. It's one of those things that extremists on both sides are really passionate about, so it makes good campaign material, but it's something that politicians don't really want to deal with.

Bush's position on the assault weapons ban is in direct contradiction of his war policy. In war, we can take pre-emptive action... that's fine. But on our own turf, we'll wait until the criminals commit gun-related crimes, then put them in jail.

I was also frustrated by Bush's constant harping on education. Not only because of the failures of the NCLB act, but because he really didn't address the cost of education. He tried to throw smoke over the Pell Grant issue, but my parents have worked for colleges and seen the awful effects of that cut firsthand. If you can't pay for an education because you don't have a job, what are you supposed to do?

He also used education to argue to end affirmative action, which clearly shows he doesn't understand what the point of that program is. The point is to take educated minorities and offer them the same chances as white males. It's not to pluck some kid from the streets and give him a job he's not qualified for.

Yes, education is the ideal in the long run, but you can't just cast off today's adult generation because their education wasn't good enough.

I really don't understand how anyone could say Bush won in substance when he basically didn't know how to talk about anything except education this debate. Unemployed workers: get an education! Minorities: get an education! Workers making minimum wage: get an education! That's some substance right there. Why don't we just elect Mr. T? "Don't be a fool! Stay in school!"

[TK]

He also used education to argue to end affirmative action, which clearly shows he doesn't understand what the point of that program is. The point is to take educated minorities and offer them the same chances as white males. It's not to pluck some kid from the streets and give him a job he's not qualified for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a place called "Perfect", Affirmative action would work, but we don't live in "Perfect"

[TK]

First of all, your opinion on who won on style or substance is completely at odds with a vast majority of analysts who have scored the three debates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the eyes of those "analysts" Bush can't win. He can either lose or tie.

There's no question that Bush connects better on certain issues than Kerry, but when it comes to substance, Kerry had it all over Bush in every single debate.

"I have no idea what I'll find in Iraq... BUT I HAVE A PLAN" that's not substance and that's what kerry says to virtually every issue

How can a debater who knows how to defend any position he states "appear" to have won the debate? That's what debate is.

A pro-debater can defend and argue any position even if they don't follow it. That's what a debater is and that's what kerry is. He'll say anything just to get the votes.

[David Puddy]

In a place called "Perfect", Affirmative action would work, but we don't live in "Perfect"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That just doesn't make any sense. In a place called "Perfect", affirimative action wouldn't be needed because people would be judged solely by the content of their character. In a place called "Perfect", all you'd need to do to get ahead would be to continue to educate yourself.

[TK]

In a place called "Perfect", Affirmative action would work, but we don't live in "Perfect"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That just doesn't make any sense. In a place called "Perfect", affirimative action wouldn't be needed because people would be judged solely by the content of their character. In a place called "Perfect", all you'd need to do to get ahead would be to continue to educate yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.... you are thinking way too deeply into that

[David Puddy]

Okay.... you are thinking way too deeply into that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good comeback, but according to you, my intellect doesn't stretch that far.

[TK]

Okay.... you are thinking way too deeply into that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but according to you, my intellect doesn't stretch that far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if u say so

[Devils731]

So Kerry had the "substance" but he did the biggest duck on how he was going to pay for his massive healthcare program.

Mod: Sen. Kerry, how will you pay for your program that will cost approx. 1.2 trillion dollars?

Sen. Kerry: Well let me tell you what my healthcare plan is all about...more about it...more about it...oops, I ran out of time to tell you how I'll pay for it. But I'm the fiscally responsible one.

-Scott

[Swede]

So Kerry had the "substance" but he did the biggest duck on how he was going to pay for his massive healthcare program.

Mod:  Sen. Kerry, how will you pay for your program that will cost approx. 1.2 trillion dollars?

Sen. Kerry:  Well let me tell you what my healthcare plan is all about...more about it...more about it...oops, I ran out of time to tell you how I'll pay for it.  But I'm the fiscally responsible one.

-Scott

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bigger than the "name three mistakes you have made and how you corrected them" duck mr W pulled last week?

[Devils731]

Come on Swede, thats like at a job interview and they ask you what your worst failing is. The answer is always some BS line like "Oh I work myself sick I work so hard" or "I really need to learn to stop putting work above my personal life". Its a loaded question and of course it wasn't given a straight answer.

If you want to say he ducked it thats fine by me but I'd feel a lot more at ease if Kerry could have told me where he was going to get all this money from. Probably from my pocket is the answer.

-Scott

[Swede]

Come on Swede, thats like at a job interview and they ask you what your worst failing is.  The answer is always some BS line like "Oh I work myself sick I work so hard" or "I really need to learn to stop putting work above my personal life".  Its a loaded question and of course it wasn't given a straight answer.

If you want to say he ducked it thats fine by me but I'd feel a lot more at ease if Kerry could have told me where he was going to get all this money from.  Probably from my pocket is the answer. 

-Scott

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, i know but he (GWB) dodged it kinda funny though.

The problem with the "tell me where you are going to come up with the money in 30 seconds" is that it presumes all the money comes from one or few places. Its not an easy question to answer (one would hope that he has the answer printed somewhere though)

[NJDevs4978]

Has anyone looked at the candidates' websites yet - georgewbush or johnkerry dot com? Maybe they'd explain each candidate's proposals better than a ninety-second soundbite ever could.

[Devils731]

Its not an easy answer, true. But other than the rich tax rollback I haven't seen any major piece of savings. I was on his website and it was talking about making cuts that would save 5-10 billion a shot. Thats a huge number of little cuts to add up to another .5-1.4 trillion.

Here was another answer I was unhappy about, for Social Security. I understand there may be some growing pains with the Bush plan but Kerry basically said he had no plan at all. Kerry said we'll fix it when and if it gets broken again, well guess what its broken. I feel like I'll have to wait out a Kerry presidency until I can even start to think I'll get any money from this program when I retire. I'm real happy flushing my money down the toilet so the baby boomers can get some cash. I'm real happy that Kerry thinks having all that money growing at 1% is a great way to save. Drives me nuts.

-Scott

[SueNJ97]

Its not an easy answer, true.  But other than the rich tax rollback I haven't seen any major piece of savings.  I was on his website and it was talking about making cuts that would save 5-10 billion a shot.  Thats a huge number of little cuts to add up to another .5-1.4 trillion.

Here was another answer I was unhappy about, for Social Security.  I understand there may be some growing pains with the Bush plan but Kerry basically said he had no plan at all.  Kerry said we'll fix it when and if it gets broken again, well guess what its broken.  I feel like I'll have to wait out a Kerry presidency until I can even start to think I'll get any money from this program when I retire.  I'm real happy flushing my money down the toilet so the baby boomers can get some cash.  I'm real happy that Kerry thinks having all that money growing at 1% is a great way to save.  Drives me nuts.

-Scott

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scott, what part of Bush's plan for Social Security are you talking about? Because there may be more to it than partial privitization. Take a look at this from the Wall Street Journal. BTW, I'm not saying I disagree with the re-indexing plan as laid forth in this article. I have no problem with them adjusting the indexed rate of growth of the benefits as long as they have a rational index that they are using.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1...HcKmFm4,00.html

CAPITAL

By DAVID WESSEL

Bush's Secret Plan to Fix Social Security

October 14, 2004; Page A2

President Bush has a secret plan for Social Security.

Well, it isn't exactly secret, and not exactly a plan. He just doesn't describe it clearly, nor hint at how he would turn details his staff has been burnishing into a proposal that can get through Congress.

But Mr. Bush sometimes sends clear signals of intent that get obscured by his unclear syntax and implausible descriptions of the state of the world. On Social Security, he and his advisers have said enough to allow an educated guess about what he would propose if re-elected.

The problem is simple: Payroll taxes at current levels aren't sufficient to pay promised Social Security benefits in the not-so-distant future when the big baby-boom generation of Americans retires. The fix requires increasing revenue going into Social Security or decreasing benefits going out.

Neither Mr. Bush nor challenger Sen. John Kerry puts it that way. Both specialize in "thou shalt not" statements. Mr. Bush vows he will never increase payroll taxes. Mr. Kerry vows he will never raise the retirement age.

In last week's debate, Mr. Kerry vowed not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000, which seems to rule out higher payroll taxes. Last night, he also ruled out changing benefits. That doesn't leave many options. But then fixing Social Security isn't high on the Kerry to-do list. It appears to be very high on Mr. Bush's.

So what would he do?

"President Bush opposes changes in benefits for those now in or near retirement," his campaign Web site says. Carefully instructed by his staff, Mr. Bush never rules out reducing benefits for younger workers because that's the centerpiece of his plan for repairing Social Security's finances.

A retiree's Social Security initial benefits depend on how much he or she earned over a lifetime of work. But $1 earned in 1969 isn't worth $1 in 2004. So Social Security uses a formula to adjust those old wages. It relies not on the familiar adjustment for price inflation but a more generous measure tied to the increase in economywide wages. Over time, wages increase faster than prices.

Mr. Bush's experts have discovered that if initial benefits were calculated by adjusting a workers' lifetime wages only for rising prices, not for rising economywide wages, Social Security's finances would be fixed. Look for something like that in any Bush plan. Mr. Bush's campaign accurately says: "Today's young workers...can expect to receive benefits with a value at least as high as those paid to today's seniors, even after adjusting for inflation." It fails to add that their benefits would be a lot lower than preretirement paychecks than is the case with today's retirees. Today's 25-year-old average wage earner would retire with benefits about 28% lower than under current rules.

Mr. Bush's antagonists will shriek that he is cutting benefits. His backers will counter that those benefit promises are empty because Social Security can't pay them. My point is neither to praise nor to condemn the Bush plan, but to describe what he probably will offer.

What about those private accounts? "(Y)ounger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because ... they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust," Mr. Bush said last night.

The accounts will be there, but they haven't anything to do with fixing Social Security finances. They're the dessert to get people to swallow the spinach. The plan probably would allow workers to divert 2% of wages, perhaps as much as 4%, into private accounts. That would mean less money from the 12.4% payroll tax (split between workers and employers) going into the Social Security pot. In exchange, workers who opt for private accounts would agree to even smaller benefits in the future than those provided by the formula change. Over the long haul, the Bush team says, it's a wash for Social Security: Tax revenue diverted to private accounts is supposed to equal the benefits forgone by private account holders. Workers, they argue, should end up with more in retirement by taking the risks of investing in stocks and bonds.

There is one megaproblem. Divert $100 billion a year into private accounts today, and the government has $100 billion less to pay current retirees. Mr. Bush doesn't say where he would find that money. His advisers argue that even if the government borrows it all, the bond market will understand. The bond market, they say, won't push up interest rates, because it will understand the improvement to the government's long-run financial health.

Making that case to markets, politicians and the public will take talents like those of Mr. Bush's campaign spinmeisters. Maybe that's what they'll be doing after the election.

[Devils731]

I know that the system is already so out of whack I won't be getting the same benefits that people now get from SS. Doing nothing to change the system makes it much more like I get squat in the future, I'd rather have 1 dollar in the future than be promised 2 and get none.

-Scott

[NJDevs4978]

Whenever he was confronted with something he didn't know he reverted back to education.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I swear when Bush brought up education in a question on illegal immigrants it was all I could do to avoid bursting a gut laughing

Other than 25% of Bush's debate being on education though, it was pretty much even this time around. Less Bush arrogance and neither candidate really went after the other the way they did in the first two. Then again, maybe the same attacks seem less biting the fifth time or so around

[Alias]

Surprised nobody brought this up. The moderator (forget who he was) asked Kerry this question with some minor revisions:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

Kerry responded by attacking the Bush's response to the very same question. The question was posed to Bush back in May 0f '02 (I think).

Here was Bush's response back then:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

When it was Bush's turn for rebuttal, Bush dismissed Kerry's attack on him (JK: I'll tell you what I *wouldn't* say, and that's 'I don't care about OBL.'), Bush called it an "Extreme Exaggeration."

I would classify that as 2 lies Bush has been caught on. Why haven't the left on this board brought this up? What is the right's response?

Edited October 15, 2004 by Alias

[Don]

Kerry said "Bush said he wasn't worried about OBL".

I remembered something like that, but your text has the correct wording:

"I'm more worried about this and that.... and that and this...."

So it is possible for Bush to be worried about OBL so long as he is VERY worried about these other things.

But you are right.. in that interview he was very dismissive of OBL as if he doesn't care one way or the other if they catch him or not. George got the man HE wanted to catch. I think it's interviews like that that force the White House to keep George from speaking to the media.

[Pepperkorn]

All candidates should be stopped from speaking to the media.

Alias ( ) - actually puddy posted the whole thing below (flipflop post) -- it's a video link with Kerry saying Bush said Bush said the stupid exageration line and the clip of Bush saying he didn't care.

I understand both parties flipflopping. Bush's comes from annoyance - he just wants to be left alone after a while -- and Kerry's comes from sometimes years separating statements, sometimes circumstances changing - whatever. Basically Bush is sarcastic arrogant and dismissive and Kerry is a dottering idealist who sees to many sides of a situation to form a concrete opinion. Both generalizations both equally as true.

Edited October 15, 2004 by Pepperkorn