Who won the debate tonight, and why?

[Mitchell]

This is a bit different thread from the one that giggleygirl25 posted. My question here is: Who do you think won the debate tonight, and why do you have that opinion? Thanks.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

I thought that tonight's debate was a draw, to be honest. Both men made strong and convincing points, and clearly, their supporters, based on what they heard tonight, as others have said on here, probably have no reason to change their vote based on anything said tonight. Conversely, it doesnt seem to me that anything said tonight would serve to sway or influence any undecided voters. That will likely come later in the second or third presidential debate.
This being said, I feel I must criticize Cheney for one serious thing he said. Throughout this campaign, Cheney has consistently said "We must make the right choice for president, or we run a greatest risk of getting hit again by a terrorist" To me, this is a serious scare tactic, rhetoric based on nothing factual, and served to terrify the American voter into voting for Bush based on one issue alone. This is my rebuttal.

During the term of Bill Clinton, we had a Democratic president, and a strong economy, with 22 million jobs created during his term. (Facts taken from history books by the way, venray) America was safe, and we were not attacked. During the presidency of Bush, we experienced a severe terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2001, costing over 3000 lives, and then engaged in a misguided war costing another 1000 plus lives, after Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD's, none were found, and the 9-11 Commission found no connection between Iraq and Al Queda, Bin Laden and Saddam, or that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Can anyone honestly tell me how having Edwards and Kerry in office will serve to not make us safe? What does Cheney think, that Edwards and Kerry are going to purposely set us up to be attacked again? This is the kind of misleading rhetoric that is very serious and must be examined when considering elections.
Conversely, I felt Edwards made convincing arguments about the Bush administration misleading us into war. Bush keeps saying that we are "making progress" as insurgents are killing our soldiers, and hundreds of lives have been lost since Mr Bush declared "mission accomplished". How in fact is this "making progress" when we have withstood 90% of the financial fallout and causualties in Iraq due to how Bush has conducted this war, and destroyed our credibility with so many allies, that many countries do not want to aid us in rebuiilding Iraq due to his actions?
The issue of Bush and Cheney attacking with "flip flop" I feel is getting old. They have to use this, because they have no other record to run on. The fact is, that Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, but also said that it needed to be done "the right way" by building a coalition. Bush never did this, and instead went about it alone, and all one has to do is to examine the results, 200 billion spent in a misguided war, with over 1000 dead, and no end in sight. This is "success"?
In conclusion, I dont think tonight's debate changed anything, but serious issues were raised for everyone to consider, and to take into the next debates going forward.

Mitch

[venray]

Get your facts straight Mitch..90 % of the "coalition" casualties...50 % of the overall casualties..it is 120 billion spent to date not 200 billion...the analysts that do the fact checking pointed out both of these details right after the debate.

You need to have the facts straight before you bandy them about in every post.

For a war that has gone on as long as this has, 1000 dead is not a high # at all, not that I think any dead is a good thing, but try to keep things in a realistic perspective.

Clinton's record is of no importance....he isnt in office, but the recession began before the end of his term.

We got hit harder economically after 9/11 when the airline and tourism industries took a nosedive (no pun intended) and 100's of 1000's of related jobs were lost as well due directly to the destruction of the towers. Manufacturing went down, transportation went down...as well as travel , food services and just about anything involved with people venturing out. We were even afraid to frequent the malls and shop after this happened.

Since the point where job losses peaked, we have been on an upward trend and have made economic progress. No president would have done a better job under these circumstances. It is easy to say otherwise having no knowledge of what it is really like.

ANY president in office would have had the same things occur as a result of this type of attack. To say otherwise is not very realistic.

Why would we be less safe if Kerry/Edwards were in office?

Because he would have hesitated to act even in Afghanistan as Clinton did (if you like to bring him up) but this is evident by his 30 year anti war pro sanction attitude as reflected in his voting record.

I do not believe what he says, I believe what he has done in the Senate and in the State of Mass. over his career. Try looking into it instead of using the same rhetoric that he and Edwards use in every speech they make. Edwards turned away and had no answer for Cheney whenever his or Kerry's voting record was brought up...

I believe he would say anything to get elected and I believe we will pay avery high price if he does.

Several countries have already said that they will not send troops or help in any way even if he is elected and this great coalition he will try to form will never happen.

If he intends to send in more troops to speed up the action in Iraq, then again...the casualties go up and safety of our nation does not improve.

I fail to see your logic, but then again I am no political major....just someone who believes what he sees and judges on actions and not on political fodder.


Ray

[Mitchell]

Anyone who votes for Bush is likely to have a viewpoint based in favor of him. I had always heard 200 billion spent in Iraq, and 88% of the casualties, but if Iam wrong, then I concede the point.
I do know this. The recession did not begin at the end of Clinton's term. There was definitely an economic slowdown, I will admit that, but I do distinctly recall Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan saying that we entered a recession in March, 2001, and it lasted 9 months, which is after Bush took office. While Bush is not responsible for 9-11, in fact the recession began during his term.
I also dont just chalk off 1000 dead by saying it could have been worse. 1000 dead due to a war like this where no WMD's found, and the real mastermind of 9-11, Bin Laden, still at large, while focusing in on a man who the 9-11 commission concluded had no connection to Al Queda or 9-11, an independent panel, Ray, with respected Republicans on it. Bush kept saying before we went to war, and I quote:" He has weapons of mass destruction, and if he doesnt disarm ,we will disarm him" Had they in fact gone in there, and found WMD's, and a connection to 9-11 and Saddam, while I would not have been happy about 1000 soldiers dead, I could have been more supportive to Bush's position. For the record, I absolutely agree that we should have gone into Afghanistan. The people responsible for 9-11 were there, Bin Laden was there, and we had to try and get them. Had they stayed focused on Bin Laden, while the US losses would have been tragic, it at least would not have been in vain. Somehow, Bush got sidetracked because his focus was on Saddam for many reasons. He wanted to avenge his father not properly dealing with Saddam in 1991, and Haliburton had big money to make in Iraq. In summary, I dont have so much issue in that we went to war, it is HOW we went to war, where, and what the casualities were.
Apparently, we will never agree on this issue, but, for the record, Iam not spewing errorneous facts just for the heck of trying to justify my position. I can only give you one fact that cant be overlooked, 1000 dead in a misguided war. That is a fact quoted on TV, that is seen every day, and that I dont take lightly at all. I cant just say "It could have been worse", because if Bush had done it the right way, it also could have been better. He has alienated us from much of the world. He has done this to such a degree in fact, that it has been admitted by even the Democrats that countries like France may not even come on board if Kerry wins. I have very strong positions that are backed up by a very serious number, 1000, that is a number I dont take lightly, nor should anyone, when looking at the true makeup of how this war was conducted.

Mitch

[venray]

The term misguided comes from opinions, Mitch , which I have no problem with...but I do not agree that the war being"misguided" is a fact....

I did not write off the 1000 dead...I merely stated that we should keep things in perspective...compare it to Vietnam for example and crunch the numbers dead in a totally meaningless fiasco carried on by several administrations..

No, I do not think that THIS war is misguided. I think it was necessary to oust Saddam, even if it was only as an example to terrorists what we are prepared to do and how far we will go. If we cant show them this, then we might as well hide in holes until they come and get us.......

Kerry (in my opinion) doesnt have the convictions to do so. His record shows that. That is why he will never get my vote.....


http://home.flash.net/~stevew9/opinion/opinion015.htm


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

And With Bush attacking Iraq, he's created more terrorists, so i fail to see your logic, Ray.

[venray]

He didnt create them Cos...he just gave them reason to come out of hiding. They were always there....waiting....and now we know who more of them are and can fight them more effectively.

That is where my logic comes from....;)

[Cosmo_ac]

actually, 11,000 and 14,000 dead helped create them Ray. in fact, i have a link if i can find it. However, Bush did infact increase the level of terrorists out there with a combination of abuse of detainies and the killing of civilians.

[venray]

You have your opinion on the word "create" cos, and I have mine....fortunately for me mine will have more meaning in November...

I shall leave you all to the discussion as I have already wasted more time than I meant to. My opinion is mine and I know it means nothing to those who like Kerry...this does not bother me in the least as there are so few who read or post here that it really makes no difference...

Sorry for taking up space guys..........

;)

[theshire]

And With Bush attacking Iraq, he's created more terrorists, so i fail to see your logic, Ray.

Wrong. What has created more terrorists (or as Ray said, revealed more terrorists) is the lily-livered liberals who protest and give the terrorists the impression that they are in the right. They love that. They feed on it.

Take the case of Ken Bigley, for example. I'm not sure how many people outside the UK have heard about this, but Bigley is a British hostage being held in Iraq. He has been tearfully pleading to a camcorder the past three weeks for Tony Blair to make a deal with the terrorists and spare his life.

Now, the liberals would suggest that Blair make contact with the hostage-takers (something he's already tried to do) and get Bigley set free.

But conservatives realise that once you make a deal with terrorists, you will never stop. They will bleed you dry in more ways than one.

It is the same situation with Iraq. Bush went in to show Saddam which side will prevail in the fight against terror. We ousted him and took Baghdad, so that's the ball pretty much in our court.

And that's my last post in the P & R forum for a while. I'm sick of all this now. I'm all ranted out. :D

P.S. I'm sorry to make so many black-and-white liberal/conservative assumptions, but..........wait, no I'm not!!!!!

[drew70]

So Bush is now manufacturing terrorists, is he? God, this just keeps getting funnier. By all means, Cosmo. Post your link and "enlighten" us. :blaugh:

[kis123]

Originally posted by venray1
He didnt create them Cos...he just gave them reason to come out of hiding. They were always there....waiting....and now we know who more of them are and can fight them more effectively.

That is where my logic comes from....;)

I was understanding your viewpoint (not agreeing, but understanding) until this statement.

Unfortunately, I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that we have any intelligent reason to be in Iraq, not now, not ever! How would you feel if you were living in Iraq right now? Do you actually believe we are there because of terrorism? I do not! BTW, whatever happened to capturing Osama? I have yet to see any real proof Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11, but at least capturing him makes a little more sense than tearing up Iraq and then spending over 100 billion to rebuild it. Did we drop Osama in favor to fight with an already weakened Iraq (sanctions)? We already know there's no WMD, the reason for going over there in the first place.

Vote for Bush, vote for Kerry. Vote for whoever you want, but please don't make Bush's so-called success in Iraq the reason you vote. It's not hard to bomb a bunch of poor and devastated group of MiddleEasterners. That's just called plain 'ol fashioned bullying in my book!

Let's see what happens in North Korea where they have the potential to do some real damage? Let's see if Bush sends our troops over there someday? I think NOT!

[Cosmo_ac]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409300002

Here's a link i found, though it's not the one i originally had planned on posting. I'll keep looking for that one. Anyway, enjoy all, and thanks for New2 for posting this originally.

[venray]

Originally posted by kis123
How would you feel if you were living in Iraq right now? Do you actually believe we are there because of terrorism?

I would feel better than if I were living there under Saddam.


I do believe the real reason we are there is to set an example for others who would promote and sanction terroristic activities and to establish a democratic foothold in the area.

I am not voting for Bush because of his "success" in Iraq. It has been far from successful up to this point. I will not however vote for John Kerry after reviewing his voting record over the years (and living in Massachusettes for 16 of those years).

He is not one who will make a strong leader. He will not protect American interests or provide for our safety any more than Ted Kennedy would. (their voting records on the issues ar far too closely knit for my comfort zone)

He has spoken (though with few details) on his plan for the economy, but he has NOT told us how he plans to fund all of these "new and innovative" proposals. There is very litle doubt in my mind that I and those I love will be far worse off if he were to become president.

That is one reason I am voting for Bush this time around. I am affiliated with neither party. I am one of those independent "swing voters" that you hear about. I have never BEEN affiliated with either party and have voted my conscience every election. I support the candidate who most exemplifies my beliefs though I disagree with both sides on many issues.

I look at the big picture before voting and I would hate to see where we are in 2 or 3 years with Kerry in office and government getting larger along with a sizeable increase in the amount of money they take from us each year to fund the new institutions, Been there/done that several times in my 50years of existence on this planet...

I hope that clarifies my position a little..


Ray

[kis123]

All are entitled to their own opinion and the right to vote their way. I tend to be the swing voter myself, and although Kerry isn't a strong choice for president, I'm voting for him basically because I cannot vote for Bush and sleep at night too. His presidency has been wrong from the point where his brother hijacked the state of FL for his benefit. Bush also does not deal with issues that are important to me and my family. He's been the only president of recored that has repeatedly turned down invitations by the NAACP (I think Reagan was another one, but not sure)to speak on issues that are important to me an others of color. I personally don't think the man cares about me or mine unless they're in Iraq dying for his oil interests.

Yeah, Saddam was a really bad man, no one disputes that. How did the man come into power in the first place? Where was the US when he was committing his atrocities against his own people? There are other countries where atrocities are being committed as we speak. Why aren't our troops there? Could it be because there isn't oil in those countries? The Iraqi people went from Saddam to Bush-just how much better off are they really? I'm not satisfied with selling a nation down the river in the name of a few tax breaks that will have my children and grandchildren paying the debt for decades to come.

[venray]

You bring up some good points Kis and some of the issues I disagree with the coservatives on are directly related to what you say.

The fact that we helped put Saddam there and did nothing when he was doing the dirty deeds (other than sanctions) is no reason to say we shouldnt take him out now to make up for past mistakes.Leaving him in power would be avoiding the issue and compounding those mistakes.

The war aside, I think Kerry will do more harm than good to all people at home and that is why I couldn't sleep at night if I helped to vote him in....I look at the programs he voted for and against and it frightens me....

We shall have to agree to disagree knowing that it doesnt mean we cant be friends....;)

That's the way this country is supposed to work.


Ray

[kis123]

Please understand that I never said that Saddam should stay in power. The man was a psychopath and needed to die in the hole they found him in. I'm not happy with how things have happened in this war at all. I'm even unhappier that Bush and his followers and supporters sell this war as a positive in his campaign.

I agree Kerry acts like he's bipolar when it comes to his issues. That's because he thinks he should be all things to all people. That comes from inexperience. Bush wasn't the epitome of experience when he first came into office either. I still think he has a helluva way to go-I'd just prefer that he stops practicing now as opposed to another four years of his administration.

This is no more to me than two adults discussing different points of view intelligently without bashing and name-calling. I appreciate a mature viewpoint!

[venray]

:D :cool:

[MrMacphisto]

Here's a quandary: Why is it that when Edwards appeals more to emotion and Cheney appeals more to "facts" (and I mean that loosely), that Cheney is the winner? I don't know if you've noticed, but among the Presidential debates, Bush is the emotional one, while Kerry is the factual one. Of course, I suspect many of you would give Bush the win on those debates, despite the dyslexia and dumbfounded smirks. I suppose debates are less an effort in actual intellectual discourse and more an exercise in encouraging viewers to find new, creative yet hypocritical ways to support their candidates. This assumption makes perfect sense when you consider that only a small fraction of the people that watch these debates know any of the facts in the first place....

[kis123]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Here's a quandary: Why is it that when Edwards appeals more to emotion and Cheney appeals more to "facts" (and I mean that loosely), that Cheney is the winner? I don't know if you've noticed, but among the Presidential debates, Bush is the emotional one, while Kerry is the factual one. Of course, I suspect many of you would give Bush the win on those debates, despite the dyslexia and dumbfounded smirks. I suppose debates are less an effort in actual intellectual discourse and more an exercise in encouraging viewers to find new, creative yet hypocritical ways to support their candidates. This assumption makes perfect sense when you consider that only a small fraction of the people that watch these debates know any of the facts in the first place....

:yowzer: :yowzer: :wow: :wow:

How about telling us what you really think? And btw, don't hold anything back!!:D ;)

[MrMacphisto]

Thanks for the interest, kis... lol... I think Edwards won for the same reason that Bush won back in 2000. Gore appealed more to facts, and apparently, facts aren't what the American people wanted... at least, back then anyway.... Edwards had some facts of his own, but Cheney seems to be better at the facts (or convenient half-truths) game. Of course, this means nothing when your opponent is handsome, has an impressive smile, and has several years of law as experience in phrasing things cleverly. Edwards did seem to repeat a lot of things, but that same technique worked for Bush against Gore. The difference here is that Edwards actually had something to say. He may have spoken somewhat in generalities, but he was specific enough to get the point across. Basically, he was calling out Cheney and Bush as liars, and he even managed to paint Cheney into a corner by simultaneously implying that Cheney had personal sympathies for homosexuals (due to his lesbian daughter) and complimenting him and his family for said sympathies. I honestly was expecting Edwards to say something like, "It's too bad your running mate doesn't share your compassion for them." That would have been mean, but man, it would've bitchslapped Cheney back to Wyoming.

[drew70]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409300002

Here's a link i found, though it's not the one i originally had planned on posting. I'll keep looking for that one. Anyway, enjoy all, and thanks for New2 for posting this originally. All I see here is that Alquaeda is using the war in Iraq to persuade new recruits. This means Alqueada is creating new terrorists. Not Bush. Not to mention this website has a decidely left wing slant.

[New2u]

The polls, once again, are showing John Kerry to be the winner of last night's debate.

First Poll of "who won?" taken right after debate (ABCNEWS):

Kerry 42%
Bush 41%
TIE: 14%

That makes the first ABCNEWS poll interesting is that the majority of the poll voters were Republican.

Yahoo poll (Not scientific) taken right after debate:

Kerry 66%
Bush 32%
TIE 4%

Other polls seem to be in agreement that Kerry won the third and final debate. This makes three wins for Kerry and semi-losses for Bush. Now, will this translate into a win for Kerry come November 2nd? Stay tuned gang.

CBS News poll of uncommitted voters who watched Wednesday's debate named Kerry the winner by 39-25 percent over Mr. Bush, with 36 percent calling it a tie.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup post-debate poll also gave Kerry the edge by a margin of 52-39 percent. A third poll conducted by ABC News, showed the debate to be a draw, with 42 percent choosing Kerry and 41 percent picking the president.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=163784

[New2u]

Glad to be of help, Cosmo and Drew. Yes, the website does have a "left-wing" slant but the site is run by Journalist "David Brock" who is a former conservative who wrote an article for the "Conservative Review" exposing the "White Water" land controversey on Clinton, thus opening up the "floodgates". Brock regrets doing the article because of what the Republican conservatives eventually did with it which helped bring the Monica situation into play and almost lead to Clinton's impeachment. I have always felt that Clinton was an "idiot" for doing what he did with Monica. It wouldn't have bothered me if he did get "impeached", he would have deserved it.

[Cosmo_ac]

Drew, if you bothered to check the links on that page, you would have seen they come from a variety of sources, including the Rights holy Fox news. Bush has helped terrorism more then any terrorist could ever hope for. He's given the muslim world plenty of justifiable reasons to hate the US.

[New2u]

Bush has made the terrorist situation many times worse. We are more apt to get "hit" than in anytime in the past. Bush can say all he wants about "never giving up". Well, George, guess what, they (the insurgents) intend to do the samething. This war will continue on for maybe the next few decades.

Hang in there America, we've only two more weeks.