The Final Debate

[Danoz]

Great questions throughout the debate. Overall, Bush dominated-- this is the best I've ever seen him think on his feet. Really, he stopped the Kerry momentum in the previous debate, and I think we'll see a surge in the polls for Bush. Whatever you feel about either candidate, I think Bush just sealed the election. We saw a lot of the same from Kerry. Remember, while the polls appear even-- if you look at individual states the president is leading in the electoral college. I feel really, really good about tonight's final spar.

<P ID="signature">http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[IceWolf20]

> Great questions throughout the debate. Overall, Bush
> dominated-- this is the best I've ever seen him think on his
> feet.

Well, when you're wearing a wire, it helps....<img src=smilies/retard.gif>

Ah...I'm too fucking tired to make an intelligent post.....its 1am and im still at work....nothing like an 18 hour day. I'll make an intelligent one later today....I promise

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Overall, Bush dominated

<hr></blockquote>
Didn't look like domination to me, but then again, I don't think "one side or the other." <img src=smilies/cwm11.gif>

Where he currently stands in the polls and how he fared in the debate are two separate things.

Something really stuck out at me though... watching NBC after the debate... this is about Osama
Bush: "I don't think I ever said I wasn't concerned about him. It's a bit of an exaggeration."
NBC showing a news clip from March of 2002
Bush: "I don't know where he is...*sigh* I'm not that concerned about him right now."

<img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

Someone tell me how that can be defended...

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[Gavin_86]

oh come now, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a domination of any sort. Bush was certainly more focused and did a comparatively superb job in the context of the debates as a whole. Though from what i saw, what he made up for in focus he gave up in charisma in this last exchange.

The pre-debate training Bush had undertaken was certainly noticable. If Bush had prepared for the previous debates like he did for this third and final debate, the momentum Kerry gained in the 1st and maintained in the second would probably have been fully quelled.

And as Lenophis posted, Bush's comment (which i think he frankly just didn't remember) was entirely within context and dead on, and more it speaks volume's and is greatly representative for the presidents "War on Terror" (to throw in some partisan views)

My analysis is that Bush and his party suceeded in their goals. Realistically the President had only to avoid any major maladies and new entries into the Bush dictionary, which he did and then some. Success for his party. Bush didn't seem to land as many "left liberal" labels on Kerry as i was expecting, which is a shortfall i'm sure his party would have rather pushed a bit more.

On the other side of the isle, Kerry did more or less what he and his party had yet to greatly accomplish in the previous debates: he showed compasion and that he was actually human underneath the intricately woven layers of senate spoke.

Kerry needed to at least keep the momentum from the 1st and 2nd debate, which i'm not entirely certain he did as i haven't really checked any recent polls. However the stigma attatched to "sweeping the debates" may add a small upswell to Kerry's campaign and possibly change some undecided minds. But then again that entirely depends on what a voter is looking for in a candidate, and how much being a better debater weighs into being a better candidate.

Neither candidates fired too many real hot shots in my opinion.. or at least in the end the fluffly questions about family made me forget any of them.

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

the only dominating i saw last night was the yankees over the sox

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

the only dominating i saw last night was the yankees over the sox

<hr></blockquote>
Game 2? No way, Cardinals laying waste to Astros in game 1 was the true dominator.


<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Overall, Bush dominated

Does it ever even occur to you that you might be biased? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.htmlCNN Polls</a> gave a Kerry a clear edge and, although there's a significant amount of error in them, to say that "Bush dominated" is just absurd. Honestly, what's the point of even posting stuff like this? I could have written it in advance for you.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[prisonpants]

> this is the best I've ever seen him think on his feet.

Ooh! Like that part where he completely dismissed the issue of minimum wage to discuss education after Kerry spent 2 minutes laying out a detailed plan on how an increased minimum wage would cause increased American consumption giving the economy a needed boost?

No doubt that was some quick thinking on his part.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[SwampGas]

> Ooh! Like that part where he completely dismissed the issue
> of minimum wage to discuss education after Kerry spent 2
> minutes laying out a detailed plan on how an increased
> minimum wage would cause increased American consumption
> giving the economy a needed boost?

Or the fact that increasing minimum wage would cause people to lose their jobs because an already stressed economy can't afford to pay out of employers' empty pockets?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

[Lillymon]

> Does it ever even occur to you that you might be biased?
> CNN Polls gave a Kerry a clear edge and, although there's a
> significant amount of error in them, to say that "Bush
> dominated" is just absurd. Honestly, what's the point of
> even posting stuff like this? I could have written it in
> advance for you.

"As expected, both campaigns declared their candidate the clear victor."

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

It's an opinion. Bush clearly lost the first debate, closely tied in the second and showed a lot more than Kerry in the final spar. Kerry showed us a lot of the same, almost recorded responses from the previous debates. In terms of who this debate will benefit towards November, I support the opinion that Bush clearly dominated in this respect.

I made it clear that Bush lost the first debate and didn't win the second. So how then is this a programmed response? Simple, it isn't one. Kerry had some intelligent answers, but overall-- the president showed the weakness in his "plans" whereas Kerry only tried to discredit the president with very familiar rhetoric.

<P ID="signature">http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> So how then is this a programmed response?
> Simple, it isn't one. Kerry had some intelligent answers,
> but overall-- the president showed the weakness in his
> "plans" whereas Kerry only tried to discredit the president
> with very familiar rhetoric.

To my ears, it sounded like Bush spent a lot more time trying to sway the voters with meaningless rhetoric than with actual substance. If I were seeing this debate with no prior knowledge of the candidates, I have little doubt that I would favor Kerry. But I admit that I'm biased. I have no idea who's going to win and I would hardly say that this debate clinched anything.

You're free to your opinion, but I think it runs contrary to most of the professional analysis I've seen (other than that coming from the Bush campaign). I don't think you have a very clear picture of the extent to which your bias clouds your judgement.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Gavin_86]

you know, if Bush loses this year...

<center>http://gavin.panicus.org/pictures/BushQuayle.jpg</center>

there's always next presidency <img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif><img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center></P>

[IceWolf20]

> You're free to your opinion, but I think it runs contrary to
> most of the professional analysis I've seen (other than that
> coming from the Bush campaign).

...and of course FoxNews. Interestingly enough, MSNBC, NBC, and CNN gave Kerry the "win", ABCNews gave a statistical "tie", and Fox News gave Bush the "win".....can't say I'm surprised really.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[IceWolf20]

> "As expected, both campaigns declared their candidate the
> clear victor."

Hahaha...yup yup....Both Kerry and Bush are 3-0...I'd love to see the playoffs for that one...


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Danoz]

I've heard analysis that tends to either strongly favor Bush or strongly favor Kerry. We can say that both sides definitely solidified their bases, to the real question is how that fraction of "undecided" voters will responded. Traditionally, when it gets closer to election time, the undecideds tend to break for the challenger. If I'm right about the debate, then Bush will maintain-- hopefully winning both the electoral college and the popular vote. As it stands right now, there's a good chance President Bush could lose the popular vote but win the election... again-- and this wouldn't be a good thing.
By the way, pay close attention to Colorado. They've got something on the ballot that could reform how electoral votes are split so that they reflect a more "popular" system. If it passes it would be instated for this election-- something to keep your eye on. (Had it been introduced and passed last election, Gore would have won).
What in particular stood out to you as "meaningless rhetoric"? Obviously they both spinned statistics to their advantage, but I thought the president broke down Kerry's supposed "plans" (saying that a list of complaints is not a plan), and articulated well his own vision.

I think Kerry's "religious abortion" viewpoint is horrendous. If he honestly did believe that abortion was ethically wrong, he would disagree with it. Instead, he's playing both sides, like he always does. Personally, I would have rater Bush just said straight out that he would appoint We legislate by ethical and moral codes all the time. Murder, rape, these are all decisions that we make based on that.
Well, I'll have to review transcripts of the speech anyway. I'll have a few papers to write on the debate, so we'll see if the transcripts bring some new light to how I feel about it. I'll do my best to keep an open mind, but as of now-- I think the debates went 1-1-1 (kerry-tie-bush). Lastly, if you're a real nerd like I am, go to MSNBC.com (not for news, not ever for news) and click on the election scorecard in the politics section. It's an interactive electoral college that allows you to see the current setting in america, and you can even pick and chose hypothetical situations by choosing who rides which states... this thing is awesome!

If this post didn't seem very focused, I only got some 3 1/2 hours of sleep studying for an exam and finishing a speech. I'm about ready for some Sameul Adams, cherry pie and the Apprentice.

<P ID="signature">http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

This probably proves the debate was closer to a tie than most would like to admit when it comes to swaying public opinion. I still think Bush won this debate.

Remember, as of now, if it's not a win for Kerry it's a win for Bush. Kerry has a lot of work to do in the electoral college, and it's questionable whether or not he has nearly enough time to do it.

<P ID="signature">http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

They're 1 - 1 - 1!!!

<P ID="signature">http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> ...there's a good chance President Bush
> could lose the popular vote but win the election... again--
> and this wouldn't be a good thing.

Agreed on everything to this point.


> By the way, pay close attention to Colorado. They've got
> something on the ballot that could reform how electoral
> votes are split so that they reflect a more "popular"
> system. If it passes it would be instated for this
> election-- something to keep your eye on.

Yeah, it would be interesting if this became the trend. I wouldn't expect to see this kind of thing approved, however, in highly lopsided states (like Texas and California).


> What in particular stood out to you as "meaningless
> rhetoric"? Obviously they both spinned statistics to their
> advantage, but I thought the president broke down Kerry's
> supposed "plans" (saying that a list of complaints is not a
> plan), and articulated well his own vision.

Most of what I heard from Bush was vague posturing, while Kerry was very specific in his points. Take the responses to the first question, for example. Kerry gives a practical grocery list of things he thinks need to be changed, including luggage X-rays, firefighting resources, container inspections, and the COPS program. Bush, on the other hand, made a reference to a 19-year-old Afghani woman voting in an election, the deposing of Saddam's "terrorist" regime, and an interview Kerry gave in which he compared terrorism to gambling and prostitution. Ironically, he also spent two paragraphs talking about how he had a more "comprehensive" plan. From that information, it's not clear to me what Bush intends to do.


> I think Kerry's "religious abortion" viewpoint is
> horrendous. If he honestly did believe that abortion was
> ethically wrong, he would disagree with it. Instead, he's
> playing both sides, like he always does.

Both candidates do that. Bush lied when he told the commentator that he wasn't sure about whether or not he thought homosexuality was a choice.



> If this post didn't seem very focused, I only got some 3 1/2
> hours of sleep studying for an exam and finishing a speech.

I know the feeling. Good luck on your exam.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[puduhead]

I for one would like to see all presidential candidates on the ballot debate. now that's democracy.

until then i'll have to..

http://www.modcam.com/creation/index.php?op=2&path=&file=complacency-pill.jpg

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://p.xanga.com/image_hosting2/profile.jpg></P>

[Danoz]

There should at least be one debate will ALL the presidential candidates, but America needs to see Bush and Kerry one on one. 3rd party candidates are unfairly ignored, and their debates should get real press, not just CSpan. FOX, CNN, MSNBC-- they should all be covering 3rd party debates. The fact that Badnarik got arrested is news, and all the major stations completely ignored it. Also, all 3rd party candidates should be on the ballot, as well as a "none of the above" option for voters who demand new candidates.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[IceWolf20]

> Remember, as of now, if it's not a win for Kerry it's a win
> for Bush. Kerry has a lot of work to do in the electoral
> college, and it's questionable whether or not he has nearly
> enough time to do it.

I think its rather unfortunate, but I really think we're going to have a repeat of 2000....Kerry will win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral College.

Which is why the Electoral College is utter bullshit at this point....its usfulness has been outlived. Straight popular vote....period. That certainly would change how people campaign....and would probably allow for more parties to have a larger cut of the vote.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Which is why the Electoral College is utter bullshit at this point....its usfulness has been outlived. Straight popular vote....period. That certainly would change how people campaign....and would probably allow for more parties to have a larger cut of the vote.

<hr></blockquote>

Candidates would completely ignore everything but major cities in large states. I think the electoral college still serves a purpose.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Octocrook]

> Great questions throughout the debate. Overall, Bush
> dominated-- this is the best I've ever seen him think on his
> feet.

I don't think so. It seemed like Bush tried too hard to deflect every point of Kerry's with a "wise guy" kind of comment with that same fucking smirk on his face each time, like he was trying to be cool by debunking each and every point Kerry made in 1 or 2 sentences, which is of course natural for Bush, because he thinks every issue is black and white. Most of them fell fairly flat in my opinion, mainly because these issues are just not that simple, or else we wouldn't be having numorous long ass debates over them.

Kerry wasn't so hot either I might add. He was repeating the same job loss, defecit creation, health care, etc. stats that he's already stated a million times and it's getting old. He'll mention 2 or 3 of them in a completely unrelated question and I have no idea how it seems to flow well in his mind, and I would expect more from a great debater like him. I don't quite understand why he's mentioning the defecit creation anyways, because we all know damn well that the day of the balanced budget on paper AND in action is long out the window. The only way Clinton was able to do it so easily was that little thing called the internet. Even if there is not a "tax gap" as Bush calls it in the figures that each party is coming up with in Kerry's tax rollback for rich people, there's a miriad of things that will cause Kerry to spend more money than he wants to.

Frankly, they both stink...why the hell are we deciding between these two anyways? I have a feeling whatever democracy we set up in Iraq and the democracy in Afghanistan will be carbon copies of this mess of a system.

<P ID="signature"><center>[/url]
| [url="http://www.domainsfeatured.com>DF</a>"]Music (http://www.crooky.us><img) |</center></P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Candidates would completely ignore everything but major cities in large states. I think the electoral college still serves a purpose.

<hr></blockquote>
True, so how about this little idea:

For a given election, 30 additional electoral votes will be distributed based on the popular vote. Say x candidate received 5,000,000 of 9,000,000 votes for the popular vote. That candidate would receive 55.5% of the 30 electoral votes, which is 16.5. Fractions is a little sketchy, cause I don't know if they should be rounded up or down.

The system needs a revamp, and that's the best I can come up with. Thoughts?

<P ID="signature"><a href=http://disch.zophar.net><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png border=0>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</a></P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I think Kerry's "religious abortion" viewpoint is horrendous. If he honestly did believe that abortion was ethically wrong, he would disagree with it. Instead, he's playing both sides, like he always does.

<hr></blockquote>
Question: Is America the land of choice, yes or no?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Personally, I would have rater Bush just said straight out that he would appoint

<hr></blockquote>
You must have been <img src=smilies/sleep.gif>, half of the sentence is missing. <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

We legislate by ethical and moral codes all the time. Murder, rape, these are all decisions that we make based on that.

<hr></blockquote>
What is your point of reference for basing ethical and moral codes? Wait, you don't need to answer, I get the feeling it follows your avatar... [/obvious]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I'm about ready for some Sameul Adams

<hr></blockquote>
But of course....

There is one thing Kerry did get wrong in the debate though. He said that tuition has gone up under Bush's watch. *BZZT!* WRONG! Kinda... Tuition costs have gone up even under Clinton's watch, and most likely even preceeding that, not exclusive to Bush. I'm surprised nobody pointed that out.

Bottom line, Cardinals over Yankees in 5 games in the world series. <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

<P ID="signature"><a href=http://disch.zophar.net><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png border=0>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</a></P>

[Gavin_86]

> I think Kerry's "religious abortion" viewpoint is
> horrendous. If he honestly did believe that abortion was
> ethically wrong, he would disagree with it

i'm sorry, you mean like Stem Cell research? The exact same argument can be said about Bush and his response on the topic. Why not do away with all stem cell research completely if he thinks it's wrong to destroy life?

> We legislate by ethical and moral codes all the time. Murder, rape,
> hese are all decisions that we make based on that.

You don't need religion to have morals and a sense of high-minded ethics

<P ID="signature"><center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> > I think Kerry's "religious abortion" viewpoint
> > is horrendous.
>
> Question: Is America the land of choice, yes or no?

Not that I'm pro-life or anything, but this is an absurd way to argue the point. Would you use the phrase "land of choice" to support rape and murder?


> What is your point of reference for basing ethical and moral
> codes? Wait, you don't need to answer, I get the feeling it
> follows your avatar... [/obvious]

A good point. I'm kind of curious to what extent majority conservative viewpoints would be retained in the absence of religion. In other words, is it the cause or effect?

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Not that I'm pro-life or anything, but this is an absurd way to argue the point. Would you use the phrase "land of choice" to support rape and murder?

<hr></blockquote>
Almost a valid question. But to answer that anyway, no. Rape or murder are thoughtless acts, or acts of rage. After much thought, I can't think of anymore to add.

<P ID="signature"><a href=http://disch.zophar.net><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png border=0>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</a></P>

[UncleOral]

> Overall, Bush dominated-- this is the best I've ever seen him think on his
> feet.

I disagree, my friend and I were watching the debate and my friend actually laughed when he heard Bush repeat himself over and over again about Kerry's votes instead of addressing the issues.

Too bad Kerry was repeating himself throughout the debate as well...but at least he was repeating things that matter (though I'd like a bit more explanation as to where he'd get the money, the 600 or 800 billion from the upper tier tax raise didn't sound like enough for all the things he is promising).

Why Bush places so much importance on Kerry's previous votes puzzles me, when you have a simple choice of yes and no like in the senate, things can easily be spinned around. Bush intentionally ignores that there is often a reason Kerry votes against it that can support the exact same cause in another more effective way. Or as another example, if people needed housing and food, but they needed food more, I would vote no on spending a trillion on housing, and then later it would be spinned into saying I am a heartless bastard who didn't want people to have houses.

In any case, I don't know anywhere near everything I would need to know to make an educated vote if I lived in the states, but from this debate alone I would have definitely voted for Kerry, hands down.

<P ID="signature"><center><img src=http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Trucido/MegaVin.png>
Coming to cinemas near you! </center></P>