Presidential "Debate" -- My Reaction

1. Jeff said:

I’m strongly for Kerry, and was before. I’m very happy at this point, but continually, I simply wanted Kerry to say:

“I voted for the war because you lied to me.”

That would have been so perfect imo!

Posted on September 30, 2004 08:12 PM | #

3. Alex said:

I am a Deaniac, and have been a “tepid” Kerry supporter. After this debate, I am a much stronger Kerry supporter. J. F. K. came across very presidential. I feel Pres. Bush is sincere in his beliefs, But sincerely wrong in his actions.

Posted on September 30, 2004 08:27 PM | #

5. Jim said:

The rules agreed to by the candidates - but obviously never agreed to by the networks - prohibited “reaction” shots of one while the other was speaking. I’m glad the networks ignored it; you’re right, Bush tended to look annoyed and petulant when Kerry was speaking, Kerry tended to look - if anything - amused.

Bush’s continued message was twofold: if you criticize what we’re currently doing then you don’t support the troops, and if you suggest changing what we’re currently doing (this includes changing administration) then you show weakness and indecision to The Terrorists.

Kerry’s message was that you can support the troops best by shifting to more effective military and political tactics, and that not changing what we’re doing will continue to isolate the US and embolden the terrorists.

Points to Kerry, in a judge’s split decision.

Posted on September 30, 2004 08:38 PM | #

7. Clay said:

First of all, I’m strongly for Bush, but I didn’t think Bush did very well at all. As a Southerner I have always appreciated Bush’s manner of speaking, but he seemed a bit unprepared today. My Bush-loving mother says he was just thinking. I did think it was interesting that despite the repeated opportunities (what was his name?) the moderater tossed at Kerry to explain what exactly he was going to do about anything, he continued to restate that he was go to do something but never said what. Stephanopoulos asked Kerry a similar question on “This Week,” and Kerry responded, “I’m not going to play [my cards] in public, George. I’m not going to play them before I’m President.” That’s great. I’m not going to vote for you till I know what you’re going to do. I know what Bush is going to do. He doesn’t waiver. Now I know you’re tired of the “flip-flopping” issue, but it’s a big deal. Where Bush admits his mistake and makes a correction, Kerry constantly changes his position and then lies, claiming that he has never changed his mind.

Posted on September 30, 2004 08:47 PM | #

9. Zelnox said:

Although I cannot vote, I did watch the debate. I missed some parts, because I was in heated discussions with my mother about Bush and Saddam.

On this topic, Bush should have the upper hand, but going out, it was mostly tied. So Bush did not get the win he should have gotten.

In order for Kerry to reach out to people more, he has to be more concrete, and speaking of alliances so much does not help him.

Each time Kerry says that Bush does not spend enough to protect at home, and even cuts back, Bush retorts with already increased budgets. Who is right?

Bush did not act like an idiot at all I felt. I was expecting lapses, but none seen.

Kerry repeated something I heard Clinton say in an interview, when he was passing by in Canada. It is about the size of the army in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Which is the greater threat?

I did not remember hearing anything about the missile shield. Such a device would not protect the US from dirty bombs sneaking in through the unchecked containers of a ship. Kerry spoke of trying to reduce nuclear proliferation.

I think the certainty that Kerry spoke of was stubbornness put nicely.

I did not catch the part about Darfur. Will any of them send in troops?

All right, that is all that I remember. Hehe.

Posted on September 30, 2004 08:52 PM | #

11. Keith said:

Clay – re: the flip-flop. I don’t think it is a big an issue as it’s made out to be, but that is my opinion. Don’t worry if Bush was accused of the same thing I’d react the same way.

I understand the argument, and there is a point there, but I wish they’d move on. If that’s all they have, to me anyway, it’s not all that much.

Now, where you go off the mark is where you talk about admitting mistakes, at least as far as this debate goes. Kerry point blank admitted he was wrong in this very debate.

As far as knowing what Bush is going to do, um, yeah, I thought I knew what he was going to do last time too. I was proven wrong a few times. But I get your point and in principle I agree with you, however I think Kerry did a bit to help himself in that area tonight.

The bottom line as far as this debate goes is that Kerry seemed more “together” than Bush. A pretty big deal considering I expected Bush “win” this debate.

Posted on September 30, 2004 09:04 PM | #

13. Keith said:

Justin – re: the media spin. I totally agree with you. That is why I decided to post my thoughts and allow people to comment. No matter what side you’re on you’ve got a place here.

I’m really looking to individual blogs for more debate and reaction and such on these issues. No matter which side of the fence you fall on you are more likely to get an open, honest and un-spun view.

It makes you really think how much the Web (and blogs in this case) are changing the world in everyday ways.

Posted on September 30, 2004 09:16 PM | #

15. Jeff Clark said:

I’m gonna go with the people that say they’re both idiots. But still, anyone’s better than Bush.

I mean seriously, did you notice how many times that doofy-ass Bush blinked?

Posted on September 30, 2004 09:32 PM | #

17. Michael Hupp said:

Full Disclosure: I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Reluctant Kerry supporter before tonight.

It is hilarious to me to listen to the spin coming out of Bush’s corner afterwards. Were they watching the same debate I was?

Kerry looked great and sounded like he had a deep knowledge of the issues they debated. He had some good lines that seemed to rattle Bush. Bush did seem petulant, but mostly he just seemed tired and seriously underprepared. He’s going to have to do better because if the next two go like this one, I think he’s going to be the second single-term Bush.

Here is what I think was the greatest success of the debate as far as Kerry is concerned: Kerry is the challenger and usually an election is a referendum on the incumbent. Bush doesn’t have a great record to run on and they know it. Up until tonight Bush and the Republicans had shaped the debate to be about Kerry. Tonight, the worm turned and the debate was about Bush and his policies. Look for the Republicans to hit the airwaves hard to get this back onto Kerry and his record. Like tomorrow morning.

Posted on September 30, 2004 09:55 PM | #

19. Keith said:

Seth – Much of my family speaks with a slight southern accent, and yeah, that’s a pretty bad thing to say. I too cringe when Bush speaks, but it’s mostly because of content, not delivery.

No, wait, it’s both.

Posted on September 30, 2004 11:00 PM | #

21. Keith said:

I just caught the Daily Show (it’s tape delayed here) and was it just me or did Jon make Giuliani look like a total putz? I mean, come on, man, are we that stupid? We’re not deaf and blind…geez.

I’ve always kind of liked and respected him, but to see him tow the party line like that, when Bush so obviously didn’t do very well is a bit of a joke.

For those of you who might not have been able to see the debate with your own eyes, do yourself a favor and avoid all the spin and check it yourself.

Posted on September 30, 2004 11:35 PM | #

23. rob said:

to call politicians “idiots” is a common self-defense tactic used by people who are self conscious about their own ignorance of political reality. politicians (as opposed to what, captains of industry?) are not all dishonest, and very, very few of them are stupid. most of the superficial attacks leveled at our reps are pure, self-serving nonsense. if one hasn’t made the effort to get to know the candidate, or research (and understand) his or her record, one ought to defer to one more knowlegable. if you have a legitimate problem, go down to your representative’s constituency office, make an appointment to talk to somebody, and find out what politics really looks like.

bush and kerry both, at times, seemed evasive in the debate (i only heard it on the radio). but exactly how would you explain foreign policy or tax law, or anything else, in two minutes? i understand that a debate needs to be strictly moderated to prevent it from degenerating into a brawl, but the advent of television has turned the process into an impossibly stage-managed farce. you can’t blame either candidate for being a victim of marketing reality. a good debate takes hours, and covers the entire map as far as subject matter.

the stage-managed tv debate format favours bush, i think. his folksy, personable style makes him an appealing stage presence, but if the debate got beyond soundbites and into the dangerous territoty of intellectual abstraction, he’d be at a loss. kerry would have a huge advantage in a free debate for this reason, but his intellectual assets are wasted (and are probably a liability) in a tv debate. i expect bush to “win” this one, but i have to give the nod to kerry.

to take a specific example of a flip-flop: the $87B appropriations bill that everyone says kerry flip-flopped on was actually two bills. one that would have rolled back a tax break for the top bracket (kerry voted for it) and one that would have borrowed the money (kerry voted against it). bush says that kerry reversed course, but the course didn’t change, the implementation changed, and the republicans defeated the (more fiscally responsible) implementation favoured by kerry.

Posted on October 1, 2004 12:54 AM | #

25. cam c. said:

As a Canadian, my opinion isn’t worth 2 cents in terms of the outcome of the election, but I watched the whole thing, and I have to say, I think Kerry did a pretty good job… I think the rest of the world would have a lot more respect for the U.S. if John Kerry were president.
I think it’s funny that Bush was trying to say that the world leaders would be less willing to work with Kerry; first of all, most of the free world outside the U.S. is a lot more socialist and a lot less conservative than America, and I think people take general offense to the Bush “neo-con” style of fundamentalist conservatism.
I’m pretty sure Canada, for one, who didn’t support Bush in the war on Iraq, but is a huge supporter of most U.N. peace keeping operations, would be a lot more interested in helping out rebuild Iraq if someone like Kerry were in charge.
The other funny thing I noticed is that your entire debate was about another country… while I’m glad the candidates are taking the mess in Iraq seriously, don’t Americans care about domestic issues? Kerry tried to go there with his line about police and firefighters, but it seems like Bush is happy to keep away from discussing his lackluster domestic record.
Again, just my $0.02 Canadian (which is worth more than it has been for 11 years… hmm… Canadian dollar at an all time high… maybe I do want you guys to reelect Bush! :) )

Posted on October 1, 2004 01:54 AM | #

27. Ian Gordon said:

cam.c - The 1st debate was about the war and homeland security, subsequent debates will be about different issues.

I watch the debate and I have to say I wasn’t really swayed either way. I personally don’t like either of the candidates and if there was a good third party option I would choose it. I will vote for Kerry though, because I think Bush isn’t doing a good job and is not an effective president. He has alienated the U.S from former allies and is making our country look pompous, something we don’t need, as Kerry said we need strong political alliances with other countries.

Bush came across pretty foolish in the debate, he didn’t seem prepared at all, if he did “memorize” something, he either forgot it or the questions didn’t cover what he prepared. The “indirect” attacks to Kerry’s credibility were pretty low, something I wouldn’t expect…or would I? Anyway, he should have stuck to the issues and focused on how he would clean up the mess he has made of the U.S.

Kerry was very well prepared, I guess those years in the senate did well for him. I like the fact that he can change his mind, I don’t know where this imagine “you have to be consistent and steadfast or no one will respect you” mentality came from, but, to know that Kerry can change his mind and admit he was wrong, that shows good character in my mind. He seems to talk at length a bit much but, that is because of all those years of speaking on the senate floor. Ah well, he is moving in the right direction I suppose. It is too early to tell how he will “plan” out these projects to make America better, but time will tell, eh?

Bush and Kerry need to really sit down to a real debate, this bullcrap TV Debate stuff is non sense, they should really fight it out, I means its an arguement (I’m better than you because your stupid. - I’m not stupid, my father told me what to do!)

Anyway, we’ll see more of the “debates” and see how both candidates level up. I am not really rooting for anyone but, God help us if Bush is elected for a second term.

Posted on October 1, 2004 02:24 AM | #

29. Andrew Hume said:

I did not seen the presidential debate - as far as I know it was not aired in the UK, so my opinion is not based on that evidence.
From a foreigners point of view, and more specifically a British one, I truly believe Bush should not be given a second term. What kind of message would that send out to the world about the way the United States is run?
In my view Bush has made mistakes - big mistakes that will become more obvious over the next few years as the US become more entangled in a bloody war in Iraq - a war which was started on the basis of lies and false policy. That has been prooved.

If the American people then vote to keep that man in power, whether they agree with the war or not, then that does not paint a rosey picture of American politics abroad.

Of course, I know little about Kerry - but surely he should be given a chance over the man that has taken America even further from the hearts of Europeans, Palestinians and Arabs - and infact any nation that believes we should follow international law!

We have the same problem here with Tony Blair, who of course has done pretty much the same thing. The only difference is when he stands up to talk you start to believe him, and root for him for a moment. Cunning bastard. As opposed to Bush, when all you can hope for is a good giggle.

Best of luck for the election.

Posted on October 1, 2004 03:31 AM | #

31. Andrew Green said:

Andrew, the debate was aired here in the UK on BBC News 24, at 2AM. I’d be very surprised if the same isn’t true for the next one.

Posted on October 1, 2004 04:32 AM | #

33. Ray said:

I like “Flip-Flop”. “Flip-Flop” is good. Keeps me in a state of flux and toughens me up at the same time. I never really know what’s going to happen. Always on the edge. Sharpens the senses and dulls the wit. Like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming disaster.

Posted on October 1, 2004 04:49 AM | #

35. Mike said:

To me, Kerry came off as looking like a man who thought about what he was going to say, knew what he was going to say before he said it, and said it plainly and to the point, only stumbling occasionally.

Bush seems like he had trouble making coherent sentences and stumbling over his own words and repeating the same thing over and over and OVER, seeming more like the town drunk than the Commander in Chief.

Also, Bush has never said, before or during the debate, what he would do to fix anything. All he has done is point out what he will do in the next four years, not what he has done since becoming President. Then again, if you look at the track record, I can see why.

Bush also pointed out that not supporting the war in Iraq equates to not supporting the troops in Iraq. I have never supported the war in Iraq, but have always supported the troops in it. Just because I don’t agree with the circumstances that put them over there does not mean I don’t want them to succeed and come home.

“I don’t think we want to get to how [Kerry]’s going to pay for all these promises [of spending money on homeland security]”.

I can think of $100 billion ways he could pay for all these promises. Let’s see, at average National wages, that is 4.16 million police officers, firefighters, airport baggage screeners, border patrolpersons, and/or customs inspectors.

Posted on October 1, 2004 05:52 AM | #

37. Lashlar said:

Bryan Buchs,

If you did punch a Bush supporter without him doing anything that might cause a reasonable person to infer that an assault was imminent, you’d be criminally liable for assault, and liable in a civil suit for battery. Textbook case: mens rea made out, actus reus made out. Open and shut. :-)

As a foreigner, my opinion doesn’t count for much in the elections, but I was unconvinced about John Kerry at the beginning of the debate, and at the end I was just as unconvinced about John Kerry as when I started watching it. John Kerry may have sounded articulate, but his words were almost devoid of content. It was more like a stump-speech than any attempt to lay out exactly what John Kerry, the man, stands for, and what he plans to do beyond vague pronouncements.

To be fair, Bush turned in a dismal performance as well. On the whole, the debate was dull, uninformative, and relatively pointless.

Posted on October 1, 2004 06:29 AM | #

39. Vinnie Garcia said:

I think Kerry slightly won this debate, but I definitely don’t think that it was his best speaking. I saw him speak here in Philadelphia last week and he was able to express far more about what he was going to do as president than what he said last night. This was mostly due to the topic-focused nature of the debate more than any lack of speaking skills on Kerry’s part. I actually expected Bush to come out better on this debate since homeland security and the war seems to be the only thing he talks about, so even a slight edge out by Kerry is a big surprise to me.

Posted on October 1, 2004 06:43 AM | #

41. Scott said:

I too am sick of the phrase “flip-flopping”, but to me it seemed like Kerry was really trying to play both sides of the coin. As others have mentioned, he likes to explain that he’ll do something but won’t say what. He admits that he supported the war in Iraq but tries to use it against Bush. I’m not sure what he would have done after receiving “the 911 commission’s ” report; perhaps he would have said “oops, sorry”, released Hussein and left as if nothing ever happened. The reason Kerry looks like he has answers to issues is because he (and apparently no one else) feels he is responsible for his former actions, so he can change his mind to suit the opinion du jour. The issue with “flip flopping” as far as I can tell isn’t that he changes his mind, it’s that he’s unpredictable, will say one thing and later do another, and so people may have difficulty trusting him as a leader.

Posted on October 1, 2004 07:27 AM | #

43. Agustin said:

Scott, have a read.

Posted on October 1, 2004 07:36 AM | #

45. beerzie boy said:

The quotes around the word debate say it all. This is not a debate – it is a joint press conference/commercial. Me, I’d like to see the same format with Bill O’Reilly quizzing Kerry and Michael Moore quizzing Bush. Then we might get something besides canned crapola.

Posted on October 1, 2004 08:55 AM | #

47. Adam said:

Keith: With Movable Type you can use <$MTCommentAuthorLink show_email=”0”$> to hide e-mail addresses in comments when URLs aren’t provided.

I, fortunately, don’t have cable and after the debate looked like it would be so lackluster, I didn’t pursue a T.V. to watch it on. After reading commentary here and every else, though, I really wish I had – I’ll make sure to grab it off of BitTorrent when I get home tonight.

Posted on October 1, 2004 09:04 AM | #

49. KevinMichael Hamm said:

Clay said:

Now I know you�’re tired of the “flip-flopping�” issue, but it�’s a big deal. Where Bush admits his mistake and makes a correction, Kerry constantly changes his position and then lies, claiming that he has never changed his mind.

Um, Kerry changing his mind is what Bush is calling “flip-flops” and then you go and say that Bush admits his mistakes (which he patently does not) and then changes course (again, not something he does), it just proves that you aren’t paying attention.

Even better, most of the supposed flip-flops that Kerry has been accused of have come because while the initial reason for a piece of legislation was reasonable and right, so many foolish riders and so much pork was added at the end, that Kerry, quite reasonably, voted against the legislation. Remember when the line-item veto was in place for the President for like a week with Clinton? That’s how you stop a reasonable man from looking like a toad hopping between issues - allow for another reasonable man to scratch out the unreasonable riders attached by people who don’t want anything more than what’s best for their own careers.

Like Cheney. And speaking of which, while I enjoyed this debate, I think the Veep Debate will be the more interesting as Cheney will have some tough questions to answer - because he’s got a lot of crappy things he’s done in the past.

Posted on October 1, 2004 10:36 AM | #

51. Tom said:

For the record: Currently a Bush supporter. I agree with what Clay said - he was given the opportunity to state his plans on how he would accomplish things. He responded by saying “I’ll accomplish things” for 120 seconds.

I heard him say “I’ll get the job done” a lot without backing up how he would do it. You can’t expect to win any election without making your plans public.

This thread is pretty long already, so that’s all I’ll say :)

Tom

Posted on October 1, 2004 12:12 PM | #

53. Dave P said:

I watched the debate from up here in Soviet-Canuckistan (I’m Canadian).

As someone watching from the outside, I though Kerry was articulate and resonably logical with his statements. Bush came off, and always has in my view, as a cowboy: the stereotypical American.

What I find unfortunate is that I think a lot of Americans like the John Wayne as president idea. You can see this in Kerry’s defence of the “pre-emptive strike” (read, starting a war) policy.

I really wanted Kerry to ask Bush if he believed that the US could kill every single terrorist out there. Really, where does Bush’s poilcy end? I also wanted Kerry point out that Bush’s “stubborness” was akin to refusing to press the brake before the car goes off a cliff, but I guess he came close enough with his “You can be consistanly wrong” bit.

Another thing that strikes me about the debate is how idiotic and partisan both major parties are in the US. I even saw John McCain defend Bush on national TV. What the hell, does belonging to a political party mean turning off your brain to toe the line? I think this is a serious turn off; if the common person can use a bit of common sence to conclude the obvious, why can’t the pundits come to the same conclusions?

Posted on October 1, 2004 01:16 PM | #

55. John Gillnitz said:

I’m tired of the flip-flopping charge as well. There is a difference between a contradictory opinion and a nuanced one. The anti-intellectualism is annoying.

Posted on October 1, 2004 02:52 PM | #

57. Justin Perkins said:

Oh give me a break! Brainwashed Bushite alert everyone.

Many, many people actually supported this war when the Bush administration force fed us the idea that:

Iraq was linked to 9/11 (this has been proven false)
Iraq had WMDs (also proven false)

Opinions change when truth comes to light, such as life (unless you’re stubborn).

Posted on October 1, 2004 03:54 PM | #

59. Justin Perkins said:

Oh we’re in a deficit? Nobody would have guessed that by what the White House is explaining (or lack thereof) things. Pay no attention to the war, just go shopping. <justalittlesmartasscomment />

Posted on October 1, 2004 04:55 PM | #

61. Justin Perkins said:

Is there something wrong with having a conversation with like-minded individuals?

“who tend to be, for the most part, democrats”

Now that you brought it up, is it true or a sterotype? If it’s true, why is it that way? I mean, for the most part I’m seeing reaffirmation of my own personal beliefs, but there still is the occastional “Kerry is inconsistent” visitor here and there. Why is it like that?

BTW, I consider myself a “bleeding heart liberal” or “pinko commi”, socialist or whatever term the USA propaganda machine is spewing. I ain’t no Democrat =^]

Posted on October 1, 2004 09:35 PM | #

63. Michelle said:

I came acrossed this a while back on the net (can’t remember where) but it shows the severe lack of firm foundation on Kerry’s part (with a sense of humor). A few say it is a big deal, some of you say it isn’t. But I know when my boss keeps changing their mind, I begin to rapidly loose respect. Same as for personal relationships. And each of our allies and potential allies, is in fact a relationship, on one level or another.

I am John Kerry……………

**I was against the first Iraq war, I am against the second Iraq war, but I voted for it. Now I’m against it but I was for it. I support the UN. So, I voted against the first war which the UN supported and supported the second war which the UN didn’t support, wait…

**I’m against gay marriage but for gay unions. I support gays but think the SF mayor is wrong. I support gay marriages. No, wait, gay unions.

**I’m Catholic. Wait, I’m Jewish. My dad was Jewish. But I was raised Catholic. What am I? I don’t want to confuse people.

**I am pro-abortion, but wait, I’m Catholic, and Catholics are pro-life. But I might consider putting pro-life judges in office, but I’m not sure. I do know I voted for confirmation on a pro-life judge one time, and I stated that it was a mistake. That shows that I have no bias whether a judge is pro-life or pro-abortion.

**I went to Vietnam. But I was against Vietnam. I testified against fellow US troops in Vietnam, threw my medals away and led others to do the same. But I am a war hero. Against the war.

**I stated I threw my medals away then I threw my ribbons away. I then revealed that I threw my ribbons away but not my medals, then lately I stated that I threw someone else’s medals away and never threw anything of mine away.

**I believe Ribbons and medals aren’t the same thing. Medals come with ribbons, so now I believe that ribbons and medals are the same thing besides the fact that ribbons are cloth and medals are medal.

**I wrote a book that pictured the US flag upside-down on its cover. But now I fly and campaign in a plane with a large flag right-side up on it. But sometimes, we fly upside-down for fun.

**Yasser Arafat is a hero and a statesman. The Israelis shouldn’t kill Palestinian terrorists, but they should stop terrorism. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist supporter. I support Mideast peace.

**I am for the common man, unlike Bush. I am against the rich. But my family is worth 300 million dollars has a jet and many SUVs. I am the common man.

**I am against sending jobs overseas. My wife is a Heinz heir, which Heinz has most factories offshore. I am against rewarding companies for exporting jobs as long as it is not Ketchup factories by the name of Heinz.

**I own $1 million in Wal-Mart stock because of their profitability and success. I believe Wal-Mart is evil by driving small business owners out of business due to fierce competition.

**I own SUVs when I talk to my followers in Detroit, MI. When I encounter my environmentalist following, Teresa owns SUVs. I own a plane that gets 2/3 mpg. I am a conservationalist when it comes to fuel consumption. Did I mention I have many mansions to heat and cool?

**I am against making military service an issue in presidential elections. I defended the draft dodging Clinton in his run for president and stated that all serve in their own capacity whether they draft dodge or not. Did I mention, I am a war hero and my opponent is not? I am more quailfied.

**I am against the Israeli fence and believe it is a barrier to peace in the region. This fence is a legitimate act of self-defense for Israel as I stated in front of NY primary voters. The fence is good. The fence is bad.

**I endorsed No Child Left Behind, NAFTA, the patriot act, marriage penalty, $87 billion support for troops before I was against them. I was against Ethanol tax breaks, ammendment defining marriage, welfare reform, soft money in campaigns, the Burma sanctions before I was for them. I don’t waffle on issues.

**I love to quote faith and works in the bible. I curse my body guards to their face if they get in my way on the ski slopes.

I am John Kerry

Credited to nospinwheel and waffler_f_kerry

Posted on October 2, 2004 08:54 AM | #

65. Kelly said:

Andrea, this discussion is open to whomever wants to join. There is absoluley nothing wrong with it in that respect. Where else would we be able to explain our view and have people from all over the world weigh in but blogs like this?

Michelle, I’m very sorry but those points are damn near meaningless.

It brings up the stupid “flip-flop” thing again. Hello? People, really, this has got to go away. It’s silly. Kerry’s position in the senate lends itself to this behavior (show me a senator that doesn’t change his/her mind) and Bush, as president, simply isn’t able to “flip-flop” as much. It’s human nature, everyone does it and to be honest it’s a very weak argument in my mind. There is nothing wrong with admitting your wrong or changing your mind.

And anyway, most of those points you make aren’t even valid or true. I mean I could “quote” Bush as saying “We’re after Osama Bin Laden, no we’re after Saddam, no wait, who was it? Oh yeah Bin Laden, no wait, it’s Saddam.”

But that’s just stupid. I know that he knows what he wants to say and that’s why I don’t spend too much time harping on the fact that he appears to be a total idiot when speaking in public.

Give us real quotes next time.

So Kerry is a flip-flopper. I know ten year olds who can speak better than Bush. Big fucking deal. Next topic.

Posted on October 2, 2004 11:55 AM | #

67. Keith said:

Andrei makes are very good point. If Bush didn’t “flip-flop” we’d have a dunk ass, coke snorting frat boy in office.

It amazes me that people disparage on Kerry’s past and can’t seem to see Bush’s. What a joke that is.

There is much to much gray area within these issues and it boil it down to a simple black and white, left or right idea is insulting to anyone who takes any time to think these things through.

Posted on October 2, 2004 12:18 PM | #

69. Jonathan Dillon-Hayes said:

Nader is the name of my dog. Hmm. I wonder if I could nail 2 birds with one stone.

Honestly, these debates were are a joke. I wish I could find the link to the “contract” these freaks have to agree to.

Did you know it’s illegal for them to debate each other outside of these three “debates”? It is. That means they’re not debates – they’re press releases.

What are these guys so afraid of? Why can’t we see them for who they really are? It’s obvious they don’t trust the American people to govern themselves, and I find that the most disturbing thing about all of this.

My 2c.

BTW, I’m a Gredemarebenpublicratican. AKA, I vote for things I can see, not “parties”. If you’re still voting for a “platform” like your agriculturalist ancestors, better read the fine print.

Jonathan

Posted on October 3, 2004 11:54 PM | #

71. Andy said:

Well said Kev. As a fellow Brit, I don’t have a real say either in who you guys elect as president either, but please get rid of this madman! Bush’s foreign policy has put the US at odds with the majority of the international community, and his actions have not made the US a safer place AT ALL. His ‘pre-emptive strikes’ in Afghanistan and Iraq have given the US (and of course their allies; the UK, Spain, Italy etc.) an awful reputation in many islamic countries, and indeed in most of the world. His foreign policies are helping to create the next generation of extremists by showing what they see to be the enemy as exactly that. I’m certainly not saying that nothing should have been done against those who were responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11th, but were the children of Afghanistan and Iraq really responsible? NO, there are other ways of going about it. Consider this simple fact about the wars: during the first world war, for every 10 soldiers killed, 1 civilian was killed. In Iraq, for every 1 soldier killed, 10 civilians have been killed. Does that make sense????
Aside from Bush’s terrible record on homeland security and foreign policy, consider his record on the environment, the economy and american ‘freedoms’, and then ask yourself if you really want to see what would happen if he were there for another four years. Please, you know it makes sense, vote him out!

Posted on October 8, 2004 03:32 AM | #

73. Brian said:

….haha, well im only 14 but i had to watch it for a class project and my opinions still count, ill say that there will never be a perfect president. everyone will make mistakes, some bigger then others, that’s why im more for Kerry, bush has done many stupid things, why give him the chance to make them worse. now im not like “yeah Kerry rules”, but he obviously made bush look like a jack ass, he seemed well prepared, yet i think he needs to loosen up, lol i didn’t see him smile once….. i would like to see what Kerry has in store. I doubt it will be as bad as bush

Posted on October 14, 2004 04:35 PM | #