The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I saw the debate last night and thought that Kerry did well and certainly came off as the more confident and polished debater. The President's laid back approach won't be as effective against Kerry's hard charging attacks on the President's record as it was when he faced Al Gore in 2000.

I'm eager to see how the President rebounds in the Town Hall Forum, and in the debate on Domestic Issues, as well as which candidate will shine in the Town Hall-style debate. I'm leaning toward W in the Town Hall debate because I think THAT's where his style may shine brighter, but, in these debates, it is more than fair to say that Bush has a strong opponent in Kerry.

I must follow this up by saying, however, we're not looking for the best debater, but the man most suited to be the leader of this nation for the next four years.

I thought that neither candidate hit a home run last night. I think Bush's plan for fighting the war on terror is the correct one. I think Kerry will ask for France and Germany's permission before dealing with a crisis, such as nuclear development in Iran. I thought Bush made some good arguments when retorting Kerry's comments "help is on the way to the troops". Bush said "how can you say help is on the way when you voted against the 87 billion to fund the troops". I thought that was a powerful punch by Bush and Kerry was hurt by that.

Kerry is a better debater than Bush. I wasn't surprised because I heard Kerry always did well in college debates. It's not a secret that Bush isn't always the most fluid of speakers.

Overall I think Bush wins on the issues and Kerry wins on public speaking during a debate. Republican's are satisfied with Bush's debate but wished Bush would of delivered a knock out punch and he didn't. Democrats are happy that Kerry survived a debate that many thought could be the final nail in his coffin.

You know what surprised me? I have heard democrats degrade Bush for his public speaking and the little mess ups he makes, and because of this I was expected Kerry to be a very polished speaker. He was far from that. He actually made one point about the war and didn't seperate it from bringing up his time at war. It actually made is sound like he served in Iraq. I thought it was odd, and maybe it was just me.

The other thing I'd like to add is I could care less who is the better debater. I am voting based on their beliefs and the passion behind those beliefs. I saw my canidate be very passionate, to the point of making me say "Wow".

NikiH wrote:...I ...expected Kerry to be a very polished speaker. He was far from that. He actually made one point about the war and didn't seperate it from bringing up his time at war. It actually made is sound like he served in Iraq. I thought it was odd, and maybe it was just me.

Yes, Kerry constantly prefaced his statements on Iraq with references to his Vietnam service (I guess, in response to the recent criticism he was somehow FORCED to) before making a point on the war in response to President Bush's "Going to War is a tough decision to make" stance. However, the President, too, seemed to repeat his stance over and over. Both candidates made this mistake, but were able to shake off the "rust" toward the end.

In the end, unfortunately, Kerry came off selling an image that was contrary to the one his critics project. His comments had very little substance, but he did a more polished job of the "did not! did too!" exchange that was last night's debate.

The other thing I'd like to add is I could care less who is the better debater. I am voting based on their beliefs and the passion behind those beliefs.

NikiH, I hope hundreds of thousands of other people feel the same way you do regarding the debate because it seems that the debates do little more than sell an image, and I'm afraid that those "undecided" voters will cast votes based on the images from the debates. Bush can be a great leader, but the opposing party have already started (and will continue to) ridicule him for all his body language and apparent "confusion"at times during the debate.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: ...but the opposing party have already started (and will continue to) ridicule him for all his body language and apparent "confusion"at times during the debate.[/color]

please provide links.

joebagadonuts wrote:please provide links.

What's That Face?

The Kerry campaign on Friday released cutaways of the president's facial expressions seen during Thursday's debate. Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told FOX News on Thursday night that they planned to show Bush appearing arrogant, annoyed and aloof at various times.

Link to the rest of the article.

I found myself last night saying "Nooooooo, don't do/say that," 'cause I now some peeps would just pounce on his words and mannerisms. While Kerry kept his composure, the President seemed, at times, to be flustered. I was pulling, for el Presidente, though.

fox news, how objective.

democrats, i suppose, could feel the same way you do, knowing that republicans will pounce all over kerry's words. 'global test' for example, was ridiculed in the 'spin room' afterwards several times that i heard. and i'm sure it will continue. the republican phrase of the week, i predict, will be 'mixed messages'. just a hunch

every time i watch the reactions to a debate, i'm more convinced that people see what they want to see. it seems to be the undecided voters who have the only smallest amount of objectivity.

joebagadonuts wrote:every time i watch the reactions to a debate, i'm more convinced that people see what they want to see. it seems to be the undecided voters who have the only smallest amount of objectivity.

I guess that's because spin doctor's do a lot of the convincing aspects of the work after the debate, when they can bash whatever the opponent said and laud whatever their candidate said. I think one of the revealing aspects of last night's debate was how often the candidates had very similar stances.

Well, if you can call it a "debate," but I thought it was more like a press coference, anyway. They had contractual agreements on everything from temperature of the room, to the paper and pens used, to the lighting, to the heights of the podiums, to a rule where the candidates couldn't pose questions to each other.

Worst of all, Michael Badnarik (my lp guy) wasn't included in the debate at all, and he's going to be on 48 state's ballots, not to mention that he's currently slated to get more of the popular vote than Nader.

I'm really baffled by the idea that anyone thinks Bush's plan for Iraq is the correct one. Especially when our own national intelligence estimate concluded that our current path is taking us toward two unattractive options, the first being an ongoing, years-long battle with insurgents (somewhat akin to Vietnam) and the second being an all-out civil war and to the winner go the spoils. Nor do I understand the opposition to a candidate who suggests we seek help in Iraq so that we (the taxpayers) and people like my brother (a soldier) are not asked to bear the entire weight of this war.
And I agree totally about the overly-structured nature of the debates.

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:I guess that's because spin doctor's do a lot of the convincing aspects of the work after the debate, when they can bash whatever the opponent said and laud whatever their candidate said.

true, spin does have something to do with how people form opinions about the debate, but it seems like a lot of people see things about their candidate and the opponent without ever hearing any spin. it probably has to do with their expectations going in. i'm sure i'm guilty of it as well.

ah, intelligent republican humor.

Can I throw in my two cent worth?

I am not giving personal opinion here but its a fact
that most of the rest of the world is very much anti Bush therefore
by default anti American.

I would suggest that outside the US most people want a Kerry win,if only to take the heat out the flashpoints,and perhaps initiate some dialogue with other world powers.

I wish this was not so but facts are facts and I think people in the US do not fully realise the strength of the animosity out there.

You are always welcome in Dublin though!!!!!!


EEEEEEstah

Estahpruunty wrote:Can I throw in my two cent worth?

I am not giving personal opinion here but its a fact
that most of the rest of the world is very much anti Bush therefore
by default anti American.

I would suggest that outside the US most people want a Kerry win,if only to take the heat out the flashpoints,and perhaps initiate some dialogue with other world powers.

I wish this was not so but facts are facts and I think people in the US do not fully realise the strength of the animosity out there.

You are always welcome in Dublin though!!!!!!


EEEEEEstah

This is how it was in the 80's. Most Europeans were anti-Reagan and complained how the U.S. was building it's military and defense. They always critcized Reagan's foriegn policy. Luckily for us, Reagan was right and he won the cold war. If Reagan would have been a flip-flopping weak leader, the Soviet Union may still be a communist super power. The way I look at it is when Europeans complain about America, it simply means we are gaining power. They would love to see Kerry win because they know America will be weaker and they can be more competitive.

Most of Europe is far-left in it's political views so I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Most of Europe believes that *both* our two major candidates are conservative. One is extremeist, one is less so. Being part of a political party that's more conservative than the Republicans, I'd rather not listen to what Europeans have to say about leadership in our country, thank you very much.

You wrote:

I'm really baffled by the idea that anyone thinks Bush's plan for Iraq is the correct one. Especially when our own national intelligence estimate concluded that our current path is taking us toward two unattractive options, the first being an ongoing, years-long battle with insurgents (somewhat akin to Vietnam) and the second being an all-out civil war and to the winner go the spoils. Nor do I understand the opposition to a candidate who suggests we seek help in Iraq so that we (the taxpayers) and people like my brother (a soldier) are not asked to bear the entire weight of this war.

Admittedly, mistakes were made in our planning for post-war Iraq. In hindsight, Bush never should've made the statement that major combat operations are over. However, I haven't seen or read anywhere where the French and Germans are going to contribute any troops to assist us in Iraq. It appears to me they want in on the construction dollars for rebuilding the country and nothing more. I do believe, however, that taking out Saddam and his regime was the right move. I work for the Army and have friends on the ground over there and I worry and pray for them. I do believe we should stay the course. We are accomplishing many good things over there that, for some reason, seldom receive mention from CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN.

Redskin Don wrote:Admittedly, mistakes were made in our planning for post-war Iraq.

Don't you think that is a huge understatement?

Mistakes were made at every turn in planning and execution. Bush's plan has created a self-fulfilling profecy, making Iraq into the haven for terrorists he still claims it was before the war.

Bush's hubris has managed to turn a vast outpouring of sympathy towards the war on terror into hate against the U.S. The Iraq war, far from being a front in the war on terror, has been a distraction from that important task.

And if he is re-elected and continues down his path of fiscal mismanagement, my children will pay heavily for it. But, then again, 15-month-olds can't lobby, can they?

mistakes were made. I think the Bush administration would admit that as well in hindsight. I also agree with you that Bush needs to get spending in check.

As for mistakes being made at every turn regarding Iraq, I can't agree with that assessment at all. Bottom line is he said he'd go after terrorists wherever they were hiding. He's been true to his word and we've not had another terrorist attack in this country. If your liberal hero, Slick Willie had grown a pair when he was in the oval office instead of diddling interns maybe W wouldn't have had to deal with the mess he left behind. Instead, we could all gather 'round the campfire and sing protest songs with the other leftwing freaks in Europe. I'm sorry, but the "more sensitive war on terror" that Kerry proposes is just so much liberal claptrap. Maybe you liberals should all get together and hold hands 'til after the election.

Ah ad hominem attacks and red herrings.
So much for rational discourse.
First of all, the president has admitted to a grand total of ZERO mistakes thus far. And it is not hindsight that has brought this incompetence to light, it is a lack of foresight.
Bill Clinton, who is not the subject of this discussion, did not invade Iraq at the cost of thousands of lives and well over one hundred million dollars, George Bush did.
People like Sens. Lugar and McCain agree with the assessments that say Bush et al have badly botched the entire post-war Iraq operation. Are they spouting "liberal claptrap"?

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

You chose ONE adjective from that entire quote as a reason to attack Kerry. May I assume you are also opposed to a more effective, thoughtful, strategic and proactive war as well?
And as for the nonsense about world attitude toward us now being similiar to the perception of us under Reagan, that simply has no basis in fact. Many Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, were enormously thankful for and supportive of U.S. foreign policy. And even in those countries where our foreign policy was met with disdain, we had supporters. That is a stark contrast with our present situation which finds the majority of the world against out foreign policy. And even among the few countries who back us now, it is their leadership we have the backing of, not their citizens, i.e. Britain.

And, yes, things are going as badly in Iraq as have been reported. Your personal anecdotes do not disprove this in any way. You are not reading any good news out of Iraq because there isn't any to report. Trust me, if there were, Fox would be all over it. But even that station's reports reflect the pathetic situation on the ground there.

From Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Deluxe Edition (the only one on my desk):

sen·si·tive (sen'si-tiv)
adj.

2. Reacting readily to external agents or forces.

I guess only if its troweled out by Dan Rather or one of the other mainstream media types is anything considered "rational discourse" or the "truth" as its realized by nauseating liberal pukes like yourselves. Nothing good happening in Iraq? A despicable tyrant has been removed. Schools, hospitals, and other vital infrastructure are being rebuilt and you call that nothing?

Hey C'ville, everyone outside the liberal enclave in which you pie in the sky dreamers live knows exactly what John Kerry when he talks about "more sensitive" and a "globalism test" means. Kofi Annan for Sec Def. I'll bet he'll be all over "proactive and strategic" won't he Fios? Maybe when he finishes mopping up the "oil for food" scandal he and John Boy can huddle up and get the country moving on the right path.

The limp-wristed, liberal, eurocentric (read "a more effective, thoughtful, strategic and proactive war" to use your terminology) way of dealing with terrorism is out the window. It doesn't work and you know it, Genius. If you and the other members of the liberal house of freaks were half as smart as you think you are, the whole country would be falling all over itself for John Kerry. That's not happening though is it? I wonder why?

I'm finished. I'll let you 2 idiots blather on now.

Once again, I did not personally insult you at any point in my post. If you are going to continue in that vein, this will be my last response to you.
But don't try to sell me on this notion that I'm advancing some outmoded liberal view that has no place in the world today. The position I have taken on Iraq is shared by many, many military officers and many prominent Republicans.
John Kerry has said time and time again that he will not cede the ability to defend ourselves to anyone. Because you choose not to believe that doesn't make it a lie.
Here is a partial list of the members of "the liberal house of freaks":
The International Brotherhood Of Police Officers, United Mine Workers Of America, National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, The International Association of EMT's and Paramedics, Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca, Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, General Wesley K. Clark, Admiral William J. Crowe, Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, General Joseph Hoar, Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, General Merrill “Tony” A. McPeak, General John M. Shalikashvili, Admiral Stansfield Turner, General Johnnie E. Wilson.

You can insult me all you want, but that doesn't make you right or support your possition on this matter.

I supported the President in going to war. I believed him that there were WMD and that Saddam was a threat. However, I've come to realize that the Bush administration has been lying to the American public at every opportunity. They sent Collin Powell, a man I hold in the highest respect, to the UN and made him lie. They have lied about the motivation and potential results of their own policies, and of their opponents.

Was Saddam dangerous? Yes. Should he have been removed? Yes. Was he MORE dagerous than al Qaeda? NO! Should he have been removed unilaterally and in a way that has distracted from the "War on Terror"? NO! Should the planning and execution of the Iraq war been done in such a way as to weaken our global alliances and at the same time strenghten the resolve of terrorists worldwide? NO!

And don't give me crap about 75% of al Qaeda being captured or killed. That is 75% of the known al Qaeda as of Sept. 11, 2001. The Iraq war has truly become the greatest training video terrorists could have hoped for, and membership is up into the 10's of thousands.