Well the title says it all folks... :D

Well going into the debate the president has some bad news:

US Sen. John Kerry has taken a slim lead over President George W. Bush, according to an Associated Press poll that shows the president’s support tumbling on personal qualities, the war in Iraq and the commander in chief’s bedrock campaign issue — US security.
------------------------------------------------------
With bloodshed increasing in Iraq, Kerry sharpened his attacks and Bush stumbled in their initial debate.
Nearly three-fourths of likely voters who were surveyed said they had watched or listened to the first presidential debate last week, according to the poll. Some 39 percent said they came away with a more favourable view of Kerry, while just eight percent felt better about Bush.
-------------------------------------------------------
Among 944 likely voters, the Kerry-Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bush is threatening Kerry’s claim to Democratic-leaning states such as Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and New Jersey. Kerry is pressing Bush’s advantage in the two most critical states, Florida and Ohio, as well as GOP-leaning Colorado.
-------------------------------------------------
In the poll, six in 10 voters said the country was headed on the wrong track, reflecting a gloomy national mood that could jeopardize Bush’s re-election bid. His overall approval rating, 46 percent, was at its lowest point since June — down from 54 percent in late September.
------------------------------------------------------
But for some Republicans, the shift came as a shock, because they had looked at the first debate as a chance to put the race away...Instead, Bush lost his momentum.
------------------------------------------------
http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=4378


If Bush loses this debate (which is a real possibility) he could very well lose the election. For Kerry this debate will be harder, Kerry isn’t known for this style of simple, easy sound bites, and he is not a very charismatic leader. Bush is a charismatic leader, even though he is richer then all the people in the room tonight combined he has that “Texan accent” (oddly that no one else in the family has such an accent). But that alone (the common touch) is surely not enough to convince ppl that you can deal with very complex situations like Iraq, or France. I suspect that Kerry will look and act more presidential, but I don’t think that either candidate will have a slam dunk.

Good work setup the thread and poll up, though you forgot to predict we would need poll questions like "Bush will win this debate/kerry will win this debate" aaah close enough.

I really don't think who wins the debates predict the winner, there is usually not much correlation.

Though Bush didn't perform to my standards, he seemed to perform quite a bit better this time than the last. It was even as far as I could tell. Neither case seemed superior. It's a matter of who you believe I suppose.

Well with 28843 responses Kerry is shown as the clear winner by msnbc poll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#survey

However to my observation is was bit closer than last time, he did a bit better this time, his posture was more confident, he seemed informed, (thoroughly drilled, by Rove) and I wouldn't call this a swept victory of Kerry.

Godless.

I hate how Kerry would never answer the questions asked to him, but would always attack what Bush's administration has done, but never really give substance in answering the questions asked to him.

lol "I own a timber company?"<-- Bush. Yes, he does own a timber company.

OOOH!!! I know how he did it, why he seemed more confortable, more knowledgeable, "he was wired"

http://www.isbushwired.com/

Godless.

Didn't watch the debate

Some of us LISTEN to the debate (Books, radio . . . . there is a whole world outside of television - check it out sometime! :) )

"Didn't watch the debate" will count as didn't hear, see or read the debate fully.

I was watching multiple channels spinning post debate. 6 stations spun pro-bush.

What were they watching?

Bush was nervous, and angry, and loud.
He continues to be an embarrassment to the American people.
Did anybody else note how odd that the prez used the word vociferous in the last debate? Like he learned a new word or something.

Several on line polls have Kerry the winner by +50pts.
I couldn't believe the spin.
It's like he did so poorly last time, this time his befuddled repettitive ignorance was an improvement.

Gotta vote this guy out.

I hate how Kerry would never answer the questions asked to him, but would always attack what Bush's administration has done, but never really give substance in answering the questions asked to him.

If Kerry lets Bush's National Guard service go while he's being pummelled by the Swift Boat Vets, then he's a wimp. When he attacks on valid issues, he's too mean.

I have a feeling that a slight majority will give this debate to Bush simply because nobody wants to see one candidate pull out too ahead. Then it won't be exciting. People's natural inclination to want to see the whipped dog get up again will prove advantageous to Bush. Plus, I have a feeling that some of those "on the fence" voters are really Republicans at heart who just needed a justification to go back to Bush after his embarrassing performance on the first debate.

But Kerry stood firm, and I loved a couple of things he did. Firstly, I could sense that Bush was trying to KO Kerry by bringing up the "librul" label. Whenever he did so, Kerry got right up and slammed it down. Secondly, Kerry finally mentioned how the 87 billion dollar vote wasn't some miracle fund for soldiers. He rightfully brought up how there would've been little accountability to how that money would've been spent, including the slush-fund for Halliburton. About damn time.

My personal opinion? I'll give it to Kerry by a few yards. He didn't shout at the moderator, he actually remembered the audience members' names, he stood firm, and he made one really good joke (borrowed from Clinton from the DNC) as opposed to a bunch of excruciatingly lame jokes ("Want some wood?" Yuck!).

Bush died in the debates !! Kerry Won hands down!! Bush was nothing but a broken record and NEVER answered any of the questions ask by the audience! ie) name 3 things you did that were wrong so far and what you did to correct them. "Answer we were right in invading Iraq..." THis aint answering questions!!! Sorry

The results of the two debates most certainly demonstrate that he is not capable of making intelligent logical decisions that are in the best interest of americans, especially the decisions he's made so far as president. I think the debates have shown so far that Bush is an idiot!

Atta Boy

I've been very impresed with Bush's improved public speaking, although sometimes the bouncing-cadence, hand-waving delivery seemed more than a little affected, especially towards the end. Kerry really disappointed me competing on the "git the terrists" plank, characteristically avoiding any discussion on the motivations behind our contemporary wave of terrorism. I'm going to watch this debate again, because I was physically exhausted, and nodded off several times.

I'm wondering whether they had him, Bush, on amphetamines this time? After all they have clean and strong ones which are issued to fighter pilots to keep in their kit for extra endurance/alterness on extended missions, and he seemed *much* more motivated, alert and angry this time.

Well Hype I wouldn't waste my time watching it again, it's a fiasco!! the same rhetoric from both parties and little content as to how things will get done, without raising taxes on midle class, and keep jobs from bleeding out to other countries.
Kerry's plan for jobs is to penalize companies that export jobs, and vis-versa reward companies that keep jobs here. However this "reward" has to come out of taxes, so without rainsing them?? :confused:

Plus keep in mind what happened in 2000 in Fla.
http://www.buzzflash.com/anderson/04/10/images/06SuppressingVote.jpg

We will see how reports of minorities vote come around this time.

Godless.

The CEO of the company that makes the electronic voting machines, a big fundraiser for the GOP, said publically to Bush "We will deliever the votes to you". And it barely gets a blip in the press.

Though there are many individuals in our society who are paying attention, collectively as a nation we are sheep who deserve to reap what we sow . . . and we will.

I'm wondering whether they had him, Bush, on amphetamines this time? After all they have clean and strong ones which are issued to fighter pilots to keep in their kit for extra endurance/alterness on extended missions, and he seemed *much* more motivated, alert and angry this time.

Well actually Gravity, the Pres. was not under the influence of any drug. The first time the micro-earphone was interrupted from frequency and he was on his own, without Carl Rove and other advisers coaching him.

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/04/10/images/07debatetronics.jpg

Godless.

Yeah, I've seen all the photos of the possible reciever bulge in his jacket and such. I think its certainly very likely he gets coaching that way - but he also just seemed like his entire metabolism was racheted up this time. And it didn't seem jittery like just a lot of caffeine and vitamins would do. But that was just from listening, we don't watch TV - so that was only the impression I got from hearing his speaking.

Just in Supreme Court has declared Bush the winner of the first debate:

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/04/10/images/01fogsdebate.jpg

LOL..

Godless.

To me the debate yesterday was a tie, in the sense that neither side got ahead significantly more then the other. This wasn’t like the first debate where Bush was floored was his own incompetence (even with a suspected ear piece). This time Bush looked very competitive, even child like with his screaming and his insistence to totally ignore the rules of the debate and the even the moderator. The reason why Bush did better imo was because he wasn’t floored by Kerry, Kerry did some really good jabs but Kerry could have done better. Also in the first part of the debate to me Bush looked quite agitated, he was constantly grinding his teeth. Kerry had the pose of a president Bush didn’t. But to the American people Bush looked animated, and that’s his style. Kerry destroys Bush on actual substance, Bush beats Kerry on style. Of course I find it pathetically sad that style of presentation is even a issue the most important election in American history after the Great Depression.

Kerry really disappointed me competing on the "git the terrists" plank, characteristically avoiding any discussion on the motivations behind our contemporary wave of terrorism.

Hey, Kerry tried to take the high road once and what did he get? That Swift Boat crap, which people actually paid attention to. That ship sailed long ago.

Best 2 of 3 should win the election............Looks like Kerry might pull it off after all! No one wants to elect an idiot for president, especially seeing as how we just had one for president for the last four years!

Atta Boy

I think Israel won the last debate. Both candidates made it crystal clear that American foreign policy towards Israel is not up for discussion.

Bush was hysterical, and Kerry has given up all pretense at being an innovative candidate. They barely addressed the questions, moderator Gibson was a joke (I would just LOVE to see the list of questions he chose not to include!).

The closer the election gets, the more nervous I get. Cheney will not go quietly into that political good night - and so look for a bombshell in the week leading up to Halloween.

After all, Kerry has jewish blood flowing in his veins. Bush is a stupid fundy clinging to Israel's existence as the only tangible proof of Bible's profecies. It's strange, cause orthodox Jews think that creation of Israeli state is against the judaism. Israel should be recreated only AFTER the second messiah's coming. Stupid fundies are used as a cash/gun meat cow by smart jewish zionists for whom nationalism is a true religion.

dixonmassey,

So because Kerry has Jewish blood that explains why he's a supporter of Israel and possible Zionist?

Isn't Kerry the one who made the ludicrous and baseless accusation that George Bush has some nonexistent timber company somewhere which he counts as small business?

And this is the kind of liar people want for President?


How does he also plan to make good on that fantastic promise he made to Americans on cutting the debt in half in 4 years without raising taxes? Are people stupid enough to believe this is his "plan"?

§outh§tar,

When did he make such a claim, quote him, even so you should know as a politician lying is like breathing, they all do it, Bush has lied like a rug as well.

The difference is, he was asked to look into the camera to American people and promise to do the impossible in four years without raising taxes. That's more than a white lie..

Also in response to Bush's defense of the Patriot Act, did he not slyly (sp?) assure the audience that he was equally appalled by the implications of the Patriot Act? But wait! Is this not the same senator who voted FOR the Patriot Act? And now he is saying he can't believe what the Patriot Act does to the liberties of Americans? So either he was a fool and did not throroughly review the act before giving it the thumbs up, or he is a damned liar and is "flipflopping" (as the Bush team calls it) and pretending he doesn't like it.

Isn't Kerry the one who made the ludicrous and baseless accusation that George Bush has some nonexistent timber company

Check your facts. (www.fact-check.org). Senator Kerry was right, Bush was wrong, AGAIN. Or check out this hilarious site, www.needsumwood.com, which was put up instantly after Bush's show of ignorance of his own money and dealings.

The difference is, he was asked to look into the camera to American people and promise to do the impossible in four years without raising taxes. That's more than a white lie..

What about Dick Cheney and his claims that he never tied Saddam and 9/11? That's a very big lie, since that was probably one of the big reasons why Americans supported the war. But oh no, lying to go to war is nothing compared to that indescribable sin against God of raising taxes. Damn liberals!

Is this not the same senator who voted FOR the Patriot Act?

As Kerry said in the debate, 99% (literally) of the Senate voted for the PATRIOT Act, as it was in the aftermath of 9/11 when everybody's judgment was rattled. Even big-time liberals like Paul Wellstone voted for it (may he rest in peace.) Kerry has consistently stated from the start of his campaign back in 2003 that he supports the good sections of the PA, while he wants to reform the "sneak and peek" aspects of it. Bush unfortunately dupes his audience into thinking the PA is some kind of benevolent Bill of Rights that only liberals oppose because they love Osama.

Well if anything at least bush has a "higher" power telling him what to do;

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/04/03/images/19dontworry.jpg

Godless :D

Isn't Kerry the one who made the ludicrous and baseless accusation that George Bush has some nonexistent timber company somewhere which he counts as small business?

And this is the kind of liar people want for President?
?

I think the point Kerry was making is that anyone who files a schedule C is a considered a small business. Bush received 80 something dollars from a timber partnership according to his 2001 tax return that made Bush a small business owner.

I hate how Kerry would never answer the questions asked to him, but would always attack what Bush's administration has done, but never really give substance in answering the questions asked to him.

I'm not sure that we were watching the same debate.
What questions did he not answer?
Both of them tried avoiding directly responding to the request to lay out how their plan will cut the deficit, but after that attempt he even addressed that one (in the limited way he can, with only a few minutes to outline a plan that would take hours to scratch the surface of).

Admittedly, he tap-danced a bit and re-addressed prior questions with the first minute or so of nearly every reply, but after that minute, he cleanly and openly addressed the question at hand.
Yes, Kerry was aggressive and, to be honest, I liked it.
His aggressiveness was not out of line, nor off topic.
He laid out what, in accordance with the questions, the current administration did not do, and what he would do differently.
He didn't pull any punches, and why should he have?
Why should candidates play with kid-gloves on?
Edwards disappointed me, because all he did was blast the current administration, out of context most cases, and did not follow-up with their proposed solutions. It was little more than a mud-slinging party for him.
Kerry did no such thing.
He came out aggressive, looked Bush in the eye, and said, "I, and the American people are holding you accountable for this." and it's about damned time someone did.

Right from the onset Bush was on the defensive, because he had to be.
He didn't have much to say at all, and the few "positive" things he DID have to say about his administration were convoluted rhetoric because he was aware (assuming he is intelligent enough to be aware) that he didn't have a leg to stand on to defend against Kerry's attacks.

I give this one overwhelmingly to Kerry.
I don't understand why people thought Bush did better this time.
Simply because he "appeared" more confident?
To me he appeared a bit more relaxed and confident the same way that someone who has had a few drinks to curb inhibitions does (no accusations, mind you, just noticing similarities).
Case in point: After answering that woman's question (I wish I could remember the question), on his way back to his chair, he gave her a little point with his finger and a greasy wink. A WINK for fux' sake!! What the hell was that??

So, even if he DID appear more confident and comfortable (Southern Comfort induced or not) what does that say?
To me, looking at the glaring lack of substance in his replies, his floundering for valid answers, the fact that he was clearly running scared & on the defensive the whole time and his bar-room sly confidence compared to Kerry's statesmanship...
If he was actually confident in the face of all that he is simply less aware of the reality of the issues than I even feared and should certainly not be trusted by virtue of incompetence alone.

Another note:
The shining highlight of the debate was Kerry's reponse to the abortion question. He couldn't have said it better, and I have to give him point for that.

So again, please point out to me all of these questions that Kerry didn't respond to, because you could be right, and maybe I completely missed it.
I was watching it at the Air America little rally thing in NYC hosted by Janeane Garafalo, and I very well could have been swept up in the fervor of the crowd and missed it.
If so, I would like to know that.
Maybe you could list the questions you felt he avoided and I will go back, read the transcript and see what was said.
Thanks.

I belive I saw a wire running up Bushes neck

I believe the name 'Bush' is believed (thru archival research) to have originated from the combination of two words 'Bull Shit', which was originally combined and shortened to 'Bu-sh' or now what we call 'Bush'.......

Atta Boy

Why didn't Kerry do all those things already while he was in Congress for over 10 years? Kerry says allot but his record shows that he taxes more and does't do anything that really helps, as he states he will do, if he were elected President. Elect Kerry and get more of less, with higher taxes.

Oh please, taxes were higher during the Clinton years and the economy was much more lively than anything Bush could do with his tax cuts. Ooh, those evil taxes!

BTW, Kerry said repeatedly in the debate how he cast votes to balance the budget during the 90s. Perhaps you should watch that. And it's very interesting to note how the Bush campaign first accused Kerry of voting for higher taxes over 300 times. Now, that number as dwindled down to around 90. Right, we believe you, Karl.

Why do ppl think taxes are so bad? Considering that without them we would be living like our cave men forefathers.

dixonmassey,

So because Kerry has Jewish blood that explains why he's a supporter of Israel and possible Zionist?

Both GW and Kerry, Dick and Edwards were competing in the "I'll kiss Israel's ass better" game. Clinton also has told that he would defend Israel personally (with a gun in his hands!) in the case of war with Arabs. Well, Billy, now I understand why you've avoided Vietnam: to preserve yourself for the defence of Israel. Everybody has his own priorities.

Kerry could not have an obvious lead in "I'll kiss ass better game" (even if he wanted) because it's impossible from a political standpoint. American political elite collectively reached a ceiling of the allegiance expressions to a foreign country. "love serenades" louder than the reached threshold will appear as an unhealthy obsession.

correlation between having jewish (or any other blood) and benevolence (at least) to Israel (or another "home county")does exist. Sure, such a "benevolence" is only an average measure. It may vary from person to person. Without American Jews, Israel would have been most likely a history by now.

For the image preservation sake, it would be better for the USA to accept Israel as 51st state (it would be cheaper too, I guess) than to appear as a puppet state.

GW appeared as a spoiled, running around kid, who could not believe that somebody could say things against his holyness.

As for the substance, 1st and 2nd debates showed little or none of it.

Why do ppl think taxes are so bad? Considering that without them we would be living like our cave men forefathers.

Yeah, obviously we have to keep tabs on how taxes are collected and spent. Kick butt and clean house now and then to keep it honest. But it seems like a few nice things have come from taxes: public roads, schools, medical research, national-wide electrification, our butts saved in WWI & WWII, funding for innovation in all areas of technology, water that doesn't have excrement in it, food that doesn't have botulism in it, and much much more!

Systems that provided for any public welfare & defense which didn't have taxes . . . really DID have taxes, just called different names: ''gifts to the Lord'', "Tithes", ''yearly offerings'', or simply ''being a slave/subject/prisoner/peasant''.

Taxes are not the problem at all; it’s where and how you spend the money. If that 86 billion that went to the upper X%, instead, went to the lowest 25% it would it would have about 5 times as much good for our economy. Simple multiplier effect

Yes indeed Cato, the whole "Trickle Down" idea is such a smokescreen. The idea that the money will eventually trickle down from the lucky few and satiate the masses of poor with a few drops of sustinence. "Trickle UP'' economics results in immediate - help for the poor, who then spend their money . . . which flows up to the rich anyways. Satisfaction is assured all around.

Well, money attracts money. It's a law of capitalism. One needs a wealth redistribution department to fight the sad fact that some people are better at the accumulation of the wealth than the other. What, 86 billions are you talking about? Let say, lower tax brackets got $1000 tax refund instead of 0 or $200. Higher tax brackets have been taxed more correstpondingly. If government will not redistribute $ from the people with high income to the lower income folks, higher taxes on the wealthy does NOT mean at all that lower income folks will get $86 billions more to spend. Sure, they will get more $ to spend but it will not be 86 billions (or whatever number). If lower income people will not pay taxes at all, their income will not be much greater. Boosting income of the low income people will help, higher taxes on the wealthy will not change things much.

Why didn't Kerry do all those things already while he was in Congress for over 10 years? Kerry says allot but his record shows that he taxes more and does't do anything that really helps, as he states he will do, if he were elected President. Elect Kerry and get more of less, with higher taxes.
Actually, that's not true:
Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.
The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.

To be sure, such votes did express Kerry's general approval for the higher tax levels they contained. But strictly speaking, separate legislation would be required to bring about an actual tax increase. In fact, budget resolutions are not even submitted to the President, much less made into law.

The Bush campaign also exploits the complexity of the parliamentary voting system to pad the number. Most of the 98 votes were on procedural measures, such as votes to end debate or votes on amendments, and not on passage of the measure itself. More than once, the 98-vote total counts half a dozen votes or more on on a single bill.
Sixteen votes -- by the Bush campaign's own count -- on Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes (almost exclusively on the highest-earning one or two percent of households) and cut spending. Only one of the 16 was on final passage of that measure, and the rest on various amendments and parliamentary maneuverings.
Six votes on Sen. John McCain's 1998 proposal to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack to deter youthful smoking. Four were votes for cloture (to end debate). One was a procedural vote to waive budget restrictions requiring 60 votes to approve the McCain bill. The sixth vote was against stripping the tax-increase provisions from a broader measure McCain was using as a vehicle for his proposal.
Seven votes that were cast on one budget resolution for the 1996 fiscal year, one of them a vote for a Democratic alternative to the Republican-proposed budget, increasing funding for Medicare, veterans' benefits, and education, financed by higher taxes on corporations and persons making over $140,000 a year. The other five were votes to increase spending on such things as student loans and health research, funded by closing tax "loopholes" or raising the tobacco tax.
Six votes on the 1997 budget resolution. Kerry voted variously for higher funding for education, Medicare, the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and veterans benefits, financed by "closing corporate tax loopholes" and extending expired tax provisions.

By our tally, Kerry has cast more than 6,000 recorded votes over his nearly 20-year Senate career. It's fair game for the Bush campaign to pick through those looking for votes that are contrary to Kerry's stated positions. But as this ad demonstrates, voters have reason to be skeptical of such exercises. Bush's claim that 98 of those 6,000 votes were to "raise taxes" is still misleading.

Source-for more details (http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/article.aspx?docid=247)

Some of you probably have already seen this. Just thought some would like it in here

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

From MagiAwen's link...
http://www.youforgotpoland.com/test.gif

I LOVE IT!! :D