Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: captain_midnite who wrote (74266)	10/1/2004 2:43:31 PM
From: Karin	Respond to of 793928

WHAT "DEBATE"? For starters, this was not a debate. It was a talking points memo. There was no debate of issues and nothing memorable about this whatsoever. Kerry looked stiff and Bush looked haggard. Could be because Bush spent the day surveying damage from hurricanes in Florida, plus the continuous fight on the WoT. Kerry repeatedly made mention of his fighting in a war (he fought in Vietnam after all). But no mention of his record in the Senate. Kerry called Bush a failure for not having a coalition to deal with Iraq, which is clearly a lie since more than 30 countries were and are participating in Iraq. Kerry could not offer a single substantive thing he would do going forward on Iraq, while Bush would continue his current policies of preemption in order to secure the US. Kerry denigrated our coalition partners, which Bush rebutted nicely. Kerry clearly lied about having the NYC subways close for the convention because of a terror threat - that happened in Boston during his convention, but went unrebutted by Bush. Bush was in attack mode for much of the debate, which I found odd, but then again, he had so many opportunities that he missed more than a few to put Kerry away. Bush gets a B-, Kerry gets a C-. For likeability, I agree Bush wins convincingly A- to C-. That the media is calling this a Kerry win shows just how out of touch they are with what people see and feel about these candidates. The 'debate' did nothing to change folks impressions about them. They see Bush as an earnest and likeable guy who is doing what he thinks is right, while Kerry just talks and drones on and on - never quite getting to a point. Oh, and there's a major inconsistency in Kerry's position. He faults Bush for not having a coalition for Iraq, citing that France and Germany weren't involved (what a surprise since they were bought off by the Iraqis via the oil-for-food scam), but then turns around and says that the US should unilaterally deal with North Korea. Bush rebutted by stating that the US is working in 6-way talks involving the regional nations so that NK can't wiggle out the way they did under Clinton's Agreed Framework (bilateral talks btw). So, Kerry wants unilateral when Bush goes multilateral, and Kerry wants more multilateral action/diplomacy when Bush goes multilateral. Kerry's just flailing around hoping something sticks. And that's not a good move.