Kerry's still campaigning for President

[SuperJerk 0]

Kerry beat Bush, barely, in the 1st debate.

 

That was the extent of it.

-=Mike

Says you and you alone.

[2GOLD 0]

Kerry beat Bush, barely, in the 1st debate.

 

That was the extent of it.

                -=Mike

Says you and you alone.

 

Actually, I agreed as well.

And it pissed me off cause Kerry could have beat him down and instead fumbled around like a man looking for his car keys in a 20 pocket jacket.

 

Anyone who can't go through a door that was left that wide open deserves to lose. And he got what he deserved.

[SuperJerk 0]

Actually, I agreed as well.

And it pissed me off cause Kerry could have beat him down and instead fumbled around like a man looking for his car keys in a 20 pocket jacket.

 

Anyone who can't go through a door that was left that wide open deserves to lose. And he got what he deserved.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Bush was the one who looked dumb.

Kerry jumped on Bush at every opening.

 

Remember the "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us" bit, and the President's angry and self-contradictory comeback? That was from the first debate.

 

Kerry stomped Bush into the ground. It was probably the only thing he did right during the whole campaign.

[Guest MikeSC]

Kerry beat Bush, barely, in the 1st debate.

 

That was the extent of it.

                -=Mike

Says you and you alone.

Says anybody who actually watched the debates.

 

Kerry was a joke in the debates. When he wasn't spouting off meaningless cliches (yeah, putting heightened security at every single point of entry is SO much more solid a plan than ATTACKING the terrorists where they are --- BRILLIANT!), he was making lines that simply bit him in the ass in the end.

 

The only people who think Kerry won all three debates are people desperate to view Bush as an idiot.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I expected Kerry to knock Bush around from bell to bell, and he didn't. I think anything less than a decisive victory over George W. Bush in a debate is a loss.

[SuperJerk 0]

Kerry beat Bush, barely, in the 1st debate.

 

That was the extent of it.

                 -=Mike

Says you and you alone.

Says anybody who actually watched the debates.

Polls conducted after each debate showed Kerry won each round.

 

If you're going to claim "anyone who watched" as evidence, you should at least have evidence that actually backs your claim up. The majority of the people watching clearly thought that Kerry won.

 

Kerry won the first debate so decisively that he immediately shot ahead of Bush in the polls for the week between the first and second debates.

 

The only people who think Kerry won all three debates are people desperate to view Bush as an idiot.

Like I said, polls conducted AT THE TIME show that Kerry won each debate.

 

Bush's best showing was the second debate, in which he showed a greater capacity to seem like a regular person (and WHY people consider that a qualification to be President is a mystery to me), but Kerry did a better job making points and counter-points to Bush's arguments. People who think Bush won all three debates, or even two of the three debates, are letting their political bias and natural skepticism cloud their ability to rate his actual performance.

 

The third debate went only slightly better for Bush than the first debate did, as Bush got stuck using "No Child Left Behind" as an answer to virtually every question.

 

There is no individual part of the campaign which anyone can point to as a reason to vote for someone. Bush gave better/more involving stump speeches and had better presented convention, while Kerry did a better job in one-on-one debates. I think the majority of Americans felt that while Kerry handled himself better in the debates, they were electing a leader and not a debate team captain, hence the outcome of the election.

 

There is nothing from this campaign which Kerry can point to as give as an example of his leadership ability (although I'd argue his Senate record says otherwise, but that was not used for whatever reason). He was asking people to trust he could lead based on plans he never clearly explained and a military record from over 30 years ago, and assuming they'd find him an acceptable alternative to Bush who showed he can lead by actually leading. Bush didn't need to win the debates because the American people know that being a good debater isn't a prerequisite to being President.

[Guest MikeSC]

Polls conducted after each debate showed Kerry won each round.

The same polls the DNC sent out e-mails asking its supporters to spam?

If you're going to claim "anyone who watched" as evidence, you should at least have evidence that actually backs your claim up.  The majority of the people watching clearly thought that Kerry won. 

I was here for 2 of the 3, and I can say that it was definitely not the case here. It was not the case on ANY post-debate analysis program after the last 2 debates.

 

It was a talking point the Dems used.

Kerry won the first debate so decisively that he immediately shot ahead of Bush in the polls for the week between the first and second debates.

Actually, he pulled even.

 

And, as badly as Bush performed, it was hardly a dominant win for Kerry.

Bush's best showing was the second debate, in which he showed a greater capacity to seem like a regular person (and WHY people consider that a qualification to be President is a mystery to me), but Kerry did a better job making points and counter-points to Bush's arguments.  People who think Bush won all three debates, or even two of the three debates, are letting their political bias and natural skepticism cloud their ability to rate his actual performance.

Nope, it's somebody who watched all three debates rather closely. Kerry was unimpressive as can be.

 

But, hey, some folks thinks Edwards wasn't absolutely annihilated by Cheney in their debate, so some people can be delusional.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Polls conducted after each debate showed Kerry won each round.

The same polls the DNC sent out e-mails asking its supporters to spam?

If you're going to claim "anyone who watched" as evidence, you should at least have evidence that actually backs your claim up.  The majority of the people watching clearly thought that Kerry won. 

I was here for 2 of the 3, and I can say that it was definitely not the case here. It was not the case on ANY post-debate analysis program after the last 2 debates.

I was referring to the polls conducted by various news agencies, not what the talking heads on TV thought.

 

It was a talking point the Dems used.

Kerry won the first debate so decisively that he immediately shot ahead of Bush in the polls for the week between the first and second debates.

Actually, he pulled even.

Depends on which poll you looked at. "Pulled even" would be consistent with the margin of error, so you are technically correct.

 

 

Nope, it's somebody who watched all three debates rather closely. Kerry was unimpressive as can be.

 

That's a pretty subjective analysis. How "closely" did you watch? Is "as can be" an actual measurable term? My analysis was that he competently presented his side, and factually countered many of Bush's arguments.

 

But, hey, some folks thinks Edwards wasn't absolutely annihilated by Cheney in their debate, so some people can be delusional.

      -=Mike

Its very easy to win a debate when you're allowed to lie your ass off the way Cheney did. The most remembered line of the debate?

 

"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

 

And it was complete bullshit. I can't imagine the news media letting any other person get away with saying anything so stupid or easily disprovable.

 

Here's an excellent article about the VP debate: http://factcheck.org/article272.html

[Guest MikeSC]

I was referring to the polls conducted by various news agencies, not what the talking heads on TV thought.

 

The polls the DNC sent out e-mails asking people to spam?

 

I don't put much weight in those.

Kerry won the first debate so decisively that he immediately shot ahead of Bush in the polls for the week between the first and second debates.

Actually, he pulled even.

Depends on which poll you looked at. "Pulled even" would be consistent with the margin of error, so you are technically correct.

I'm not about to go back and look at polls again --- but Kerry did not pull ahead of Bush. He pulled to within the margin of error.

Nope, it's somebody who watched all three debates rather closely. Kerry was unimpressive as can be.

That's a pretty subjective analysis. How "closely" did you watch? Is "as can be" an actual measurable term? My analysis was that he competently presented his side, and factually countered many of Bush's arguments.

He gay-baited (gee, I'm sure Cheney's lesbian daughter WAS a relevant point somewhere), referenced a plan without once going into details (and I even went to his website and it provided no details, either), and basically ran a campaign of "I'd do what Bush did --- but because I'm nicer, France and Germany would have joined us".

 

It would've made a point --- had logic not gotten in the way.

But, hey, some folks thinks Edwards wasn't absolutely annihilated by Cheney in their debate, so some people can be delusional.

      -=Mike

Its very easy to win a debate when you're allowed to lie your ass off the way Cheney did. The most remembered line of the debate?

 

"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

 

And it was complete bullshit. I can't imagine the news media letting any other person get away with saying anything so stupid or easily disprovable.

 

Here's an excellent article about the VP debate: http://factcheck.org/article272.html

So Edwards was such an obvious and utter lightweight that Cheney doesn't remember meeting him.

 

And the analysis on the site is absurd.

 

Like it or not, Edwards DID vote for the war and to send troops. He lied about job losses. He lied about Bush cutting combat pay. He looked like a 6 year old child debating a professor.

 

And when you have to say "We DID meet him! SEE!?!?" --- you've lost the debate so badly that you're simply trying to cushion the blow.

 

Cheney dissected Edwards more thoroughly than Bentsen dissected Quayle in 1988.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

1) You can't spam a telephone poll conducted by a research agency.

 

2) I'm glad you agree with me about margin of error.

 

3) For the hundreth time, Kerry didn't "gay bait". He pointed out something which everyone already knew and said "I'm okay with that." Gay-baiting would have been if he implied that there was something wrong with her being gay, which he did not.

 

4) Factcheck.org does a fair and balanced analysis. They look at the FACTS, not interpetations of them. They've also done plenty of analysis that's been unfavorable to the Democrats, you know.

 

5) My point in bringing up the lie about meeting Edwards was that he said something that wasn't true in order to make Edwards look bad. That moment in etched in the minds of anyone who watched the debate, and thus affects the interpretation of who won. Would Cheney have still won had he not said that? Yes. Cheney had plenty of other lies to say that night as well, as the article I mentioned (which I challenge you to find one inaccurate statement in) pointed out.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Someone said this earlier, I think TCR, my 4th favorite poster.

But Robotjerk, Kerry LOST the debates. Not because he in fact lost them, but because he won them so poorly.

 

No one expected Bush to perform, and Kerry had high expectations. When he failed to realize those expectations, and Bush performed better than expected, even though Kerry still won those debates, he didn't really win them, because he didnt meet expectations while Bush surpassed his.

 

Semantics...

[Guest MikeSC]

1) You can't spam a telephone poll conducted by a research agency.

The quick internet-based polls were spammed. That became a story after the 1st debate and it became a running talking point.

2) I'm glad you agree with me about margin of error.

Yes. Kerry was down by 2 points in most polls after the debates. Within the margin of error. He was not leading.

3) For the hundreth time, Kerry didn't "gay bait".  He pointed out something which everyone already knew and saud "I'm okay with that."  Gay-baiting would have been if he implied that there was something wrong with her being gay, which he did not.

Kerry and Edwards BOTH mentioned it. They couldn't have been MORE obvious about it without saying "DICK'S DAUGHTER IS A LESBO!!! LOL!!"

 

They hoped to drive a wedge in Bush's support by mentioning that Cheney's daughter --- who was not exactly a PUBLIC face during the campaign --- was gay. And they tried it repeatedly.

4) Factcheck.org does a fair and balanced analysis.  They look at the FACTS, not interpetations of them.  They've also done plenty of analysis that's been unfavorable to the Democrats, you know.

And their analysis for the debate was horrid. Sorry.

5) My point in bringing up the lie about meeting Edwards was that he said something that wasn't true in order to make Edwards look bad.  That moment in etched in the minds of anyone who watched the debate, and thus affects the interpretation of who won.  Would Cheney have still won had he not said that?  Yes.  Cheney had plenty of other lies to say that night as well, as the article I mentioned (which I challenge you to find one inaccurate statement in) pointed out.

I love that Cheney is the only one who "lied" in your eyes. Your article mentioned more than a few from Edwards, just to remind you.

 

Cheney so utterly slaughtered Edwards that Boy Wonder's political career is thankfully dead. A better fate couldn't be earned by so useless a politician.

 

Again, when you have to argue that "Yeah, we DID meet him!", you've lost the debate rather horrificly.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

But Robotjerk, Kerry LOST the debates.  Not because he in fact lost them, but because he won them so poorly.

Someone buy this man a dictionary.

 

They hoped to drive a wedge in Bush's support by mentioning that Cheney's daughter --- who was not exactly a PUBLIC face during the campaign --- was gay. And they tried it repeatedly.

 

He mentioned her while DEFENDING homosexuals. That's hardly going to make anyone want to vote for him over Cheney and Bush. Your conspiracy theory has a huge flaw.

 

I love that Cheney is the only one who "lied" in your eyes. Your article mentioned more than a few from Edwards, just to remind you.

 

Edwards got 2 things wrong, Cheney got 2,000 things wrong.

 

I'm not a fan of Edwards by any stretch, I'm just saying its hard to win a debate when the other guy makes up facts as he goes along the way Cheney did.

[Guest MikeSC]

They hoped to drive a wedge in Bush's support by mentioning that Cheney's daughter --- who was not exactly a PUBLIC face during the campaign --- was gay. And they tried it repeatedly.

He mentioned her while DEFENDING homosexuals. That's hardly going to make anyone want to vote for him over Cheney and Bush. Your conspiracy theory has a huge flaw.

 

 

 

No, he didn't. He did it while bitching about Bush's gay marriage proposal. And nobody can explain why the hell Edwards decided to mention it.

 

EDWARDS' mention is what makes it look like a planned-out strategy. That, and Mary Beth Cahill calling her "fair game" afterwards.

I love that Cheney is the only one who "lied" in your eyes. Your article mentioned more than a few from Edwards, just to remind you.

Edwards got 2 things wrong, Cheney got 2,000 things wrong.

Hardly. Edwards claimed Bush cut combat pay. A lie. Edwards job loss figure was a lie. And Edwards was such a lightweight that Cheney didn't remember meeting him. I imagine Boy Wonder is used to that by now.

I'm not a fan of Edwards by any stretch, I'm just saying its hard to win a debate when the other guy makes up facts as he goes along the way Cheney did.

Honestly, if libs such as yourself wish to believe that you lose because the conservatives are mean and "lie" while you do not --- then your side will never win an election again.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

I expected Kerry to knock Bush around from bell to bell, and he didn't. I think anything less than a decisive victory over George W. Bush in a debate is a loss.

I think Bush is an idiot, and even I agree with this. Kerry did a nice job in the first debate, but allowed Bush to pull far too close in the other two to really even consider it decisive.

[SuperJerk 0]

I only said that Cheney's lies allowed him to win the debate, not the election.

 

Lobbing insults at Edwards isn't going to change my opinion of him, because it was already pretty low to begin with. I just don't think the debate was a fair fight, since Cheney's greatest and most remembered line of the night was a lie.

 

Honestly, if libs such as yourself wish to believe that you lose because the conservatives are mean and "lie" while you do not --- then your side will never win an election again.

Ahem.

 

Bush gave better/more involving stump speeches and had better presented convention, while Kerry did a better job in one-on-one debates. I think the majority of Americans felt that while Kerry handled himself better in the debates, they were electing a leader and not a debate team captain, hence the outcome of the election.

 

[Kerry]was asking people to trust he could lead based on plans he never clearly explained and a military record from over 30 years ago, and assuming they'd find him an acceptable alternative to Bush who showed he can lead by actually leading. Bush didn't need to win the debates because the American people know that being a good debater isn't a prerequisite to being President.

[Boon 0]

Bush's best showing was the second debate, in which he showed a greater capacity to seem like a regular person (and WHY people consider that a qualification to be President is a mystery to me)

You don't know much about politics and elections, do you?

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush's best showing was the second debate, in which he showed a greater capacity to seem like a regular person (and WHY people consider that a qualification to be President is a mystery to me)

You don't know much about politics and elections, do you?

You misunderstand my meaning. I understand the psychological reasons for people voting the way they do, I just don't agree with them.

[Boon 0]

I'm glad I misunderstood you, then, because I was afraid you didn't think it was important for a candidate to seem normal.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm glad I misunderstood you, then, because I was afraid you didn't think it was important for a candidate to seem normal.

Its important for a candidate to seem normal to get elected, because voters like people they are comfortable with.

 

But wouldn't it be nice if elections were decided on issues, leadership ability, and intellect, rather than who can seem the most like a "regular guy"?

[Boon 0]

I'm glad I misunderstood you, then, because I was afraid you didn't think it was important for a candidate to seem normal.

Its important for a candidate to seem normal to get elected, because voters like people they are comfortable with.

 

But wouldn't it be nice if elections were decided on issues, leadership ability, and intellect, rather than who can seem the most like a "regular guy"?

Yeah, it would. In a perfect world that's the way it would be.

 

We'd also all be communists and have Jennifer Love Hewitt as our wife.

 

Alas... she escapes me.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Could Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln get elected today? I think not. And that is a tragedy.

[2GOLD 0]

Could Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln get elected today? I think not. And that is a tragedy.

 

I'd hope not, they would be like 300 years old.

You'd have to be a zombie or something.

 

And if they were going against Bush or Kerry....yeah, they would have won. I know third grade math teachers I would have voted for over those two.

[SuperJerk 0]

Could Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln get elected today?  I think not.  And that is a tragedy.

 

I'd hope not, they would be like 300 years old.

You'd have to be a zombie or something.

Or vampires.

 

A vampire president would be cool.

 

He'd have to have his inauguration in doors, of course.