The 2004 Presidential Debates: A brief history

[Nash]

I was led to believe by a few here that the Bush of the last 4 years wasn't the real Bush, and that the real Bush would emerge during the debates. As if some reptilian portion of his brain, lying dormant in its host, would rise up and show the world who the real Bush was; intelligent, aware of his surroundings, and possessing more than a passing knowledge of how words are formed, assembled and coherently presented.

During the 1st debate we saw a man rattled, confused and completely out of his element. He looked (and there's really no other way to put it) pathological.

During the 2nd debate, we saw a man judo-chopping every point he tried to make, all but leaping across the stage to strangle Charlie Gibson, while the crowd nervously braced themselves as Bush began to morph into a man-sized blister on the verge of exploding wide open.

During the 3rd debate, we saw a combination of both of these characters. Reduced to emphasizing his oft repeated talking points by banging on the podium. Fumbling even on the softballs. And, you might say, a man pleading for his job. Frustrated by the fact that he couldn't explain why he deserved it. Frustrated that he would even be required to explain himself in the first place.

This is the man representing the United States of America? This is the character of a man holding the highest office in the land?

The question is, if the real George Bush didn't materialize during the last two weeks, then when - if ever - will he?

Also, sum up your impressions of the debates overall.

Also, talk about anything ya want to...

[ra]

I like cheese.

[IK0N]

<<<>>>

[GtoRA2]

Ahhh the world acording to Nash..

It could be a sit com.

[IK0N]

Nash
 I picked up several tickets to see Bush next tuesday...your welcome to come along if you'd like! But if not ill take my camera and snap some stills for your collection...

IKON

[NUKE]

Bush came across as human and likeable. Look at his responses to the personal questions in the last debate.

He was asked about his relationship with his wife. He gave a heartfelt, honest description of his love and respect for his wife and daughter.

What did Kerry say? He said "I married up" then went on to talk about his mother. Very shallow.

The question about "weather you believe homosexuality was a choice" Another golden Bush answer...very honest and heartfelt.

What did Kerry do? Take a cheap shot at Cheney's daughter ( for no reason I could see)
 
Bush easily comes across as honest and willing to do what he thinks is the right thing to do to protect American interests, regardless of weather or not it is "popular". Bush has proven he has what it takes to lead America, Kerry has not. Bush is a known stong leader, Kerry is not.

Kerry likes to point out all the bad things that have happened "because of Bush" and likes to say he would have done this different or that better, yet what has Kerry ever done?

Bush lead this country through 911 better than anyone I could have imagined in his place.

911 led to almost 2 million jobs lost AFTER having been in a recession before he took office. How would Kerry have changed this?

The airline industry was devastated by 911 and had to be bailed out by the government at the cost of probably billions....what would Kerry have done to prevent this?

The cost of 911...all of them (Homeland security, war, economy, jobs) caused the US to spend our surplus and go into deficit. What would Kerry have done? Spend the money needed and run a deficit as needed? He would ( by his record ) have increased taxes and KILLED our economy.

Inspite of all of this, the US economy has been on the recovery and we got out of the recession in near record time.

Bush is a leader Kerry is a mouse, plain and simple.

[Neubob]

I find fault with this whole premise.

Debates are no measure of leadership ability. They're no measure of a man's talent for making decisions. They're no measure of aptitude for decisive, logical action. The only thing they measure is the ability of a person to speak, regurgitate previously voiced opinion and consolidate previously established facts into some sort of package that is palatable to the average member of a given audience.

In this sense, yes, J.F. Kerry is better than Bush.

The first debate showed us a G. Bush that was out of his element, but it also showed us a patronizing, smug Senator Kerry that was bold enough to make critical comments that could have as easily been leveled against himself (namely, the military spendings cut).

But in subsequent debates Bush improved, and greatly, in my opinion. He showed an ability to adapt to the tactics of a guy who was far more experienced in the art of voicing politcal rhetoric to a live audience--and please don't make the mistake that these debates were anything greater.

Remember, these debates are also not reflective of either of the men's abilities to think individually. They have countless assistents and spin doctors coaching them... Coaching them on the tactics of looking and sounding better. At the end of the day, we should elect a leader based on his character and his past history, not on how his words come across before an audience. If we chose to look at the latter for insights into a potential leader's character, we shouldn't be electing politicians, we should be electing speech writers.

After the debates, my one belief stands unchanged. I trust Bush moreso than I trust Kerry. I do not particularly care for either, although as I mentioned before, I'd readily get drunk with both of them.

[montag]

Debates are no measure of leadership ability. They're no measure of a man's talent for making decisions. They're no measure of aptitude for decisive, logical action. The only thing they measure is the ability of a person to speak, regurgitate previously voiced opinion and consolidate previously established facts into some sort of package that is palatable to the average member of a given audience.

No debates are not the defacto measure of a leader. Debates are a measure of critical thinking combined with articulation. However it is a skill and it is a valuable skill of a leader as well as decision making which is also important in debates. It does matter and is a measure of some aspect of leadership. All great political leaders (not the napolean type) are great debators  and communicate well to the masses.

I hate to say it but your making excuses for his bad performance. Its clear that Kerry out performed him. This is a form of  intellectual welfare.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by montag
No debates are not the defacto measure of a leader. Debates are a measure of critical thinking combined with articulation. However it is a skill and it is a valuable skill of a leader as well as decision making which is also important in debates. It does matter and is a measure of some aspect of leadership. All great political leaders (not the napolean type) are great debaters  and communicate well to the masses.

I hate to say it but your making excuses for his bad performance. Its clear that Kerry out performed him. This is a form of  intellectual welfare.

Well stated, Mr. Montag. I assent to the fact that these debates are a form of intellectual warfare, but I'm not sure how important this particular form of intelligence, and there are many, this job requires. Plus, as I said before, the words of the candidates, now more than ever, are the products of their support staff. What I am interested in as far as a president goes is not the wordsmiths and speech coaches but the administration itself. To say that a effective debater probably has good leadership abilities  is like saying that an effective lawyer is probably a person possessing high morals and ethical purity.

I am biased, but having listened to Kerry's words, I was not once overwhelmed by a sensation that I was getting glimpses of a brighter future. He was not the breath of fresh air that so many claim we need, at least not to me. He was a man pandering to his audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, avoiding specifics and making frequent attacks.

I've said before that I believe that candidates for high office are nothing but 3-dimensional amalgamations of their constituents' needs and insecurities. Never before have I gotten this sense more than from Kerry. Bush, against all odds, came across as emotional, human, even. Perhaps this is nothing but a product of my bias, as he DOES represent my needs and insecurities moreso than his opponent, but the human aspect denotes depth.

But back to the issue of debates... These two men took turns walking down the proverbial political catwalk. I know this because the analysts spent as much time talking about their composure and their facial expressions and their liquid consumption as they did about the depth of the responses. This was a vanity test, which is important in modern politics, but it does nothing to sway my views.

[Torque]

Stupid on the stage, smart on strategy, sure.

[montag]

Originally posted by Neubob
To say that a effective debater probably has good leadership abilities  is like saying that an effective lawyer is probably a person possessing high morals and ethical purity.

What I said was that good leaders also are able to debate well, communicate well. Its an important skill in dealing with another person or many people. Last part was stereotyping.

I am biased, but having listened to Kerry's words, I was not once overwhelmed by a sensation that I was getting glimpses of a brighter future. He was not the breath of fresh air that so many claim we need, at least not to me. He was a man pandering to his audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, avoiding specifics and making frequent attacks.

Let me ask you something then. Are your own goals in voting for a leader different to the agendas that Kerry has been promoting.

I've said before that I believe that candidates for high office are nothing but 3-dimensional amalgamations of their constituents' needs and insecurities. Never before have I gotten this sense more than from Kerry. Bush, against all odds, came across as emotional, human, even. Perhaps this is nothing but a product of my bias, as he DOES represent my needs and insecurities moreso than his opponent, but the human aspect denotes depth.

I admit that character is hard to judge in an hour of watching someone. There are people who are suppose to good at judging character but I think its difficult due to the complexity of people. Especially two people with long lives and histories as Kerry and Bush. However, forget the swift boats vs kerry thing for a moment. Anyone who was born into a better life and went to a better school then volunteered for service and a second for combat service passes my character test.

But back to the issue of debates... These two men took turns walking down the proverbial political catwalk. I know this because the analysts spent as much time talking about their composure and their facial expressions and their liquid consumption as they did about the depth of the responses. This was a vanity test, which is important in modern politics, but it does nothing to sway my views.

Its showbiz but it still matters.

[DREDIOCK]

The only thing I REALLY learned about either men in the debates is they both have the equal ability to either understate or overstate the facts depending on what position they are taking.

and Kerry is real good on making promises he cant possibly hope to afford let alone keep

[Toad]

The "who won" is pretty subjective, I think. Depends on the listener and the listeners preconceptions.

Beyond that, are debates THE factor in the election? Are they even a major factor?

Standby... the only poll that counts is just around the corner.

For now, gaze deeply into this poll summary and devine the truth.

[Nash]

What are "trial heats?"

[Toad]

I believe that's their way of saying "we asked people who they'd vote for in a multi-candidate race including Bush and Kerry".