Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm an Australian, so what on earth was Bush going on about in the third debate with his multiple references to armies of compassion? I just read the transcript, it seems like it's code for something I'm missing, and it sounds "faith based". Psychobabble

Excellent question. I'm American, and follow the news closely, and tonight was the first I've heard this Orwellian phrase. A Google turned up this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/faithbased.html. Bds yahoo 05:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That page is non-info :) I'd like to know what they really are... Psychobabble
Point taken. :) Bds yahoo 04:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it too early to note that Kerry won?  :) Just kidding, of course the article can't really say that, though The Daily Show basically said the same thing -- Jon Stewart seemed amazed that Rudy Giuliani thought Bush won, and Wesley Clark claimed Kerry won (both were guests). Some googling doesn't reveal any other suitably prominent people claiming one way or another (some blogs, but I don't know enough to know which are prominent enough for Wikipedia). Stewart could be noted, but I guess it's too early. In the morning, there will be dozens of opinions available. I'm probably just antsy because I quit smoking today and this whole nicotine patch thing is clearly a bunch of bullshit, so I'm trying to keep my mind on anything but cigarettes. Grr... Don't cross me tonight, Wikipedians, or I will have you all killed... Tuf-Kat 05:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the daily show is not the most nonpartisan political source... But please don't kill me.

I think we should hold off for a while on assessing the first night... but until then, drink up if you're a kerry fan.

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE

Kerry: 53 Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 44 Bush: 26 Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 45 Bush 36: Tie: 17

Mort Kondracke: “This is the President's turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.”

Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online’s the Corner: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive."

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's the Corner: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night."

Bob Schieffer: “The President was somewhat defensive in the beginning”

Mark Shields: "The President showed a few times obvious anger"

Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: “I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate.”

Bob Schieffer: “Kerry got off to a very good start.”

Joe Scarborough: “It was John Kerry’s best performance ever…As far as the debate goes, I don’t see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry.” (MSNBC)

Andrea Mitchell: “This is the toughest we’ve ever seen John Kerry. He attacked the very core of the President’s popularity. He’s basically saying, who do you believe?” (MSNBC)

Tim Russert: “Tonight he seemed to find his voice for the Democratic view of the world.”

Fred Barnes on FNC: "Kerry did very well and we will have a Presidential race from here on out."

- JohnKerry.com --kizzle 06:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Not the first 2004 debate.

The debate tonight (9/30/04) keeps being referred to as the "first" Presidential debate of 2004. There was a Presidential debate prior to this though (9/06/04). However, both President Bush and Senator Kerry declined the invitation. Mr. Badnarik running under the Libertarian Party ticket and Mr. Cobb running under the Green Party ticket both attended. A direct link to a Real Player verion of the C-SPAN event can be found here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04090604_third.rm.

Putting the facts aside for a minute I'm going to go into non-NPOV mode and say that the September 6th Presidential debate was much more informative than the one on Sept. 30th. The latter seemed more like an infomercial. Dustin Asby 09:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transcripts of debates

Would it be possible to include a transcript of the debate(s when more have been done) or at least a link to a website with one? Chewyman 22:45, 1 Oct 2004

See 2004_U.S._presidential_election_debates#Transcripts (where currently there is a transcript of the September 30 debate) ~leif ☺ HELO 19:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, thanks. Chewyman 22:39, 2 Oct 2004

[edit] Kerry clearly won the debate

I don't support either candidate although between the two I prefer Bush. Kerry definitely won, because Bush failed to challenge any of Kerry's "points", and kept repeating his flip-flop mantra but not in those words. Bush seemed non-plussed by Kerry's hubris and did not know how to respond. Kerry contended he would have gotten everything right, from forming a better coalition, planning better for the occupation of Iraq, to using America's best forces instead of Afghani's to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. What is the proper debate response to someone who confidently states the hypothetical without any evidentiary basis that he would have done better?

Bush could have stated that Kerry was wrong about what he would have done, that Kerry would still be negotiating with the Taliban to try to get them to turn over Bin Laden, that if Kerry had attacked Afghanistan using American forces instead of special ops with the Northern Alliance that casualties would have been much higher. In answer to Kerry's insistance that Bin Laden was the real enemy, Bush could have countered that even though Bin Laden was not captured or killed, that he is effectively neutralized, like all Al Quada, except those in Iraq, he is having to keep his head down. In Iraq, al Quada is going against hardened military targets instead of innocent US civilians, etc.

When Kerry mentioned the CIA's negative estimate of the situation, Bush could have pointed out that pre-war intelligence also mentioned civil war as a potentential result of the invasion, just as the most recent estimate has, and yet despite this his policies have successfully avoided it to this point and despite the terrorist attacks most Iraqis are already living a better life and far fewer are dying than under the sanctions and Saddam.

Kerry also promised he would do much better than Bush in the future. An easy thing to contend and difficult to contest. Perhaps Bush should have used sarcasm, suggesting the Kerry with his international diplomatic skills should not even bother getting Germany and France in the coalition, when obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition. --Silverback 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bush didn't say all that because that's not his views, that's his neo-conservative cabinet's views, so it's hard to get it all right sometimes. And Kerry wanted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, don't present a straw man, he wouldn't have negotiated with the Taliban, that's not what he said. What he said was why the hell are we in Iraq after Saddam Hussein in response to 9-11 when he had nothing to do with it or had "any working relationship" with Al Qaeda? Doesn't mean he wouldn't have used military forces in Afghanistan. Interesting poll, I guarentee life will be better for Iraqis in long run, but as the job we are doing, 42% would elect Saddam Hussein again if they could...(I think Newsweek did it... not sure, google saddam's lawyer and Iraqi election) not a good indication. As for "Obviously he could get al Quaeda themselves to join the coalition"... has Ann Coulter signed up for Wikipedia? Bin Laden *is* the real enemy, but more importantly, Al Qaeda is. Exactly what does Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda? (and if you mention "The Connection" the book I will slap you) :) --kizzle 18:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Bush did negotiate with the Taliban, are you sure Kerry wouldn't have done it better? The Taliban did in the end refuse to turn over Bin Laden and give up being a haven for terrorists. Iraq has Al Qaeda now, the lebanese guy that is doing all the beheadings who arrive there before the war began and was given sanctuary and medical treatment. He definitely is more active than Bin Laden. In the debate Kerry also claimed that he MIGHT have been able to stop 9/11 if he had been president. That was the most falibility and humility he showed all night, other than when he said he had not explained his positions well. 20/20 hindsight and the bluster to claim he will do a better job than Bush was all the substance there was to his arguments. It is embarrassing that Bush couldn't respond on his feet, but then debates are not really good ways to assess presidents, better would be reasoned arguments in writing by teams lead by each candidate--Silverback 19:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Iraq has Al Qaeda *now* because *we* invaded Iraq. We did not invade Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, rather Al Qaeda came to Iraq to fight us. It is not so far-off to say Kerry claimed he MIGHT have been able to stop Al Qaeda ... Aug 6 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" ... I don't see your point about falibility and humility, why would a candidate field their humility rather than strength? I like your idea of reasoned arguments, but I would want them written by the presidents themselves rather than a speechwriter. The debate is the only chance you get to see the candidates themselves without any filter from their handlers. And Bin Laden may or may not be contained, the point is that by invading Iraq, we obviously have not learned our lesson against guerilla warfare with a foreign country. Look at Vietnam for us. Look at Afghanistan (1980's) with the Soviets against the mujahideen and Bin Laden. I don't see how anyone could possibly justify the war in Iraq as a response to either terror in general or 9/11. If it was terror, why did we pull troops off Afghanistan? Why did we invade Iraq when North Korea and at least a dozen countries were far more prime targets if the criteria was "dictator with weapons of mass destruction"? We were led into Iraq because "the enemy attacked us"? Iraq did not attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. I think that was Kerry's best point, and it's hard for Bush to come up with a retort besides holding the red flag that says "FLIP-FLOP FLIP-FLOP!" --kizzle 20:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Strength without evidence and credibility is just bluster. Kerry claims he would not have made any mistakes, when before 9/11 he had consistently voted against intelligence and military strength. He claims he would have been strong and resolute, when he has a history of wanting to defer to foreign and international authority such as the International Court and the UN. He expects us to believe he would have persuaded the UN to support us in Iraq when Bush couldn't? What is he relying upon, the objectivity of the UN? If the UN had been objective they would not have let their emotions against Bush get in the way. Is he relying upon the UN's corruption? What is he going to do, bribe them like Saddam did in the Oil for Food program? Iraq was the best choice, because it was the most credible threat. Saddam was a character we could not trust, a loose canon with oil wealth who was already tying down part of our air force that we would need against a stronger oponent such as Iran or Korea, who was financing terrorism against Israel, who had tried to assassinate a former president and who we had no reason to believe he wouldn't help al Qaeda attack the US, if he could do so without consequences to himself. France and Germany could have kept the inspections and sanctions going if they had wanted to, all they would have had to do was start bearing a significant amount of the costs of bringing Saddam to the table. It was the US having to bear the costs of the troop build up, and France and Germany were not helping at all, there is no reason to believe they would ever help. Korea was isolatable and had incredible conventional forces holding Seoul, Korea hostage, the civilian casualties there would have been tremendous. We are in a better position against Iran now because we have a base in Iraq right in the center of the seething cauldron of Islamic fundamentalism, and we have reestablished some of the credibility of the UN sanctions. Iraq is arguably the most just war the US has EVER fought. We didn't purposely target civilain infrastructure, like we did in Serbia, the first gulf war and WWII. We did not target just innocent Iraqi conscripts but went after the responsible "authorities", the Saddam regime. Remember the slaughter in the bunkers of Kuwait in the first gulf war, remember how careful to avoid damage to civilain infrastructure we were in this war. Although our motives were as pure in the Vietnam, in this war we were using a volunteer professional force instead of innocent conscript civilians. We also used immoral conscription methods in the Korean conflict, WWII, WWI, the civil war and the revolutionary wars. Our allies in this war are better, mostly volunteer professional armies. We fought on Stalin's side in WWII. One really can't credibly oppose this war unless one is a pacifist. If you are not a pacifist then what war that was fought by moral means do you think was justified? They hypocrisy of having conscripts fight for "freedom" is palpable.--Silverback 01:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A war, while rarely justified in my opinion, is justifiable when there is a clear danger to the US, or more realistically in foreign conflicts that could tide later on. Look at Afghanistan in the 80's, which was a key component in bringing down the Soviet Union because it simply overspent in trying to expand its communist influence. We only spent 3 billion dollars, trained mujahideen, and as a result struck a devastating blow against a superpower who we were fighting with for over 40 years. The first Iraq War, while questionable in our true motives and Saudi Arabia, was to prevent Saddam from controlling an extreme share of the world's oil supply (although I think it had more to do with our ties to Saudis). However, this war was justified to us because:

  1. Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda (Steven Hayes, The Connection) (Deputy Defense Douglas Feith's report)
  2. Weapons of Mass Destruction
  3. Imminent threat to the U.S.

The only problem is that 1 is not true by any stretch. They had no working relationship, Cheney on the debate corrected himself (even though he had said the opposite on tape before) and said there was no relationship. The 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no working relationship". And like I said before, Al Qaeda came to Iraq to fight us, they weren't there before we stated our intent to preemptively invade Iraq. We all know 2 is incorrect if you read the Kay report. And what proof can you provide that we were ever in imminent danger from Iraq?

My primary problem is that we were going to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. I personally know my best friend's dad who is high up in the army who was told at the beginning of the Administration, that "In 2 years, get ready for Iraq, we're going in"... when he told me that I said that's BS, but when Richard Clarke's and Paul O'Neill's book I started to believe it. In addition, you have a cabinet consisting of most members of Project for a New American Century which advocates invading Iraq since 1998. Thus, we were going in before terrorism ever was a problem.

Finally, the justification you provide for invading Iraq applies to so many countries, what are we going to do, invade them all? Do you *seriously* think that by invading a string of muslim countries we are not going to set off some serious chains of consequences? We can't fight everyone before the muslim world unites against us. And one more thing, we pulled off troops from Aghanistan early in order to invade Iraq. That is wrong no matter how you spin it. Who do you think is a more important target, Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? One is a leader of a country with no weapons of mass destruction, one is a leader of a worldwide movement devoted towards killing America and has already killed 3000 *Americans*. I'll report, you decide. --kizzle 18:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone into why justification in more detail in Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Saddam before the Iraq war was more of a threat than Osama bin Laden as he was then and is now, only a figurehead leader in hiding. I did believe we were headed for war with Iraq before 9/11 and that would have been justified both by his violations of sanctions, his attempted assassination of Bush 1 and his WMD programs that were ready to start up (recall the "clean" mobile biological labs). His character and resources were such, that even before the reality of terror was brought home on 9/11, he could be expected to try further attacks if he thought he could get a way with them. In my opinion we were already at war, I know if he had imposed a no fly zone on us, we would have considered it an act of war, no matter how many other nations had blessed it. Frankly, I think sanctions are an act of war, the bright moral line is between persuasion and threat, not between threat and war. Threats entail war every so often and a gun to someones head is wrong, even if you don't pull the trigger every time.--Silverback 19:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq had to be dealt with, that is something which we all can agree. But the new CIA WMD report confirms that sanctions were effective, in that his nuclear ability was deteriorating, he had *no* WMDs, and that he had no capability at the time to produce them. And so far there is nothing shown that the 3 justifications to go to war given above, none of them turned out to be true. Realistically, I think Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wanted a US controlled state in the Middle East, not just a sympathetic ally in Israel. It makes sense... after the Cold War, Islamic Fundamentalism is the greatest threat to American safety, and the biggest fear that our administration has is the warring factions in various middle eastern states allying together to form an alliance which aligns against us through islamic fundamentalism and our not-so-good record with muslim countries. Why do you think we've supported the House of Saud all this time? Because if they fall, a new movement will take over which will be far less sympathetic to American values. But this does not mean you get to lie to the American people just to accomplish your political aims in foreign interests. The fact that he was a brutal dictator was NOT the reason we went to war. And if I'm not mistaken Colon Powell has since apologized for misleading the public with the clean (no quotations) mobile biological labs. --kizzle 23:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

No capability to produce them? What happened to the mobile labs. I thought they could be spun up to produce biological weapons in a few months?
You must be joking. Don't try telling me you haven't heard. Been drinking too much of that Fox Kool Aid, huh? --Ropers
No--I hadn't heard. It sounds like a capability that might be mistaken for a biological lab by the early non-experts. Is the guardian a reliable source? What methods were being used to generate the hydrogen, I'm interested in alternate energy sources.
I had read the pipa.org "study" before and consider it poorly designed and the incorrectly used by persons such as yourself to cast aspersions upon Fox. Consider the issue of whether Iraq gave "substantial" support to al Qaeda or not, that is a value judgement, not a factual misperception. Giving medical care and sanctuary to al Zaquari (sp?) might be viewed as substantial to some without any factual misperception. The misperception of European opinion may not reflect negatively upon Fox at all, Fox may be presenting exactly the same facts on european opinion as PBS, but they might have different self selected audiences. What people care about also impacts what they will pay attention to and retain, the Fox viewers might not care much about European opinion, but have fewer misperceptions about the stock market, while PBS viewers may be just the opposite. I did not consider the PIPA "study" to be good science, although it wanted to masquerade as such. I doubt errors such as this could have survived peer review.--Silverback 04:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The sanctions weren't working, because they weren't giving the world the assurances the UN sought, and the blame is squarely on Saddam Hussein, the documents his regime produced and the "cooperation" with the inspectors did not meet the required standards.Saddam could easily have avoided the war, just open up in such a way that was clear that no one was under any pressure to hide anything. Unfortunately his past behavior was such that his word was not enough, but that would have been no barrier if he had opened up. I think he could have bargained harder and had the most wonderful opportunity that any leader ever had for his people. I think he could have offered to open up his country and to disband his military in exchange a guarantee of his borders and a certain income. His could become the first people to have to bear no self defense expenditures and to have their human rights internationally enforced. If only some entity could credibly offer the US this.--Silverback 00:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no working relationship with Al Qaeda. These were the reasons given to us to go to war and they all were false. Not just false now, but shaky from the very beginning. This isn't monday-morning quarterbacking, this is holding our administration responsible for their actions. --kizzle 21:33, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, are you willing to hold Saddam responsible for any actions? He could have come clean. Do you know of any good sites where we can have this discussion, I'd love to see if we could reach agreement.--Silverback 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This isn't really about the article, so please take it to private e-mail if you want to continue. This isn't the purpose of talk pages. Tuf-Kat 05:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup poll

Is there a more objective and less controversial source for polling results to use in the main article? Gallup has been discredited as biased at worst, and controversial at best. Stbalbach 22:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? You might post it at the Gallup wiki page, to which this article links, and readers can come to their own conclusions. Bds yahoo 20:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

Shouldn't the year be at the end of the title, not at the beginning? See U.S. presidential election, 2004 and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (years in titles) - GuloGuloGulo 18:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Kizzle's Edits (or, this page lacks real content)

Kizzle writes in his edit summary that the information about Bush's kidding around, during the second debate, about his demeanor in the first debate might not belong here at all*. Excuse me? If anything, this page is desperately in need of factual information about the content of each debate, instead of this cable-news-driven obsession with poll results. It is symptomatic that we have questions from the moderators, but none of the responses. The page goes from questions asked to poll results, without any attention to the substance of the debate. I know there are links to transcripts, but then why include the questions (which are also in the transcripts), or for that matter why include the poll results (which are available from linked articles)? This article should be at least as concerned with the substance of the debates as it is with the viewers' reactions and the pre-selected questions; as it reads, it is superficial and cable-news-ish.Bds yahoo 20:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • [Incidentally, I tried to phrase this fact in a way that I hoped was sensitive to both sides of the political divide, only alluding to "scowling" demeanor (and not some synonym) because it is close to the word Bush himself used, etc.]
All I did was move it to a different section, I didn't remove it. You placed it under polls section, which I don't think it belongs. --kizzle 21:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say you removed it. But in your edit summary you wrote it belongs in a different section "if it belongs here at all." Please explain that remark. Bds yahoo 21:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your line definetely did not belong in the polls section, and as it stands there is no section for discussion of content as it stands, thus without a proposition for a new section I did not see any place for your line to go, however I didn't want to just rv you so I just put it in an "other" section. I don't necessarily have a problem with fleshing out content, see how other editors feel.--kizzle 21:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Third Party Debates

I noticed the second listed third-party debate said the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties were present. I have the c-span video and I don't see Peroutka, so I removed that party from the list. I also added information about the October 6th debate. Is the first listed debate appropriate for the page? Candidates hadn't been nominated at that point. --Thorne 03:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis section needs fleshing out

Can whoever started the analysis section please flesh out more than simply Bush's view on Supreme Court. An analysis section should cover key highlights of both people's sides and choice quotes, if you insist on having an analysis section please fill it out with much more than you have and in a balanced manner to both candidates. --kizzle 06:48, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

You know how to type, Kizzle. Contribute. Bds yahoo 12:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
chill out. --kizzle 17:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
You're really good at telling people what to do. Bds yahoo 21:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
bds I apologize if I offended you in some way, seems like you're a bit testy :) --kizzle 04:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
I added a bit to the Dred Scott and Roe v Wade parallel --Thames

[edit] Pen is Mightier...

Can somebody (perhaps Glenn Willen, since he made the edit) explain how bringing a pen was a violation of the rules? Both sides were seen writing down notes, so I don't get this. Unless there was some rule that candidates could not use their own pens, only those provided, in which case that should be stated in the article, for clarity. Bds yahoo 19:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, added citation to Memorandum of Understanding for pen rule. Also removed some stuff I added earlier which I now feel is extraneous and potentially POV; it is up to the reader to decide whether Kerry's removal of a pen from his jacket, in technical violation of the MOU, is "cheating" or not. (Obviously not in spirit, but I now think it would be extraneous to say that.) Glenn Willen (Talk) [[]] 23:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Bush and Kerry debating?

I was thinking of adding this image of President Bush and Senator Kerry debating to the main page: [1] What do you think? Should I upload it? --Blue387 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're still around, that looks like a nice picture... just make sure to re-size before you upload. --kizzle 21:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am still here. How do I resize it? --Blue387 22:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll download and re-size it when I get a chance. --kizzle 22:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why why poland?

This section seems to be a bit extraneous to the subject. We need an entire sub-article for one line from his speech? And no, this isn't the same prominance as the infamous 16 words on yellowcake from Africa. --kizzle 21:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Cheney

wasn't there a controversey over kerry's statements about mary cheney? all the republicans were going crazy about kerry "outing" her, then the democrats were going on about how the republicans were "ashamed" of her, if i remember rite. Xunflash 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

MC was already out, they were just complaining about her being mentioned. Schizombie 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless DU Reference Under "Controversy"

I've removed the pointless reference to the Democratic Underground poster from the controversy section. It seems very unlikely to me that most people would consider that random forum posts from indeterminate users constitute encyclopedic material. --208.41.98.142 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_presidential_election_debates%2C_2004_4349.html"