ABC News poll
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:56pm |
I keep hearing that polls are showing Kerry the winner, but in this poll at least, more people feel it was a tie or that Bush was the winner than that Kerry won.
Personally I thought Kerry was the better debater, but when people go back and think about his responses they'll find that he's not said anything different, just polished up the act a bit. He still wants to put the UN in charge of our national security, he still claims both that Saddam was a threat yet insists that Bush misled the American people on that very issue, he still has no plans for Iraq that differ from the president's, aside from his boasting that he will get other countries to share the burden, even though they have repeatedly said they won't no matter who is president, he still claims to be better at building alliances even as he disrepsects the very allies who supported us and disrespects our vital ally Prime Minister Allawi. He claims nuclear proliferation is our biggest threat but he wants to dismantle one of OUR nuclear programs, a "bunker buster" bomb that could be crucial to deterring nuclear strikes for the folks who actually LIVE in bunkers (aka terrorists), so I guess he's still back with those who felt a nuclear freeze was the best way to end the Cold War. After all these years he still doens't understand the doctrine of peace through strength.
Bush as usual did not express himself very well, but his positions are better for the country IMO.

Pages
"I don't believe liberty is just an American desire, I believe it is a universal human desire."
^^^
But you are presuming "liberty" has a universal definition. I would tend to think it does too, but maturity and listening tell me that others feel the AMERICAN definition of liberty is being imposed on them. It's a complicated issue and I imagine very insulting for other sovereign nations who feel America settles for the simplest view possible about every issue, a tunnel-vision, single-angle way of looking at problems in the world.
The argument most of Senator Kerry's supporters have is that there is FAR too much evidence pointing to the fact that Bush rushed in with an agenda and was not straight with the American people. You may not recognize when you are being manipulated, but millions of us do.
You mentioned a fundamental difference between the Senator's supporter's & the President's supporters. The fundamental difference is that we see through the President's artifically-contrived image as a "regular joe" who doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body and always "says it straight" to the American people. Plenty of Americans thought Nixon was being straight with them, and plenty believed Clinton when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman." In hindsight it's obvious that the people who believed them were suckers. I am tired of being a George Bush sucker (and a Karl Rove sucker!) when there is overwhelming evidence of dishonesty & incompetence in the Oval Office. I see every indication that Senator Kerry is an experienced leader who is far more presidential than the president.
go senator go!
"When you are attacked you must respond."
^^^^ newsflash:
Iraq did not attack us. We attacked that nation UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. Don't be one of the people who falls for the Rove-engineered Bush-spin that our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.
Question: Are there any Bush supporters who understand that? Could it be, that is the fundamental difference we are attempting to put our finger on? -- the fact that Senator Kerry supporters believe Bush should be fired for his deadly lies, and Bush supporters are willing to continue believing them?
Who won the debate:
Kerry: 47%
Bush: 38%
Who was more believable
Bush 51%
Kerry 45%
Who was more likeable
Bush 53%
Kerry 42%
Who will do a better job in terms of fighting terrorism
Bush 58%
Kerry 39%
There was one more about the economy, where I cannot remember the figures, but it was within a few % points of each other.
Kerry won the debate as far as speaking goes, and Bush could have done more damage in knocking Kerry further out of the race, if he were better prepared, but it seems as though (at least so far) that Bush was not really hurt by the debate, and Kerry did not gain as much as he had hoped.
I guess we will have to wait for debate 2.
The Vice-Presidential debate should be interesting as Cheney is one of the best public speakers around, and he knows the issues as well as anyone. Edwards is going to have a very tough battle with Cheney.
I try to be civil in politics... most on both sides are good people. Political opinion doesn't mean someone is evil. Yet I am struggling today. Bush is out there blatantly lying about what Kerry said in the debate, and in typical Rove fashion, they are trying desperately to make this all about one thing Kerry said, and not about the entire debate where their guy had his lunch handed to him... in one bite. I can understand the damage control, but I cannot understand the deception, and think it is time they are called on it. The main reason Bush failed in the debate is that he has been making stuff up about Kerry for months, and he actually came to believe it. When Kerry was there looking him in the eye, countering the lies... Bush had no clue what to do. Now, after the event and coached on what to say... he is out there lying. I resist saying what I think of him. Let's just say I have no respect for him.
Edwards is clueless about many of the issues. He was lost in two of the Democratic debates, as he had no idea what the question was about.
If it is purely on the issues, Cheney should make Edwards look unseasoned. I just hope it remains civil. If it is like the VP debate in 2000 it should be interesting, but that one was a little too boring if you ask me.
Yes, I do.
Sorry, don't agree it's all that complicated, and those who are insulted by having liberty "forced " on their people are most likely the ones who wish to deny it to them.
I believe it is you who are being manipulated, quite frankly, by those who would do or say anything to win an election and therefore would rather see us fail in Iraq than show a united front and possibly benefit the reelection hopes of George Bush. I believe we went in partially on wrong intelligence, partially on correct intelligence, I'll even admit partially because George Bush wrongly believed that getting rid of Saddam Hussein would make him a hero around the world, and partially because this administration and many Americans realize that the only way to permanently win the war against terrorism is to bring freedom and prosperity to desperate parts fo the world where hopelessness fosters terrorism. Go ahead and think me simple minded and manipulated, but I really believe those who can't see the long term benefit of a free and democratic Iraq are shortsighted, and those who didn't believe Saddam was threat, well they don't even agree with their own candidate, at least as far as we know this week.
The difference is, Nixon and Clinton were both proven to be liars. Bush has not been proven to have lied about anything.
< I see every indication that Senator Kerry is an experienced leader who is far more presidential than the president
>
Personally I don't choose a president based on how "presidential" they appear. Senator Kerry is an experienced politician, I've seen no evidence that he is an experienced "leader".
Pages