Last night's presidential debate
We want to hear your reactions to last night's presidential debate. Who won? Who lost? Was the format successful? Was the subject matter relevant? Share your thoughts.
Page 5
George Bush is sounding less and less convincing, and looking more and more like a desperate man as he faces an opponent who has an impressive command of the issues, and an unflappable presence. Bush is left parroting the same, often discredited, claims and "gotcha" points. What I'm most curious about at this point is, whose voice is in his earpiece -- Karl Rove or Karen Hughes?
David, Portland OR
I was struck by the contrasting priorities of the two candidates in the third presidential debate. President Bush frequently didn’t say much of substance and didn’t defend his record of job losses, decrease in real wages, and increased health care costs. The flu vaccine shortage is a perfect example of bureaucratic complacency that will almost certainly cause thousands of American deaths this winter, yet the President did not seem overly concerned about this issue. The truth of the matter is, he is not very concerned about most domestic problems and hasn’t been for the past 44 months. He said he came to Washington to solve America’s problems, but we seem to have more problems than ever. His party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, yet they have made no progress on reforming Social Security, increasing health care coverage, reducing poverty, cleaning up the environment, creating jobs, controlling energy costs, or making a college education more accessible to average Americans. The fact is, they haven’t tried very hard to do these things, and it seems to me that the President and his party just don’t care very much about helping Americans have a better life. John Kerry seems honestly and sincerely to want to help people in this country have a better life. We can’t know at this point if his plans will succeed or fail, but at least he will make the attempt. Senator Kerry may not reach all his goals, but Bush’s past performance indicates he will not even try. There is no question in my mind that Kerry is the better choice, and I hope for all our sakes he can succeed.
Sherry, Huntsville
I think that Kerry was more articulate and concise. On a couiple of occasions, Bush ran up against the time limit. Allthough Bush did not stutter as much as he did during the first debiate, he still stuttered on a few occasions.
Mark, Marion, Mass
I'll be right up front - I am a Bush supporter. Bush can not speak eloquently, period. Kerry knows how to wins debates, period. But do I want my taxes increased? NO. Do I want a candidate who hasn't done anything the past 20 years in the Senate? NO. Do I care about any of the two's previous military record? NO. Do both parties play the politics game? YES. The most important question is, WHY CAN'T THE RED SOX BEAT THE YANKEES?????????????????
DADDY, Boston
Kerry won the debate, mainly because he was truthful on the most serious issues, while Bush was misleading. One example: When Kerry said, "Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, 'Where is Osama bin Laden?' He [Bush] said, 'I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.'" If you go to the web site listed below, you'll find in a press conference transcript that Bush said regarding Osama bin Laden: "He's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized...I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html "President Bush Holds Press Conference - Press Conference by the President - The James S. Brady Briefing Room - 4:00 P.M. EST --March 13, 2002 Q Mr. President [sic], in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of -- THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you..."
Carla, Ft. Worth, TX
Pretty much a tie. I thought Bush was more down-home; Kerry more statesmanlike. Pretty much both vague on the issues. What it seems to boil down to is a statement of each other's vision.
Richard, Tucson
Bush should not be proud of his record. What has he done for 4 years? He only starts to talk about the issues that are vital to Americans now because Kerry has at this time. Most Americans could not survive through another Bush term. Bush only cares about the wealthy and his record proves this fact.
Fred, Agawam
Kerry has some new ideas and I am willing to take a chance on him. Bush doesn't seem to be able to think outside the box. And Bush sort of said "trust me" and I have heard that from him too much already. He said there would be 125,000 Iraqi troups by the end of this year. Yeah Right! "Trust me" again. Bush should have had more accomplishments to cite. I just remembered - we changed presidents during WWII, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war. I think it will be OK to do that again.
Tom, canoga park
Your city is as delusional about Kerry as you are about your baseball team. How can anyone believe what this man says. If you seperate yourself from party preferences and honestly look at the quality of the canidate you must believe that anyone would be better than Kerry. Lieberman Clark or whoever. For those that have watched this election procees over the last year you have to realize that Kerry has been all over the place. he has no core values other than to get elected. It matters little what he has said in the debate if you can not believe him over the last year.George Bush has sufficent weakness that could be explioted but only if you can believe the other canidate will do and offer a viable alternative.The dems have short changed thier base by pandering to the looney left instead of offering viable canidates the appeal to the main steam voter. The format was fine the questions decent but that means nothing if you have a person that even his honest critics and supporters do not know where he is comming from. ( example Don Imus). Just like the Sox loss last night Pedro is at a 100 pitch count and Grady Little still leaves him in and bam a home run. I know that Tony is in the dugout but the Grady Little thought process is still running the club. Same result as a yank fan I am loving it about as much as Karl Rove is enjoying going up a gainst a Mike Dukakis that looks like John Kerry. The is something going wrong at Fenway and the DNC. As George Patton said " if everyone is thinking alike then nobody is thinking"
Pete, Fredericksburg Va.
PRESIDENT DID JUST GREAT. KERRY ONCE AGAIN LIED ABOUT HIS RECORD. I AM FROM MA PLEASE REMEMBER HE HAS DONE ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING FOR HIS HOME STATE WHAT DO YOU THINGK HE IS GOING TO DO FOR THE COUNTRY. GET PRETTY SICK OF LISTENING TO HIM ABOUT BEING A CATHOLIC HE DOSE NOT EVEN FOLLOW THE FIRST RULE OF A CATHOLIC...
Patricia, Brockton
