Who won the second debate?

[jn.loudnotes]

My view -

This debate saw the return of the Bushism.  Kerry hit strongly on several points, though he could have done better with others, while Bush faltered repeatedly.  Bush frequently mischaracterized Kerry.  Bush was impolite to the moderator.  Bush couldn't even come up with a mistake he's made in office??!  Come on - even members of his own party are at least able to see that "mistakes were made."

I don't know how you could watch this debate and think Bush the man more qualified to lead the United States.

(disclaimer...as objectively as you can, does of course leave room for bias.  I won't deny that I am biased towards Kerry, but I thought he did a really fantastic job compared to Bush)

[seth]

after 30 mn of debates, Bush was completely knocked down. He was sitting in that chair, defeated. Kerry on the contrary was brilliant, he was the man, he was the president.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Tonight's debate was excellent, the best of the three so far. By having it open to questions both foreign and domestic, from having it be questions from the people, and finally having both candidates (i.e. Bush) on top of their game without the incredible lying and attacking that the VP Debate had, the debate was very helpful.

While I naturally am going to prefer Kerry on policy, the last question was what made the difference in announcing a winner.

Bush was asked to name three decisions he made mistakes on in the past four years. If he answered this honestly and named specific mistakes, even if they were not big ones (something like apologizing for claiming Iraq had WMD when they didn't...yes, it may have been bad intel but it was a mistake.) Instead Bush excused himself from any specific mention other than saying "a few apointments which I will not say the actual names of." One of Bush's main problems has been lack of accountability or stubborness at all costs. He failed to name a mistake he had made earlier this summer and blew another chance to come off as someone who can change his mind when he was wrong.

So if he had answered that question honestly, he would have won the debate. Because he didn't, I give it to Kerry by a nose. If I wanted to be picky I could point out that Kerry sometimes got way off the topic of a question before addressing it, I could talk about Kerry having a bit of a gap when thinking of health problems that stem cell research can cure, I could talk about Bush being impatient in a rebuttal and not letting the moderator clarify what he wanted Bush to speak to. Both made minor errors in that, but were still very strong overall. Like I said, the thing was so close that it really was all about that last question.

I do think this debate will serve to stop the momentum going towards Kerry and it will lock it into the dead even horserace it currently is. However, due to it being a tie I do not think Bush will actually retake a lead.

So I guess I saw it a bit differently from you two, even though I favor Kerry politically. I do not think my saying it was close should be extracted to mean an undecided would see Bush as winning like you might be able to do with Kerry campaign people. Of course maybe my expectations are low and I just needed Bush not to be a complete fool like...the first debate.

[seth]

yes Bondo, Bush was much better than during the first debate, but as you pointed out, he was miserable at that time. But Kerry was much more incisive too, more calm, serious, and had i think more presence than the President.

[*DAMN Bondo]

I thought Kerry's best moment was responding to the loaded question basically about abortion/stem cell issues related to pro-life. I think his answer including respect for religion and basically the subtle show that he is religious but sees a certain divide between that and politics. It is an answer that justifies his position (I also liked him pointing out he wasn't pro-abortion since that is what most pro-life people think of pro-choice people when ironically they are the mislabeled ones and are anti-choice). The end effect to me shows that Kerry will not use emotional wedge issues to divide the country, rather he will unite it in a way Bush not only couldn't do, but made worse.

A point against Bush was on the judicial nominations. Bush said he wouldn't nominate someone who puts personal opinion above what the constitution says. He used the example of saying he wouldn't nominate someone who would rule saying the pledge with "under God" as unconstitutional. The problem with this is that using a strict constructionist view that he is fond of, I think it is perfectly logical to conclude that it is unconstitutional without interjecting personal opinion. I also think a strict constructionist view can see that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against yet I don't think Bush would support such a nominee. So basically Bush was hypocritical, he doesn't want someone who doesn't put personal opinion in their ruling, he wants someone who puts HIS personal opinion into their ruling rather than the opposing opinion. His view which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution in many areas.

Anyway, as I think back, Kerry more securely wins the debate.

["Sixhits"]

Kerry 2, Bush nil.

And when you bring up the Dread Scott decsion, you'd better get it right Pres.

Bush said:

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights."

Dred Scott wasn't based on property rights. It was based on racism.

The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

Nice one Bush.  So he promises Black people won't be considered as property in his next administration -- but, of course, completely misses the point of the case.

[jn.loudnotes]

I guess I lose a little bit of faith in the American public when I watch our president on national television demonstrate so much ignorance, and then they still think he did a better job.

What are you fooled by?  His cockiness?  I was struck several times in the first 45 minutes where Bush's actions made me think incredulously, "wow, he thinks he's actually doing a good job."  This would be right after Kerry ripped into him with a concise, well-thought answer.

Sixhits summed it up.  Yes, there were ups and downs for both candidates - after all, they prepare these things in advance.  But focus on the Supreme Court question, where Bush's reaction clearly indicated he had no preparation.  Notice the lack of his characteristic "thank you" when he gets a question he's practiced.  Notice his nervous (and lame) "I'm not tellin'" joke.  Notice when he tries to give examples, he knows less about American history than the average eighth grader.  NOTICE THAT EVEN THE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT EXAMPLE HE GAVE - DRED SCOTT - WAS WRONG!

[BFG]

I think Kerry just Chalked up another win. whether or not it has any relevence now i wonder...

[*DAMN Bondo]

The polls for this one show Kerry winning just like Edwards and Kerry in the first two debates. MSNBC and CNN by wide margins, Fox News by a narrow margin. One of the staunch, stupid, Republicans on another forum I post at actually said that Kerry made him/her less scared about Kerry winning than before. So if nothing, at least Kerry is making the Republicans who are fervently for Bush not be anti-Kerry. Maybe if Kerry pulls this off we can actually have some uniting of politics.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

The CNN poll i saw said that both were around the same.