2nd Debate Post-Debate Debate.

[michaeledward]

michael, why were you bothered? was it because a citizen, and a female mind you, has different view on this issue from yours? there is good reason this issue has not been resolved politically, and comes up for debate in more years than i care to remember... people have strong and justifiable rationale for both ends of the debate.

kerry did his best impression yet of mario cuomo, and i feel lost ground on that... as opposed to bush, who stood by his convictions (or perhaps those of his supporters)...

I was bothered because, I believe the question can be asked from a public policy point of view. When questions are asked in with the assumed negative, it introduces 'BIAS'. I understand this is how these individuals feel, and the town hall type debate will bring these personal opinions out, but good policy is not necessarily based on personal convictions.

Do you think Senator Kerry did not have convictions? Or is it that Bush's convictions are correct, and Kerry's convictions are incorrect?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

michael, why were you bothered? was it because a citizen, and a female mind you, has different view on this issue from yours? there is good reason this issue has not been resolved politically, and comes up for debate in more years than i care to remember... people have strong and justifiable rationale for both ends of the debate.

kerry did his best impression yet of mario cuomo, and i feel lost ground on that... as opposed to bush, who stood by his convictions (or perhaps those of his supporters)...

pete

I think Kerry stood by his convictions - I think it's odd that, when new evidence (or the fact that previous "evidence" was lacking) comes to light, it's considered "unleaderlike" to consider or re-consider the evidence. And it's funny that congressmen and congresswomen are apparently supposed to keep voting for the same bill, even when it has been substantially altered.

I think the abortion/stem cell issue is way too confused - people assume that supporting stem cell research means "supporting" abortions, which is SO not the case.

And it's frustruating when people pick out one issue and say "I *don't* want my tax dollars supporting this." I can understand their feelings. Our tax dollars, however, support a lot of things one individual may or may not like or support morally.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think Bush did better...or shall we say "less bad". He didn't make faces. He started yelling...again. He interrupted Gibson. He got angry. But it wasn't as bad as last time.

Kerry was composed. I thought he clearly won it. I thought he was weak on the domestic policy issues...my son thinks that is intentional. He plans on addressing those more strongly during the third round after having hammered the war issue. Makes sense. Bush might have his guard down...and Kerry has PLENTY to work with. He didn't give Bush anything to indicate what he'd talk about in the next debate...so Bush can't anticipate and prepare.

Kerry brought up a good point on the "parent notification" issue concerning abortion, though I thought he could have hit the "partial birth" issue better by mentioning how hydrocephalic fetuses can endanger a mother.


Regards,


Steve

 

[pete]

i'm not debating who is correct or incorrect on the issues, just the image they projected during the debate. if you care for my opinion on the overall outcome of the debate (or debates), i feel that they are both solidifying their base support, but bush is probably pushing more undecided voters away. while ok, this is not a big win for kerry, because i still feel that he is not rallying these key voters behind him as a candidate, and risks either losing their votes through an media blunder or low voter turnout on election day.

now as far as the perceived tone of the stem cell question, sure it was slanted, but so were virtually all of the questions from the audience, especially those concerning our falling out of favor with the international community. i think some were bothered by that question, probably because it was one of the only ones slanted against the kerry/liberal platform.

now kerry, trying to simultaneously maintain appeal with catholics and support his party's platform seemed hippocritical... like supporting prohibition while relaxing back with a drink from his private stash... to show conviction, he could have done either of 2 things: (1) stood by his faith and showed leadership and moral fiber, or (2) describe his disagreement with that particular policy of his church, explain how he still remains a good catholic with this issue, and stood by a personal conviction to lead the country as he saw fit. he did neither...

pete

 

[michaeledward]

pete, You are probably correct about all questions having bias, I quite possibly didn't notice those biases slanted against Bush. I will go back and look at the questions under that lens.

I thought Senator Kerry answered the question about tax dollars and abortion under your description #2. He understand the convictions of people who are Pro-Life, but he can not legislate that morality to all citizens. At least that is what I heard.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

In the first place, Pete, I cannot see this argument that the questions were slanted.

In the second, it isn't always possible to square the intellectual circle. Sometimes you have to go with stating the dilemma and expressing where you're stuck, which is the honest thing to do. That's what Kerry did. It's different from ducking the question altogether, which is what Bush did when he was asked about mistakes...he gave a response which, it appears, is part of a deliberate political strategy to deny any and all errors until after the election.

Otherwise, you tend to end up like Sen. Henry Hyde, the biggest "pro-lifer," in the Senate, who drove his mistress to have her abortion, then when he got caught, claimed--though he was 40 at the time!--that it was a youthful indiscretion.