General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes anyone remember the 2004 Presidential Debates and how bad Bush was?
Kerry completely wiped the floor with Bush in those debates. It was without question.
And afterwards I though it would be the moment that Kerry would rise to an easy landslide victory.
Given the ultimate result, I stopped putting so much emphasis on debate performances as I had before.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Rove made sure all the votes were 'counted' in Ohio.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,227 posts)It shouldn't have been close.
And I don't blame it all on Kerry, either. He ran an honorable--perhaps too honorable--campaign. Sadly, however, we were still wrapped up in the post 9-11 fury at the time, and Bush tapped into it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)He ran an honorable campaign in an age of mud slinging.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)The fact that he was honest, had integrity and was running a very high road campaign were his biggest assets. He did incredibly well in an election where Bush was favored. I think he would have done worse especially as he would have looked miserable doing so.
spanone
(135,924 posts)rainy
(6,095 posts)"let me Finnish" while no one was trying to stop him and his red light was not on?
http://www.salon.com/2004/10/30/bulge_5/
rainy
(6,095 posts)Destroyed. This should have been all over the news and should have disqualified Bush.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Johonny
(20,945 posts)There are a lot of stubborn people in this country, but Bushes collapse in his second term was no surprise to anyone that watched the debates. He was an emotional wreck by then. The polished turd of 2000 was long gone. He should never, ever be allowed in polite society again.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,227 posts)That and the increasingly volatile situation in Iraq, and the notion sinking in that there were no WMDs to be found.
I agree with your proposition.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)before the election return was even in - Kerry could still have won it on election night
the country had still re-elected a Republican Congress. Kerry would have been hamstrung even if he won.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The inept response to swiftboating and purple heart band-aids doomed Kerry.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,227 posts)America would see Bush for the empty brain, empty suit that he was. People would forget about the swiftboating and focus on who was the greater leader, which was clearly Kerry.
And I remember the day after the first debate feeling extremely ecstatic, because I had this feeling that it was a huge momentum shift.
And that shift never came.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Primary voters are far more likely to be political junkies, where details on positions are critical. In that context, debates in primaries can be very helpful.
In general elections, you're getting a large swath of people who are just voting for their team. Or they're voting on very large themes, not policy details. Debates don't change anyone's team, or change those large themes.
Kerry failed to respond to the swiftboat attacks. They were rolled out very slowly and carefully, because Rove knew he was spraying bullshit. An early and forceful response from Kerry would have made them untenable, and Rove would move to something else.
Instead, Kerry tried to be "above the fray". So Rove pushed the swiftboat bullshit more and more and more.
The purple heart band-aids were an opportunity to rip "support our troops" out from the Republicans. Again, Kerry didn't do anything with it. Instead, it was allowed to amplify the "Kerry wasn't a real soldier" story.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)That was when he put his entire record on line.
It was not "staying above the fray" . They responded and the media ignored that JK proved there were many many lies in their book. In addition, Edwards who was asked to speak out, said he would, several times, never did.
This was something that was best defended by others. They had the Navy record and proof that these people were funded by Bush/Cheney. Seriously, the Democrats did a better job in the 1990s defending Clinton on his flaws than they did Kerry on his genuine heroism and proven character.
Not to mention, as they disproved one accusation, the liars then moved to another. The media, even as many endorsed Jk, was in the tank for Bush.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They didn't write the book until a while after the attacks started.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)In all earlier times, what JK did immediately would have ended it. The official NAVY records which the media had and which were on his Web site showed Kerry was a thoughtful, capable, young officer who had unusual respect from his men. He had two very prestigious medals. The Kerry campaign put out a memo to the media documenting 100 s of provable lies in the book.
The media ignored this and did not cover his own comments. More important they never asked the liars for even one piece of proof. They ignored that even the Nixon administration, when captured on tape, acknowledged he was both clean and a war hero. They ignored that Senator John Warner said the medals were well earned.
Blaming JK would be like blaming Obama on the birth certificate stuff.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Kerry initially responded with "look at my record" and not specific debunking. And he never counter-attacked, despite W's service being less than good.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)The book was in August. In April, he did hit back and he put out his records. He did call those charges lies.
They did put out a 65 page specific debunking of many charges in the book. The book had hundreds of charges that were not even consistent. The Navy record should have been enough, but they did go further.
As to JK HIMSELF attacking Bush's record I suspect that would have hurt not helped.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)oasis
(49,480 posts)Doing all he could to suppress the black vote.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)when he said "Knowing what I know now, I would still have voted for the IWR."
When I heard that I was like
karynnj
(59,510 posts)The media conflated a rhetorical question by the Bush campaign with a response by Kerry to a question that was not recorded. The response was the one he gave millions of time and ir referee to completing the inspections and exhausting diplomacy.
Either ir was not asking under the condition everyone heard or Kerry didn't heat it - he has hearing loss from Vietnam.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.
This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-kerry-debate-ii/
And let's not forget:
Stephanopoulos, May 3, 2003: On March 19 President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?
Kerry: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/
elias49
(4,259 posts)under his suit jacket? That was funny!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He did much better on the second one, where he wore a radio in his ear prepared better
arcane1
(38,613 posts)How can I forget?
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)That's because people see what they want to see.