« Sitting Here | Main | Ask Amway About Dyson »
September 30, 2004
The Presidential Debates '04
By QBlog in
The first round of Presidential Debates has ended. I'd love to know who you think won the debate and why you think he won.
And for those keeping score at home, it was approximately 29 minutes into the debate before Kerry uttered the word "Vietnam" (remember, I have TiVo). And to stay "non-partisan" I'll add that George W. Bush is still saying New-Kew-Lar.
Comments
The real winners? The TV executives who may be able to add the debate viewer totals to their week's total viewership lists...
They should both quit running because only 1 out of 300 million will make it to the level of president this year. They should go back to school, get a better education and stick with the 40 year plan.
Ha! That was good!
You have to give them credit for being "core", however. They are both out showing the plan all over the country every day. They know that if they can just convince enough motivated people to redirect their voting power then they can predict their success :)
Bush got smoked, no?
Kerry didn't land decisively though
How bout ‘folk who do terrorism’, Folks???? Isn’t that offensive? Or is it true in case of Dubya.
From John Stewart:
"Group of Folks? A group of folks isn't an enemy, a group of folks are the people you see at the Olive Garden with the breadsticks and the soup..."
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Chimperor has no clothes.
As Mayor McCheese, I look forward to opening bilateral talks between the US and McDonaldLand to hunt down and kill The Hamburglar.
Bush pronounces 'New-Kew-Lar' the exact same way Jimmy Carter does, and Carter was a 'New-Kew-Lar' engineer for the Navy.
I will be voting for W but I felt very comfortable with Kerry's performance last night. He is an excellent debater.
I don't agree with everything he said but I do think he helped himself last night rather than hurt himself.
I still don't think Kerry has a prayer but at least it may not be to Mondale proportions.
Kerry, Kerry, Kerry... A 6 foot plus actual war hero and a 5 foot something whiney weasel draft dodger. No contest!
Bush won, hands down in my view.
I was looking for Kerry to explain to the people how the Iraq War was wrong, but the exact opposite happened. George Bush actually did a great job in justifying why he went to war.
The point that Kerry drove home was that he would get the U.N. permission and cooperation before going to war. That is by far the point that Americans took from Kerry in that debate.
So it depends on how you see that issue, I think, to determine who you think won the debate.
I personally think the United Nations is a corrupt organization and I think it would be a joke to have to ask them for permission to act in our best interest in defending our country.
Just look at this example of how the Oil for Food program is corrupt and how many nations had billions to gain from Saddam Hussein staying in power.
http://tech-geeks.org/tiny.php?url=1267
So what were Bush's goals of the debate? His goals were to justify the Iraq war, which he did a great job of, and to appeal to the swing voter, which the election will be decided on.
I think that he won the debate because he did a great job on both of those goals, which will make the difference in the election. I know that the "flash polls" might show otherwise, but statistically that gives Bush a better chance of winning anyhow.
Since 1984, no Republican has won in the flash polls from the first debate, but has won 3 out of 5 of those elections.
After watching the debate, I felt that I was still confused as to where Kerry stood on issues because he seemed to agree with Bush on everything, by nodding when Bush was talking, and then by starting his sentences with agreements to Bush.
I received this in my email this morning and it's the perfect example of what I mean. Here are samples of some of Kerry's statements in the debate.
-"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
-"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
-"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
-"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
-"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
-"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
-"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
-"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
-"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
Am I the only one confused here?
I thought George W. Bush was very clear and easy to understand where he stands on each issue.
I think that the Kerry campaign did a great job of switching their Bush attacks the last couple of weeks, to suddenly edifying Bush with his amazing debating skills and talking about how "Bush is a great debater" and the debates are going to be tough.
They worked that campaign well, and so the level of expectation for Kerry was lowered, and so when he came in and didn't mess up, it was looked at as a tie or victory to the main stream media.
The same thing happened in Bush vs. Gore 2000. Everybody was talking about how Gore would squash bush in the debates, and when Bush actually did a good job, it was looked at as a huge Bush victory.
Kerry wins on style, Bush wins on substance, but in the end, its substance that matters most to win the election.
Just some of my perspective.
Chris,
I agree with everything you said, but:
I really wish you IBOs could all start using the word edify correctly.
For a quick lesson see:
http://sinkinginquixand.blogspot.com/2004/09/english-101-edify-vs-deify_07.html#comments
Sorry Jason, my grammar is not the best. I actually have to use spell check daily in my work, and you would be surprised on how many errors I make. QBlog has done a good job in putting me in my place on this issue. I was spelling "perspective" as "prospective" and I use many words the wrong way.
Just for the record, it is not just IBO's the don't use that word right. I have heard them use it the same exact way in my church, and I actually learned that word before I was involved with Quixtar in any way. So it wasn't a new word to me. But I don't mind the corrections, so no hard feelings.
I am glad we see eye to eye on the debates.
Edification
(n.) The act of edifying, or the state of being edified; a building up, especially in a moral or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; instruction.
It makes sense that if you are building someone up, that it could be considered edification. And so I think that automatically it seems like if you were building someone up, that you would be edifying them. That is why I think people started using the word in this context.
I have heard it used this way in many cases, and so I never questioned whether or not it was proper english... Which I aint' got much of.
Chris,
Yes building someone up BY MEANS OF EDUCATION OR INSTRUCTION is what edificaiton is.
Unless you are in some way instructing or educating your upline while building him/her up then you are not edifying them. If you switch the d and the e, you will get the more appropriate word associated with the build up of the upline. which is deify.
Jason,
I would ask you then, what word would you recommend using if I wanted to build up person A's credibility to person B, so that when I introduce person B to person A, person B will have a higher level of respect for them?
For example, let's say that I tell my friend all about QBlog's site and how good of posts he makes and he is very intelligent, and so on, and so on so that when my friend visits the site, he will have more respect for the posts and not just consider them negative garbage about Quixtar.
Are you saying that the right word to explain this is "deify"? I am trying to make sure because deify doesn't seem right, and I have never heard anyone use it in that way.
What would be the best word to describe that? Because this is an important process for independent business owners as well, and I would start using a better word if I knew of one.
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone have a problem with the word "edify" being used this way, and I have personally used it hundreds of times to all types of people and they all understood what I was saying.
Sometimes I think that using a less correct word that more people relate to is better than using a more correct word that less people relate too. As long as the word gets the message across and it doesn't actually mean something very bad or unethical then it seems alright. Am I wrong in this thinking?
Chris,
I want to respond to this statement:
Sometimes I think that using a less correct word that more people relate to is better than using a more correct word that less people relate too. As long as the word gets the message across and it doesn't actually mean something very bad or unethical then it seems alright. Am I wrong in this thinking?
with this statement from George Orwell:
"Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."
I'm not picking a fight or anything, it's just that your statement made me think of his work Politics and The English Language.
Chris:
I agree that deify may not be the best choice (although there are close similarities to what you are trying to get across). However, I might suggest taking a look here for several great alternatives that will convey what you are trying to mean:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=deify
You may also want to take a look here to see why the word edify may not be the best fit.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=edify
Hope this helps.
What word would you use Jason?
Chris,
Pick one for yourself, man!
If you truly want my suggestion, I guess the one that hits closest to the mark is 'Glorify'. But if you don't want to hit that close to a 'churchy' word, then I might suggest 'endorse', 'exalt', elevate, or even your own suggestion of 'build up' might work.
I think 'elevate' is the one you really want to use though. Who knows you could become a new trendsetter among the IBO community and you would be grammatically correct in doing so.
Good luck.
Uh...
The DEBATE????
I'm glad you guys weren't the ones debating.
PW
Sorry, P.Dubya
Bush/Cheney all the way, man!
I think the word used in "Marks: A Novel" was 'edify'. That seems to be the hot new word in quixspeak.
Who: Dubya
Why: Not Kerry
BTW: I'm pretty sure I heard Kerry slip on the nuclear pronunciation a couple of times. He was kind of flip-floping on how he wanted to say it I think.
Posted by: jason | September 30, 2004 11:45 PM