So who won the debate?

Kerry won, Bush lost it...

at the closing statements, Bush threw out an ACCEPTIONAL speech that made my jaw drop. No hesitation, no mistakes...just flawless!

That raised him a mm in my book.

Other then that, Kerry took it. Not the show, but he took it with a little bit of attributes left.

I remember I had the same face as Kerry when Bush stated something like, "I know Osama attacked us! I know he did." We both threw out the "Oh really?" faces.

Other then that, Kerry expressed some good views...especially Nuclear Pliferation (sp...) I loved how Kerry bit out of Bush by stating that "We went into war to rid of WMD, but we continue to fund and make them in our OWN country." or something like that.

We went onto the table, and I threw the paper into the middle. Sat down and they had their faces on it. Guys came over and we started to talk. I expressed my opinions and said that they both sucked. Someone asked me if I was a "Kerry-fairy". Now, IMO, that's dense.

The fact that most of these people pick their views is from mommy and daddy. These people can't choose for themselves, it's sad.

Well I can say that I'd choose Kerry over Bush any time.

Though I like how Bush threw out the my opponent was given the same intelligence ordeal. I would of gone with that. Though the thing is that I hate is that he kept this whole thing going.

I agree, Kerry would get my vote. Not that it matters who I would support since I am Canadian. But most people know how I feel about Bush already. I feel that Kerry was the better speaker. I watched the debate, had a few chuckles at Bush. Overall I felt that it was a fair debate. I was hoping for some name calling and hair flying, but hearing Bush struggle for words and look all flustered was good enough.

Nothing really enlightning in this debate. No suprises from either Kerry or Bush. I give an edge to Kerry but I saw nothing that will change any voters mind. I did notice that Bush is still sticking to his guns and has not waivered in his resolve concerning Iraq and terroism. Like him or not at least you know what you get. This is not an insult to Kerry as I have yet to decide who I am voting for, but I am leaning towards Bush at the moment and this debate had nothing to do with that.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I live in Canada and so I say, who cares who won? Neither are sufficient to be President of the godd@mn U.S of A. Kerry’s only working off the flaws of Bush and has nothing else to go on. Meaning, he has no solid plans or ideas for the future. He's got nothing! Bush, well... he's got those flaws. I think the debate was a draw. And I feel sorry for you poor bastards living down South. You just have to pick the lesser of two evils... or the least dumbest.

__________________
We are the future, the 21st. century dyslexic, glue sniffing, cybersluts with homicidal minds and handguns... we are the same.

I agree and disagree with some of you. I'm a Pro-Bush and I personally think Kerry won the debate just by his consistancy alone to to keep talking. Kerry seemed more ready to go from the beginning even though he said some stupid things. The first thing he said of the night was pretty stupid. "Yes I do Jim, but first I want to tell you how much I..." Oh god. He took his big opportunity to really hit it home and ruined it with sympathy crap. I'm not saying he's gonna win but if I were running for President, that's where I would've struck and it was the first damn question. He kinda danced around it and shrugged it off. Bush said a couple things too that I didn't agree with like how Saddam would've been more powerful if we didn't invade. Arguably no, he wouldn't have but he would've killed more people to say the least. If he would've killed more than the Iranian-sent insurgents, we'll never know but I really don't think Kerry sees the big picture like Bush does. Besides me not agreeing on many of his stances (Ex: "We'll lead a more sensitive war" ha ha ha) Kerry has seemed to be from the start the big Incumbent Basher where everything the President does is wrong even when he himself changes his own positions radically. That would make the normal Joe knowing both of these that both are wrong. We're not that naive and we can do our homework on what the truth is but Kerry did put on a good show instead of saying a bunch of crap that made no sense. So to the normal person, by performance, I'd say Kerry won the debate but by what each of them said, it was a draw, and what each of them said that will/can actually be done in their term, Bush won because he's much more honest than Kerry is. Kerry promised the world and would probably settle for giving money to dictators, stahling the war and raising taxes. My opinion ofcourse.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

The president has all sorts of effects here in canada, we should care who gets to be the next pres, or not

Done some tracking [not on that damn montage tho ]

Transcript: Kerry Is Interviewed on MSNBC's 'Imus in the Morning'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Sep15_2.html

Want some more? Ok. He sure does like to talk doesn't he . This is how he continues....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, Cheney and co have been busy trying to reinforce misrepresentations of Kerry's stance, arguments and consistancy.

They focused on a slip he made about the time he made the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" statement, all the while trying to misrepresent both the logic behind that sentiment and his current stance (which are one and the same ). The majority of the press focused on the time slip, rather than this latest example of 'consistant' spin () ...

So Yodles, better move to domestic if you wanna find inconsistancies in Kerry's position [coz on Iraq he seems to be the most sensible of the two - applying his approach to either past or present ]. We'll see how he fares in the next debate .

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Kerry's trying to pull a fast one when he says that he only voted for the authorization of force, and did not actually vote for war. At the time, it was well understood what a "yes" vote entailed. We know Kerry's capable of grasping this, because he commented publicly on the vote of authorization for the first Iraq war a decade ago, and essentially said the same thing.

Let's follow Kerry's logic here: if you vote for the authorization to go to war, but don't believe we should yet be going to war, then you're effectively voting to bluff. I imagine we'd both agree that you don't want to be in the habit of threatening the use of force and not following through.

Kerry's rationale is that the threat of force was necessary to make Saddam comply. But we did threaten force, and Saddam didn't comply. So where would Kerry have differed?

Ah yes: allies! He'd have brought on allies! Though if he thinks having allies on board is so vitally important to the war effort, how does he justify calling our current coalition of allies in Iraq a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed"? And how would he get them on board, I wonder? Through the sheer force of his personality? He's offered just one method: reconstruction contracts. Wouldn't that constitute a form of indirect bribery, too, though?

Surely you can admit that Kerry's all over the map on this one.


Yes, this is another one of Kerry's lines of opposition: we "rushed" to war. The thing is, though, that we didn't invade until a full six months after the vote for the authorization of force.

Kerry's basically assuming that there's a clean, easy way to do this. While I'm sure several things could have been executed better than they were, I'm by no means convinced that Kerry is any more capable of that execution than Bush is. He's been going on about "fresh credibility" and "changing the situation on the ground," but never goes beyond that. He's giving off the impression that a lot of these problems will magically disappear if we just change the name on the Oval Office letterhead.


Oh, there's no doubt that the exploitation of the "I actually did vote it before I voted against it" line is pure politics. It was a verbal misstep by Kerry, and the Bush campaign has jumped all over it. I'm not going to pretend that it's actually significant in terms of policy; in my mind, it's not that much different from the many Bushisms floating around. At the same time, I don't really blame Republicans for harping on it. I expect the two camps to pounce on each other's mistakes.


I really don't think anything's been done here to refute the notion that Kerry's position on Iraq has been inconsistent. You've produced some shameless spin from Cheney (which doesn't really settle the matter), and you've produced some statements from Kerry. I'm not denying that those particular statements are straightforward; the claim is not that he's never said anything understandable. It's that he's said conflicting things. Producing one of those things in no way demonstrates that he's been consistent.

In my mind, there's really no leg to stand on. Kerry says the world is better off without Saddam, but we're also less safe. He says we should not have gone to war without more allies, but also says his choices will not be contingent on foreign approval. He says Saddam was a "threat" that "had to be disarmed," yet calls the war a "grand diversion."

Are these outright contradictions? No, I don't think so. But do they require reconciling? Absolutely. Kerry's position on this most crucial of matters should not have to be interpreted or divined somehow.

The majority of the apparent contradictions you are talking about are resolved by Kerry's stance. (and the others could well be - i just don't know all the details. I'm investigating tho )

His consistant stance:
That invasion had to be threatened, and potentially enacted, but ONLY if there was a broad enough coalition to make the regime-change sustainable.

What did he say exactly? I'd like to know.

It seems to me that:
a) the possiblity of an invasion based on a broad coalition (his desired route) was still open at that point - and could not get rolling without primary US participation in resolution-enforcement/potential-invasion.

and

b) Invasion was not an inevitable application of the forces he was agreeing should be sent [see arguments below]

He wasn't to know the Bush-admin would act as unwisely as it did

Again, it's not as simple as that. (You're guilty of painting to black-and-white a picture )

Kerry voted for mobilising the military (as i understand it). Even without invading, the military's presence helps enforce existing 'smart' sanctions. (It also proves to allies that you're able to take action if necessary, and provides the framework for organising and assembling a broader political and military coalition too, of course)

So already, it's not a bluff, it's performing a purpose. Even if a broad-coalition proved impossible to form, the less effective route of sanctions could still be persued without loss of 'face' and with some degree of effectiveness. A military presence reinforcing border checks and keeping an eye on those borders it cannot cover would still issue a strong message that Saddam had to be both contained and punished for non-compliance with UN demands.

But the fact is that there should be loads of potential allies for this action. Only hamfisted handling by the Bush admin could've messed up the push for wide international support.

(we're debating the whys/wherefores on another thread yeah? )

[having a caveat for a pre-emptive invasion, even a difficult one like establishing a broad-enough coalition, is not unreasonable. Especially considering even the most extreme assessments of future Iraqi WMD potential set the deadline at about a year into the future. There was time. The Bush-admin chose to rush in half-arsed instead]

Time. Time spent gaining the forces that made occupation a valid/tenable option.

He can belittle it coz it simply isn't broad enough to provide the financial and military input required.

A bribe of sorts, but one that benefits all, and involves negotiation . But it's not so much a bribe as a bit of preemptive 'sharing' .

Nope. I hope you can see why.

Erm, and you/we weren't ready. That's become absolutely crystal clear.

Even without the vital input of other allies, the occupation planning and handling has been woeful.

Oh come on Yods. He fully recognises that dedicating yourself to occupying and reforming a nation is about one of the most difficult things you could do. Otherwise he wouldn't be so het up about providing the right resources to make it achievable. It's what his whole argument is about.

That was a silly statement i'm afraid.

That's the big issue -whether he can bring (or could've brought) in a broader group of allies- and one that leaves us wallowing in suppositions nutil he gets a chance to try .

Personally, i think his consistant dedication to the principle of 'real politic' being necessary in this venture bodes well for his potential presidency and continuation of the occupation.

On a simple presentational note tho, a change at the top in the US that was followed by actual success in bringing in allies would have a marked effect on islamic-'Arabic' perceptions of the US. It could rectify some of the errors the Bush camp had made. It would give the 'islamic-Arabic' moderates more reason to believe in the US as a potential force for good.

Aside from showing that his one central argument explains nigh on all the inconsistancies you've mentioned (with the exception of one or two things below, which it could explain, but i'm looking into the details to see what's what )

Doesn't help matters either - considering it concerns the assertion of 'flip-flopping' where there isn't any.

That exposition covers his central argument that an invasion had to have broad support to be successful. That deals with the majority of the inconsistancies that you've mentioned.

These are the two i'm checking on still [context of quotes etc]. I can imagine ways the both of them could make sense within his stance, but i don't want to pre-judge .

Both of them make me suspect he's caved in to political/presentational considerations (like not wanting to be presented as a 'Saddam lover' or a lacky of foreigners ).

I'll get back to you .

Come on, this one's easy. It's diverted troops and intelligence experts away from Afghanistan and the like. The way he was disarmed undermines the validity of trying to disarm him. [if you keep repeating these easily explained pseudo-contradictions, then i'll keep repeating Kerry's central stance that show's they're consistant ]

Sure.

But the Bush-admin should be castigated for the poor handling of the war their simplistic presentational and operational 'certainty' has brought about

Glad Wolfowitz agrees, don't you . [oh, and i could quote loads more stuff which demonstrates deficiencies of the basically-unilateral appraoch which would'nt have occured under Kerry's. But, you know, space, time. All these considerations )

If ya ask me (which no one did) theres 200 odd million people in the us and these muppets are the best there is? Excuse me as i make a big sigh.
If i was an american i wouldnt give a crap about iraq, the war in iraq is over already nothing more has to be said. I'd want to know how they would make my life better, but that is just me.
Seems to me kerry is just jumping on the bandwagon, goin on about iraq beacuse he has sod else to say.
And bush? Well judge him on wether hes making the us a better place to live, if not what can ya do? Will kerry make a diffrence? I think not.

So according to Kerry this will take...what did he propose? Oh yeah, 6 months. Hmmm...right.

__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'

Last i heard, he was suggesting a mass decrease of the number of US troops within 1 year of his election - on the understanding that international troops moved in.

Not the same as what you're suggesting. (whether he's downgraded that to 6 months i don't know. Not my country . Still... got any quotes/proof? )

(Incidently, considering the Bush-admin's approach is so inept it looks likely to suffer a major set-back within the next six months - even more so than the ones it's encountered so far - a rethink in those terms doesn't seem so foolish now does it? )

That has NOT been his "consistent stance." He said that "had to be disarmed," not that he "had to be threatened."

He's also made it clear that, while he strongly desired a broad coalition, that invasion should not be contingent on it. This is from an op-ed piece Kerry wrote to The New York Times in September of 2002:

This quote was, admittedly, surrounded by all kinds of qualifiers; ifs and buts as far as the eye can see. That's standard operating procedure for Kerry: "we need to do X. But we should also do Y." Then, if X goes well, he said we should do it all along. If it goes badly, well, he can fall back on us not doing Y; or not doing Y the way he thinks we ought to have done it. Regardless, he clearly was not making invasion contingent on any level of international approval, which is what you say his stance is.


He said that "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote." And he's right. The vote did not contain provisions, and though it's impossible to technically prove that it was understood what a "yes" vote meant, I think it was clear, for the aforementioned Kerry-provided reasons.


Time? Six months passed between the vote for the authorization of force, and our invasion. Over a dozen UN resolutions had passed, and Saddam had not complied with any of them. What more could a weakened but still ambitious tyrant want other than time? Senator Kerry agrees with me; the following exchange took place on 2/5/02:

Kerry, of course, said we needed to play that game anyway.


So, it's okay for a potential President to effectively spit on countries he does not deem useful at the moment?


Is it? His rhetoric implies exactly what I'm saying:

"I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side."

He used the words "fresh" and "credibility" in conjunction with one another three times during last Thursday's debate. He's mentioned many times that he has "a plan" for Iraq, but the only details he divulges are a) sharing reconstruction contracts and b) holding a summit. Yes, another meeting! That'll solve everything.

Kerry has made this idea of "fresh credibility" a cornerstone in moving forward, as if countries have ceased to act in their own self-interested because they don't like Bush on a personal level. Now that's a silly statement.


Exactly: that is the big issue. I think it's fair to say that most of Kerry's campaign is based around the idea that we should've had a larger coalition before going into Iraq. Given that he's made this the centerpiece of his opposition, it's only reasonable to ask: how?

And that's where Kerry's position begins to break down. He offers vague, tenuous statements about holding summits and "reaching out," and other things that might work with your best friend, but won't work with a nation protecting its interests.

What's more, since Thursday's debate we've had statements trickling in from European leaders, blunting the expectation that they'll get involved. We can argue quite a bit about how we got here, but on the more important issue of how we should handle it now that we're there, I just don't see anything both appreciably different AND realistic coming out of the Kerry campaign.


Kerry is most definitely guilty of "flip-flopping" on any number of issues, but I'll readily admit it's been exaggerated by the Bush campaign. That's what Presidential campaigns do: take a picture, and turn it into a caricature.


See, there it is again: the idea that if he speaks clearly in one instance, all past contradictions and convolutions should be ignored. At this point, you're not arguing whether or not Kerry has been consistent; you're just arguing on behalf that one statement of his.


Fair enough.

Yes, I believe he has caved a bit for political considerations. The timeline is pretty convincing, I think: Howard Dean -- who's been very consistently anti-war since the very beginning -- was hailed almost unanimously as the frontrunner in the Democratic primaries. Kerry ran to the right of Dean in regards to the war, stating the following in a multi-candidate Democratic debate:

"George, I said at the time I would've 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."

This was said on May 3rd of 2003. A month after we began to invade. At this time, we'd already made our case to the UN, and we already knew who was on board with us. And Kerry stood by the decision. I don't see ANY way to reconcile this with what Kerry's saying now, nor with what you're saying his position is.

Actually, you do. Here's part of the IMUS IN THE MORNING transcript you quoted earlier:

This strikes me as pretty meaningless. Both candidates can say "gee, if everything goes well, American troops can come home." That's not new information, nor is it exclusive to either candidate.

I also find it interesting that Kerry knows more than enough to criticize the decisions being made, and more than enough to know he'd do things differently, but not enough to judge exactly what he ought to do differently when asked directly. Which is it? Are there crucial things he doesn't know and therefore can't commit to, or does he know enough to declare the administration incompetent?


I'm reserving judgement, personally. There was much talk about Afghanistan devolving into chaos as well, and 2 and a half years later, as Cheney mentioned (finally!), it's shown tremendous progress.

During the debate Kerry said, if my memory serves me right, that after six months with him as president USA would be able to start bringing some of the troops out of [edit]Iraq. If he wants to send them to Afghanistan or to some other place or even home is another question. In any case, he didn't say that the war would be over in six months. And I think his strategy is that the american troops taken out of Iraq is supposed to be replaced by troops from other countries.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

What does "draw the troops down" mean? He then went on to say that he wants to establish peace as quickly as possible so that we can get out of there. He scolded the Pres. for being there this long. I think the Senetor is a fool if he thinks he can just "make peace" and go home. What is he saying Bush is doing different? Bush must just be sittin' around with his thumb up his you-know-what, right?

First, when I wrote "start bringing some of the troops out of USA" I meant "out of Iraq" of course. Sorry....

"draw the troops down" probably means just what it is - to begin to decrease the number of american soldiers stationed in Iraq. I too think the Senator is a fool if he thinks he can just "make peace" and then go home. But I think his plan is to make the world community play a greater part in Iraq and I think that is the right way to go if you want a solution at all to the problem. A lot of experts have said that for gaining and keeping control over the entire Iraq we'll need more troops - not fewer. And Kerry knows that USA alone is not capable of doing this on its own, plus he doesn't want the entire american army in Iraq.

USA being, generally speaking, alone in Iraq results in an army too small for keeping control over Iraq. Instead it leads to a much longer conflict, and perhaps even to a conflict without an end - that is not unlikely at all with Bush's politics. It also leads to a concentration of the american army to one single area, more or less. In my opinion though the biggest problem for USA is that being alone in Iraq also results in all anger and hate because of the occupation of Iraq will be directed towards USA. I.e. the risk for new terror attacks is greater with George W Bush as Commander in Chief, than with John Kerry in office.

Fair enough - i didn't realise what his stance was on going it alone if all else failed. I shouldn't have said he'd "ONLY" go with a broad coalition () - just that he thinks the US MUST do everything to construct one.

And this is where things get a bit murky - coz we can only conjecture about why the Bush-admin failed to achieve this. But it's the most central point, and one well worth discussing...

Can't agree with you on this one. He says you can have no influence over whether the Pres uses the power granted him - but that's not the same as saying you can't try and influence how he applies it.

Kerry's reference to voting for 'force', not rushed invasion, obviously pertains to his preferred approach to this occupation (one which he obviously hoped would either be persued by the Pres, or could be recommended strongly to him, and might be listened to, or could be bargained for in later contingent votes)

Well, as Blix and co were saying the whole way, he was most likely contained, so that time would benefit him little. (As the final investigators report has just confirmed. He was not only weakend, but weakening under sanctions).

If it brings about the best outcome for iraq and those involved, then that's the game you have to play. (Reagan-and-CIA-boss-Bush-Snr were happy to play multiple games with Saddam, including providing him with dual-use materials at the same time as saying publically, and privately to him, that they didn't condone his use of chemical weapons. Funny old game international politics eh? Well, no, not really. It's just the way Bush Jnr tell's it )

Well, i live in one of those countries, the most fundamentally involved one in fact, and i didn't feel spat on at all by that comment. But that's partially coz the 'bribe' in question has been so inherent in Britlands 'special relationship' with you guys for so long. The fact is that it's a fair comment. We profit by maintaining good relations with the US (where they would otherwise have been lost). In the case of the smaller countries, that patronage is vital. In the case of Britland and Australia, it's just very very important .

All those that opposed are on pretty poor terms already with you guys, so had less to lose.

I don't see how these two rhetorical terms imply 'ease' to anywhere near the degree you're suggesting.

That's because those are the two fundamental things Bush has failed to do, and the ones that are necessary to establish a broad coalition. i.e.:

(a) Share the inherent profit in this occupation (i.e. influence over the trade/distribution of the second largest national oil supply in the world)

and

(b) Establish a consensus on how to use iraq's geopolitical position to influence the middle-east for the best.

I really don't see why you're equating 'credibility' with personality. In the context of Kerry's broader argument it clearly means 'real politic' credibility - which Bush has lost by consistantly pursuing a unilateralist agenda. Even now, he could rectify that (as Kerry hopes to), but he doesn't.

I understand why.

It'd be very freaking difficult.

But it's still the wisest long-term choice, for Iraq [and the future 'bloodcount' there], for West/'Arab' relations [and the accompanying extremism problem], for international trade stability, and potentially for the US (though the current potentates obviously see the gains as worth the losses in these areas )

That's coz he's never going to talk about some of the fundamental, nasty, geopolitical issues driving this, just as Bush hasn't. (Hopefully he won't continue Bush's vague and tenuous 'terrorism' justifications tho )

Another reason he's not going to flag up what the negotiations will involve is that they'll involve the US voluntarily handing back a lot of the control they've gained (which can be seen as legitimate financial and political payback for the investment of lives and materials)

That's not gonna go down well. It's gonna look like 'we did all the hard work, now others get the contracts' - when really it's gonna be about making the near impossible job, which is yet to be completed, into just a hard job.

On the playground name-calling, sure.

But to be honest, on iraq, i'm satisfied that he's been consistant-enough in ideology and actions, if not always his presentation .

For example: I don't see his emphasis on invasion-as-the-last-resort as in any way incompatible with the his equal emphasis on gaining a broad coalition. (If anything, i suspect that being able to follow through on the threat of invasion could be vital if the negotiations are truly intractable. IE if the impediment to a broad coalition was actually complete intransigence on the part of Russia/France/China, and that they decided to play the US's bluff, knowing that a unilateral invasion would be disastrous, then you have to prove it's not a bluff. But you also then have to make the greater political sacrifice of allowing the others in to help with the occupation/rebuilding, despite them not helping with the invasion or initial peacekeeping. - So, ironically, invading with an inadequate coalition could still be used to create a broad one - and indeed, needs to be an option if you're going to persue the invasion technique)

Well, i don't get the exposure you guys get, but it seems to me that that the approach he outlines there has consistantly underpinned his the majority of his arguments and actions. [i'm really not trying to idealise the guy. It just genuinely seems to me that he's known for a long time how he thinks Iraq should've been handled, and he's been arguing for it all the while].

This is certainly a presentational f-up, to an extent, in terms of his current 'rush' criticisms. But as i outlined above, this can still be reconciled with a long-term game-plan to involve a broad-coalition. It's just the worst case scenario.

I think, as you say, that he presenting himself to the 'right' of Dean, and as such this could explain why he doesn't criticise the timing/'rush' as he's doing now, but showed only his willingness to invade instead.

Anyways - all i can say is that the invasion technique was an extreme approach in the first place. But what's done is done. Of the two candidates, i see Kerry as being the only one proposing a solution, and not trying to deny and obscure the downsides of the current situation.

well done champ lets all vote for whos better looking


and i how can a debate be scripted? to me this was not much more than a gong show. btw kerry came out on top but only because bush isnt smart enough to make a proper and snappy rebuttle