Does anyone remember the 2004 Presidential Debates and how bad Bush was?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

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]

1. Ohio made the difference in 2004, had nothing to do with debate performance.

Rove made sure all the votes were 'counted' in Ohio.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Even if Kerry won Ohio, he still would have probably lost the popular vote.

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]

8. I think part of the reason Kerry lost, was the Swiftboaters and their lies.

He ran an honorable campaign in an age of mud slinging.

[karynnj]

14. agree, except being less honorable would have been worse

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]

3. same in gore v bu$h

[rainy]

4. Was this the one where he was wired and stated in the middle of his speaking:

"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. The media let the right get away with so much that had it been a democrat they would have been

Destroyed. This should have been all over the news and should have disqualified Bush.

[Mnemosyne]

5. And the media claimed George W. Bush, war criminal, won all the debates, iirc. nt

[Johonny]

7. The sad thing was by 9 months later Kerry wins in a landslide

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]

9. Katrina pretty much ushed in the decline of Bush's popular support.

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]

20. well the other sad thing was

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]

10. That debate was not the only event in the 2004 campaign.

The inept response to swiftboating and purple heart band-aids doomed Kerry.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. I had thought, naively perhaps, that once they got to the debates, things would change.

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]

12. Debates and position details matter more in primaries.

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]

17. JK fought back the liars in April when they first appeared

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]

18. Their book was long after "first appeared".

They didn't write the book until a while after the attacks started.

[karynnj]

15. the media condoned a character assassination

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]

19. The book was not the start of the attacks. It was long after the attacks started

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]

23. as I said they first appeared in April

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]

24. Kerry himself does not need to attack, just like W himself did not swiftboat. (nt)

[oasis]

21. It was truly shameful, as were the actions of Ohio's Sec.of State

Doing all he could to suppress the black vote.

[hfojvt]

22. I thought he shot himself in the foot big time

when he said "Knowing what I know now, I would still have voted for the IWR."

When I heard that I was like

[karynnj]

25. except he NEVER said that

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]

27. Oh, he said it all right

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]

13. Was this the one where he appeared to be wearing something

under his suit jacket? That was funny!

[Warren DeMontague]

16. "It's hard work"

He did much better on the second one, where he wore a radio in his ear prepared better

[arcane1]

26. Where Kerry said he would've also invaded Iraq if he had been president at the time?

How can I forget?

[Tommy2Tone]

28. Debates rarely move anyone from their choice of a candidate.

That's because people see what they want to see.