Anthony Butcher

I thought that this second debate was more balanced. Kerry still seemed to have a slight edge - he is sharper, more rational and backs up his arguments better. Bush seemed to dodge a couple of awkward questions and just give prepared answers. If Bush wasn't already President, I would say that he looks far too simplistic to be elected.

What strikes me about both men is the lack of anything natural. Both had well rehearsed soundbites, both had obviously had a lot of coaching about how to deal with the audience and both seemed somewhat transparent. Bush was being more aggressive and funny, and it was obvious that he had come out with a couple of rehearsed asides to use. Kerry used the first name of every single audience member who asked a question when answering (and got at least one wrong).

The problem with attending to every detail of how to cope with the debates leads to an end results that just feels artificial. Very much like Michael Howard.

I thought that Kerry's answer to the abortion question was extremely well reasoned. He stated that whether he is for or against abortion is irrelevant because he has a duty to represent the whole population, including both sides of the argument. Bush stood up and declared himself against abortion. The lack of subtlety and sophistication from Bush will go against him I would think.

Kerry's line would be consistent with UKIP's general principles of small government; government interference should be minimised as much as possible, and people should be free to make their own moral and societal judgements.

Lafayette

The debates and the recent news about no WMD or Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda are going to hurt Bush badly. I have only looked at a few polls of who won the debate and they all have Kerry winning by various margins, very small to a 64% to 33% victory for Kerry. The bit about abortion was good. Kerry's speech at the DNC had a similar message

It is all a beautiful dream. The idea of a smaller government is a beautiful dream too, but I doubt any politician when they say they are going to cut the fat from the bureaucracy. Then again, it might be a sincere aim and not just campaign speak.

Bush's simplicity might work more to his favor than his detriment. To those who hate him, he is a hopeless moron. To those who don't, he seems more like a regular person than Kerry. This is a link to another forum where you can see the difference in perception


Bush is rich, born in New England, and has a similar education to Kerry's, but he avoids the upper-crust of the northeast, speaks with a somewhat Southern accent, and even once owned his own baseball team. Kerry just seems to represent the standard stereotype of the upper-class, who in spite of their affluence seem always to fret for the cause of the working man and the poor. Kennedy did it, LBJ did it, and so did Clinton. As I said, it is a beautiful dream, but it always seems so artificial.

I was going to support Badnarik, but I might swing to Kerry now. I do not trust him and I would prefer to hear promises of bringing all troops home, ending foreign aid, and basically ending any foreign policy that involves intervening anywhere than words about renewed alliances, but it may be time for a change. I do not know if Bush really believed there were terrorist ties or anthrax, rather it was just a ploy for oil, or whatever, but the fact of the matter remains that thousands of people are dead and the only cause that can be given for it is that Saddam was bad and the oil-for-food program played a part in corruption on the council. I would rather just have let Saddam stay and withdrew from the UN on the condition that Japan got to take our permanent place in the security council.

mkpdavies

The bottom line is Bush is not mentaly up to the task. He has very limited intelligence and it shows. It is a sad reflection on the US that he got voted in the first time, if they don't correct that mistake then I fear for the future.

Kerry annoys me with the way he tries to be everything to every man. The way he tries to portray sincerity reminds me of our own liar Tony. So the poor American have a pretty poor choice, but at least Kerry has some intelligence.

Bush has been a mere puppet for his daddies old boys. That is the only reason he got pushed INTO phpbb_the position. If the USA is to become respected in the world community again they have to dump Bush and they will be Britians que to dump Blair.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

It does appear that the USA judges its leaders by different criteria to the UK. Bush would be laughed out of British politics. Blair is so popular because he always sounds very intelligent, convincing and reasonable. We know that he has a problem with the truth, yet still people trust him.

Lafayette

I think this is true. After Reagan died, I was reading an article comparing the two candidates to him. At one point, it mentioned how Reagan was thought of as a "dumb cowboy" in Europe, almost in the same light as Bush. Then it went on to explain how differently Europeans view politicians, expecting them to be more representative of what I would call the upper-crust of society.

If the election was held today, Kerry would win the electoral college, 280-248 votes.

Anthony Butcher

As you say, a lot of Americans like Bush because he seems like an Average Joe. In Britain, that would be our worst nightmare :wink:

But perhaps that is changing. The lack of respect for the people in suits is altering the way politicians are viewed. I think that this is why Kilroy is proving such a draw. The media slate him as a daytime TV presenter, yet he is plain speaking. He is the British equivalent of Schwarzenegger.