What did you think of the debate on Friday night? We're not asking for a winner or loser necessarily, although you may name one. What were the high points? What were Bush's best moments? Kerry's? Should this debate - should any debate - sway the votership?


President Bush performed better in this type debate than in the first debate. Sen. Kerry is, without a doubt, a polished debater. Both Kerry and Bush slanted the facts too many times to mention. After looking at factcheck.org, I thought maybe they both should have been polygraphed or given the truth serum prior to the debates.

Factcheck.org said that Kerry's statement That No Child Left Behind being underfunded by 28 billion dollars was an opinion and not a fact. No Child Left Behind funding has increased by 2.7 billion or 12 percent since the law was enacted.

Kerry claims that 1.6 million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush administration. Labor statistics reveal that the figure is closer to 585,000 jobs lost (one third of Sen. Kerry's claim). This figure could be less, as jobs are growing at 100,000 per month.

I was expecting more on domestic issues, but the war in Iraq seemed to dominate the debate. President Bush noted that Kerry had supported the war until Howard Dean's campaign began to gain momentum. Bush asked, "How can he lead the county in a time of war when he changes his mind because of politics?" Later in the debate, President Bush said, "It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say the war on terror is only against Osama bin Laden."

This corresponds with statements Bush made shortly after 9/11. At that time, he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that sponsored and harbored them. This would take time.

I was disappointed that responses to the questions appeared unrelated. A question about the war got a response about jobs and health care. Kerry was more adept with these unrelated answers, but maybe that's better debating.

The following comments made by the participants are misleading:

1. President Bush's comment on the child tax credit being increased was not correct. The credit was increased from $500 to $1,000 - not increased by $1,000.

2. Bush's drug discount is not working as he implied. Millions have not signed up for the card.

3. Kerry's health-care plan would not cover all Americans, but rather it would extend coverage to 24 to 27 million Americans not now covered.

4. Kerry's comment on windfall profits for drug companies was not a fact.

5. Kerry's comment on the Duelfer Report, stating that it showed that United Nations sanctions against Iraq were working, was not accurate. The report did not draw such a conclusion.

6. Kerry's statement that Gen. Shinseki had been forced to retire after disagreeing with the administration over troop strength in Iraq was wrong. Gen. Shinseki announced his retirement long before the disagreement.

Several times Sen. Kerry spoke of reaching out to the allies, building alliances. He said, "We're not going to go unilaterally as the President did." These statements conflict with his remarks on North Korea.

In closing, Sen. Kerry stated, "I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity - not a nation, not a country, not an institution." If he waits for France or Germany or other countries who deal under the table with regimes like Saddam Hussein's to join his global coalition, he might as well give them that veto.

Both candidates distorted facts and confused opinions with facts. Perhaps for future debates, we could give the candidates the questions in advance. At the debates they would be wired for electrical shock. If the candidate distorted the facts or misplaced the truth, the moderator, with the press of a button, could jog his memory. If the first shock failed, he would get a second that would knock his socks off.

Question Number Twelve: What did you think of the debate on Friday night? We're not asking for a winner or loser necessarily, although you may name one. What were the high points? What were Bush's best moments? Kerry's? Should this debate - should any debate - sway the votership?

Many important questions were raised at the Presidential debate/town hall meeting last Friday - so many that only a few minutes could be devoted to each one. Every issue deserves serious thought, and a consideration of all viewpoints, to make an intelligent decision. I can be swayed by complete, well thought-out arguments. But it is disconcerting to realize that people can be swayed by two-minute "performances" such as these debates give us.

The President gave a much better "performance" in this debate than in the first one. As Ann Richards has said, George W. Bush is best when he "doesn't allow himself to be distracted by the question." So when he sticks to a basic message, talking points, and right-wing buzzwords and phrases, he appeals to emotions, can appear "strong," and can be extremely persuasive.

The best example was when he was asked how he planned to repair relations with other countries. The President's response did not speak at all to repairing relations. Instead, it was a monologue of patriotic jingoism. Unfortunately, I could see this being very effective with sectors of the public for whom this kind of talk provides a needed emotional security: I love our country! We have a great country! As president, I stand on principle, as Ronald Reagan did. Sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made because they are right!

In response to later questions, President Bush used buzz-phrases such as "vicious enemy with an ideology of hate" and "freedom is on the march!" He spoke of Kerry as having "naive and dangerous ideas." He said Kerry is the most liberal senator in Congress (an assertion that watchdog groups quickly showed was false) who will tax everyone because "that's what liberals do."

One Bush statement I have not heard anyone pick up on was that the war on terror will be a "long, long war." It would be interesting to know what was behind that statement.

I liked Kerry's portrayal of the President as using "weapons of mass deception," although I think he could have expounded on this more. Good points raised by Kerry included:

* The top 1 percent of Americans stand to get $89 Billion from the tax cuts - more than the bottom 80 percent combined - and that top 1 percent is all that should be rolled back (in other words, Kerry, as he stated directly into the camera, would not roll back taxes for those making under $200,000);

* In order to get enough votes in Congress for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), President Bush promised $28 Billion more than he actually allocated;

* Less than 1 percent of health-care costs have anything to do with malpractice suits. When Bush made his tired speeches about tort reform, he left out the fact that up to 30 percent of the rise in costs is due to high CEO salaries, advertising, and other costs of allowing private industry to drive health care in this country - the costs, in other words, passed on to us all by the myriad HMOs and private insurance companies.

* John Edwards authored the Patients' Bill of Rights. No one mentioned that in Texas, a Patients' Bill of Rights was passed over then-Gov. Bush's veto and without his signature. Later, when running for president, he claimed credit for it.

* Tax breaks, incentives and loopholes for U.S. corporations that outsource jobs to other countries need to be eliminated;

* Loose nuclear material remains a huge danger - one about which the Bush administration has not done enough - and the need to account for all of it is urgent.

Issues so far pretty much ignored by both candidates include:

* Being poor remains a plight for too many Americans - and more and more members of the middle class are being squeezed toward that plight.

There is too much corporate power over our lives at home, as well as over foreign policy.

Question Number Twelve: What did you think of the debate on Friday night? We're not asking for a winner or loser necessarily, although you may name one. What were the high points? What were Bush's best moments? Kerry's? Should this debate - should any debate - sway the votership?

I thought both sides would likely think their guy won. I personally thought it a draw. Kerry and Bush said very little that had not been said before on foreign policy, and there were some domestic issues on which I had not heard before from Kerry.

Again we have the little lines drawn that the candidates could not walk toward each other. "Crossing the line" . . . was moderator Charles Gibson of ABC supposed to zap them with a cattle prod if they did? The time lights help because all politicians are like the Energizer Bunny and will not shut up (with the exception of Vice President Cheney, who no doubt runs out of batteries in his heart thingamajig).

I'd just like to see a normal group of people, with equal distributions of class, income, gender, and political orientation asking the candidates questions. And I would let the candidates question each other - maybe even walk toward each other (are they afraid they will exchange blows? Bush wouldn't go after Kerry because Kerry has the arm-reach advantage over him, and Kerry wouldn't take a swing at Bush because Kerry cannot break a nail).

I thought Kerry's high point was his plan to allow "seniors" between ages 55 and 65 buy into Medicare, and allow the uninsured to buy into the Congressional Plan (hey, I want that), and his low point was his failure to elaborate on how this change to Medicare would work. The Kerry/Edwards Web site was short on specifics (one vague sentence).

How are they going to incorporate this with the new Medicare laws (2007) that require seniors earning $80,000 a year to $200,000 a year to pay a higher percentage of their premiums, means-testing them (using all sources of income and cash/savings) into significantly higher premiums?

By 2011 (the year first-generation baby boomers turn 65), the premiums will be as follows:

Under $80,000/$160,000: $66.60 per month per person (no change)

Over $80,000/$160,000: $71.93 in 2007, rising to $93.24 by 2011

Over $100,000/$200,000: $79.92 in 2007, rising to $133.20 by 2011

Over $150,000/$300,000: $87.91 in 2007, rising to $173.16 by 2011

Over $200,000/$400,000: $95.90 in 2007, rising to $213.12 by 2011

I cannot imagine any scenario in which adding more people earlier to Medicare would be feasible during the baby-boom generation. They are now seriously considering increasing the Medicare age (to piggyback with Social Security's later retirement age) and have already adopted means testing.

The remainder of the Kerry plan appears to allow small and large businesses to provide their emplyees with Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield. That is the plan federal employees and Congress currently enjoy. This plan provides very good coverage, but it is expensive. Now, we are told that tens of millions in this country are uninsured, and one assumes that many of them are uninsured because the premiums are costly and the cannot pay for them. So how will Kerry make up the difference?

I thought President Bush's highpoint was staying awake and alert (no, really) during the debate. Never very articulate, he did manage to convey his message that terrorism is a real threat.

I thought the low points for Bush were missed opportunities.

Bush cited a few occasions from 1991 to 1998 on which Kerry said that Saddam was a threat, a terrorist that had weapons of mass destruction, and was a danger to the region and "beyond." Bush did make a few such mentions, but I don't think he hammered home the point as he might have done. Kerry simply has changed his views so he can get elected.

Bush blew it also on the draft. I think his response should have made the point that all this talk about the draft is a Democrat-inspired whisper campaign. The only people I have seen discussing a draft are Democrats. Charlie Rangel discussed a draft measure on PBS on Jan. 9, 2003, and other Democrats have taken up the theme, proposed bringing back the draft to reduce the perceived racial inequities in terms of white/black/Hispanic in the military.

Kerry says he is going to increase troop strength by 40,000, and some Democrats want to bring back the draft, so the logical conclusion is that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who want a mandatory draft (six degrees of separation, as it were.)

Kerry says he is going to hunt down and kill terrorists across the world but apparently not in Iraq, although he says "terrorists are pouring into Iraq." Gee, while they are there, why not hunt and kill them?

Bush should have made the point that if Kerry were president of the United States, not only would Saddam Hussein still be in power but he would also be in Kuwait because Kerry voted against the 1991 war even though we had total United Nations approval to go in. Had Saddam not been challenged in Kuwai, he would have told his generals he was headed to Saudi.

Bush should have pounded home the bribes the U.N. Security Council were taking from Saddam Hussein. This bribery scandal is shocking and includes Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son). Most Americans who did not actually read the new CIA report (available online only) do not know the extent of the $11 billion dollar oil-for-food scandal (which really should be called the "oil-for-loot scandal"), or that members of the U.N. Security Council were among those bribed.

So Bush blew it on those points, and they are very important.