Posted on 09/30/2004 7:48:13 PM PDT by wagglebee
I thought Bush looked better proportioned. Kerry looked kind of hulking and cramped. Of course, I'm totally impartial ;-)
Bush Is better proportioned.
Kerry looks like Stan Laurel's evil twin.
Hey, "Political Accountability" got pulled, lol. What was that one all about? Do ya think the Mods get suspicious when we call out the posse?
I agree. Lehrer allowed only one opening on character, and GW gave it a pass. The rest of the evening was open season on GW's record, no mention at all of Kerry's.
Not bad!
Absolutely. It shows how well someone handles themself. It was also designed to draw out the President's thought process. In addition, I believe it was Wolfowitz that gave the three reasons for invading Iraq. 2 of the 3 reasons were not there once in Iraq and the 3rd was said to be alone not a reason to invade. So, yes the question was valid.
Had this been a Presidnet Gore, we would have been cheering the questions under the same circumstances. Since it was our guy, we think he got his teeth kicked in with unfair and irrevelant questions.
As I stated, toward the end, the President got better. But early on he was irritated that Kerry had the audacity to come at him. The moments when he was shown while Kerry was speaking showed his contempt toward his opponent. To red meat folks, it was fine. To the average guy/gal, it made him seem to be irritable. His responses often made him look unprepared. He grasped for answers, looking like he was often pulling them out of his butt.
Kerry's answers may have been nothing but lies. But there was a command and flow about them. But the President should have called him on them. Instead, he huffed and puffed like Al Gore in 2000. He was the one that looked Orange. Kerry looked rested and ready. The President looked tired and fatigued.
Sure it's style over substance. But then again, why do people buy and pay more for a Cadillac built on a Chevy chasis when in fact it's a Chevy and they really only need dependable transportation. Style over substance.
Mule Fritters. Even Britt Hume explained why Kerry was framed better. And btw, Fox produced the video.
You're absolutely right. The President gave few answers that were outside the "message", meaning he gave few of any substance.
David Remnick, of The New Yorker is on Imus making fun of Bush, but he says he's not willing to say viewers won't still give the win to Bush, because he remembers 2000 when the tv talkers gave the debate to Gore, but when the numbers came in, Bush won.
Imus says the polls are going to show Bush did better than the initial opinions of the talking heads.
Tim Cagle, Debate Expert on FOX & Friends says Kerry was more conversational, came across as relaxed and definitively. Expert says Bush was very concise, very much like 2000, very natural. He says Bush is going to get hit hard on the Saturday Night Live factor..those cutaway camera shots.
I don't know that I believe Kerry knew questions ahead of time. I do know that both sides had a hand in setting up the debate in general and new the main topics of each debate ahead of time. The next one, I believe, will focus on domestic issues.
These slanted questions are my biggest beef about the debate. Yet no one seems to be talking about it on the spin circuit. It was an Ambush!
Foreign policy is The President's strongest area. Even some who dislike him, support him on the basis of his foreign policy and the way he has conducted the War on Terror. This was an opportunity to firm up that support by highlighting Kerry's waffles and forcing him to state specifics about his "plan", but didn't.
He needs better preparation and more rest before the remaining debates. Even having a debate with Kerry plays to Kerry's strength.
Lehrer tried but wasn't much help. Here is my simple analysis.
Debate # 1 Winner by category.
Fluff Kerry
Stuff Bush
Do you want fluff or stuff?
Watery Tart wrote:
Hey, "Political Accountability" got pulled, lol. What was that one all about? Do ya think the Mods get suspicious when we call out the posse?
Where do we go to file a complaint against Lehrer. I'm outraged.
Didn't something happen between Kerry and Lair-Uhhh right at the end?
The Fox panel sucked big time. Even Fred Barnes didn't do a good job of defending Bush's performance. Brit was too easily impressed by Kerry's poor performance.
My take on the debate...
Not good.
It reminded me of The Caine Mutiny Court Martial Revisited.
I kept expecting to see the President reach into his pocket and bring out those little silver balls.
Bush was clearly out of his league up against kerry. He appeared frustrated, repeating his lines over and over again, as if pleading for understanding, etc., as kerry hammered him like a prosecuting attorney. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
kerry is a bullsh!ttter; Bush is an honest man--I have watched this sh!t go down for over 50 years now--bvllsh!tters almost always win, good guys finish last. I hope I'm wrong. Hate to see the editorials in the morning.
Two more debates to go--no room for any more of this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.