But on substance Bush won, and I think that will carry the day, ultimately.
The facts are stark and plain. We are in a death match with terrorists and we must be on offense and use our power when we choose to, and you don't have to be a great orator to get that simple point across. It's the only salient point and all of Kerry's smooth BS won't win any voters over IMO, on that all important defining issue.
But on substance Bush won, and I think that will carry the day, ultimately.
The facts are stark and plain. We are in a death match with terrorists and we must be on offense and use our power when we choose to, and you don't have to be a great orator to get that simple point across. It's the only salient point and all of Kerry's smooth BS won't win any voters over IMO, on that all important defining issue.
I was trying to look at the debate from the view of an undecided or persuadable voter. I think from that viewpoint, Kerry clearly came across better than Bush.
On substance - I don't think Bush clearly defined the differences between himself and Kerry. Sure, he told us his position, but didn't contrast that well enough from Kerry's position(s).
This debate had no influence on MY vote (for Bush), but I suspect it will move a few votes Kerry's way. With this race so tight, we can't afford that.
"Bush had to share the stage with a lying, piss-elegant fop who would sell America down the river to please Jacques Chirac, and I think Bush's annoyance at that showed, and frankly, I can't blame him.
But on substance Bush won, and I think that will carry the day, ultimately.
The facts are stark and plain. We are in a death match with terrorists and we must be on offense and use our power when we choose to, and you don't have to be a great orator to get that simple point across. It's the only salient point and all of Kerry's smooth BS won't win any voters over IMO, on that all important defining issue."
I agree, JFKerry is an eminent threat to the US, and the security of "freedom" loving nations.