GET YOUR DEBATE ANALYSIS HERE

Much more good news is found in the original article.

Nice formulation, that: "Overall, however, I think" As if talking about conservative values was a bad thing that lowers your position in the race. Eeesh.

Watched the debates last night and trought the President was at his best. I guess it takes him a little time to get warmed up and comfortable, being he's not a professional debator like Kerry. On the social issues, Bush was right on the money and Kerry put on a typically liberal sideshow. Abortion: Kerry jabbered on about how he is a Catholic but don't let his religious belief dictate his legislating decisions...Bush talked about partial birth abortion, and making abortion less necessary (I guess if abortion becomes less necessary, then women have lost a right according to the feminazis) Gay marriage: Bush much more honest by saying "I don't know" why people are gay. The state has a vested interest in heterosexual marriage mostly because only because a man and a woman can produce kids (at least I haven't read anything new in Science Digest). Kerry gave all this drivel about people he knows who came out of the closet after being married for years and how supportive their other sex ex-spouse was. (believe me, it ain't usually all that cozy) plus there was no reason to bring up Dick Cheney's daughter...that was kinda bitchy. Most important Bush made the case about judges overstepping their boundaries by legislating from the bench. Personally I am not really opposed to gay marriage--more comfortable with civil union--but definitely against the tactics gay activists are using to achieve their goals---alot of other agendas have been attained in this manner as well. Stem cell research; the issue is government funding for something that is still very nebulous in definites (more like a lot of wishing for cures and answers). Bush has my vote.

the President was at his best

Agreed! I was cheering him on. (My kids laughed at me talking to the tv.) My favorite line was when the President commented that a litany of complaints did not a plan make. Classic.

The debates are finished and so is Yaaawn’s campaign. For him to win the electoral college he needed to win the three debates like he supposedly did in the first one. Many are wondering if W was so flat on the first one to lower expectations or was he just rusty and tired? If you judge debates on substance W won all three since in none of the debates did Yaaawn carry the night on any substance only style. In DC and the other party they always take style over substance since that is a completely subjective and bias judgement. Any way you slice it now Bush/Chaney took 3 of 4.

The third debate was a continuation of the spanking Yaawn got in the second debate. He kept jumping back to questions or continued to not answer the ones that were asked such as the, “how you going to afford your healthcare plan, question. He went off about tax-cuts for the rich rather than give the foggiest idea. How difficult is it to say the gummit has a program for that?? It is far more difficult to explain to the Country how the Free Market and growing the economy with better education can solve more problems than the gummit can cause. One is the canned 1960's Socialism is the answer to all our problems, and the other is the invisible hand will create solutions.

What Yaaawn failed to do in these debates was to raise his game to the level of W. Perhaps he fell asleep listening to his own long winded, winding whiney answers or he misunderestimated, but he failed to bring his “A” game to the field. His answers never failed to have a “but” midway or two name drops, to the point you wondered if The Pope was trying to get an audience with Mr World?? His delivery was robotic to the point that the facts and figures became impossible to follow and made you reach for the Excedrine.

His worst two answers of a night full of poor answers and the petty political cheap shot was the two at the end. The question of how your faith enters in your ability to lead was insulting. After W described how it gave him strength and wisdom in his times of trouble along with the value of prayers for him, the country have a clear view inside the man. Yaawn comes in with some PC answer about getting blessed by a “native American” along with a canned Universal Religion answer. No glimpse inside the soul only rehearsed dead cliche’s and then finally turns it into an attack on the President? You attack out of a personal faith question?? Talk about judge not lest you be judged! Faith questions give a look inside the man and for Yaawn it made his anger and hatred transparent.

The strong woman answer was his worst of the debates. After W gives a lovely answer that was warm and original and humorous that gave a clear look into his heart and marriage, up steps Yaawn. The great reason for this question was that it was out of left field and the Candidate had to speak from his heart on his feet. Yaawn went to the old cliche’ “We married up”. Forget that this was plagiarized from Reagan and W when they talked about Nancy and Laura or that it fell flat, but it is meant about looks. They both married beautiful women. When he says it about an unattractive older billionaire widow, it means something else entirely. Not to mention he left his first millionaire wife and daughters then annulled the marriage to marry into the Heinz fortune. You can bet that Dingbat asked him what he meant by that! As dingy as she is, she didn’t deserve that embarrassment. He had 2 minutes of listening to W to come up with an original answer and that was the best he could do, a stolen line? It just shows that there is not any there, there. This was a nightmarish way to end the debates for him and dingbat.

The three debates give us a clear picture of both candidates and the differences couldn’t be clearer. Yaawn is a say anything to anyone politician and W is W. Yawn wants a Global Test and Universal Healthcare with higher taxes. The only question about taxes is whether everyone is going to pay higher taxes or just the rich....Right! The debates have shown why Yaawn has accomplished nothing in the Senate since he has no beliefs, backbone or soul. A good resume for a legislator from Mass but hardly the qualities you need leading the most powerful country in the world.

Pray for W and Our Troops

Here's are my questions to John Kerry:

1) If you have so many "plans," why didn't you discuss any of them during your over 1 year run for the Presidency? Why did you wait until 3 weeks before the election to throw out tidbits and now allow a full review of your plans by the American public?

2) If you have so many great ideas, why did only 5 of your ideas becomes laws in over 20 years at your job? Can we believe that once you become President, you will enact all the things you say you can when you haven't in the past?

and now allow (should be) and NOT allow

Anybody: Did Kerry really say this in reply to the last question about strong women?
“Well I guess all three of us are lucky men who married up.”

You can say that again!!!!

You left two questions out:

"Why the long face?"

"Would you like a swift kick in the nuts, senator?"

:-)

I realized one point about who our President is when reviewing the debate in my mind.

When asked why there was not enough flu vaccine, a campaigner would have launched into the problem of lawsuits forcing drug companies to stay away from the market.

Our President started out with what we could do to help ensure everyone who needed a vaccine got one.

That wasn't campaigning, that was concern. Faced with an opportunity to score some debate points, the President showed how much he cared about the American people.

Shalom.

The thing about debating is that a skilled and well practiced debator can take either side of an issue, (pro or con), and win the argument in front of a certain audience. Learned it in debate club in High Schrewool.(as Rush might say).

However, the written form of an argument takes on a whole new attitude when perused by a person of normal or higher intellect. You can't fool them. It's there to be glossed over as much as needed for detailed comprehension.

None of Kerry's transcripts of any one of his three debates would pass muster if read back by an intellectually honest person.

IMHO. SOT.