In Your Opinion...

I agree, it shouldn't have mattered. But in fact it did. Just my opinion but it had all the appearance of a set up. Maybe the President will take a lesson and be better prepared next time. It wasn't a debate. It was a "beat on Bush" session.

Here's my opinion (from another thread in the Bloggers & Personal section).

I don't think Kerry knew the questions before hand. I'm not that paranoid (yet...hehe). I think he was just prepared. Now, my opinion about the debate:

Well, sadly I seem to find myself in the "minority" around here, but I feel it should be said for reasons of intellectual honesty (something I criticize many libs for not doing, so I must do it) and also in the hopes that this might reach someone in the campaign (although this is more a desire to fulfill the former).

I don't think Bush won the debate. At best, it was a draw. Most likely however, Bush came across not as prepared as Sen. Kerry, i.e, he lost. I say this for two main reasons:

1. I love the President, but darn it if the man really can't speak well in a public forum. This is something, if you find yourself debating a leftist about him, you simply cannot deny. I think Bush is eminently qualified to be President, as public speaking is only one of a long list of qualifications one needs. It is important though, especially in this kind of forum. His handlers need to take him off the campaign trail for a few days before the next debate, I mean completely isolate him, and do everything they need to get him to answer quickly, succinctly, and to annunciate his words clearly. To those that don't really care for him (the undecideds) and especially to those that hate him, he comes across as quite "unable" (to put it as diplomatically as possible) when he doesn't do these things. And tell him it's not considered polite to have a dour, insulted look on your face when your opponent is speaking in a debate.
2. As much as it pains me to say it, I think Kerry actually did make his position on Iraq more clear. He said that he voted for the use of force, with the understanding that we'd go to the UN and ONLY use the UN, and when we usurped the UN, he voted against the $87 billion supplement in protest. Now let me make this clear, I think that was a deplorable thing to do, to vote against something that our troops need, to protest, in effect, what was his (Kerry's) own foolish misunderstanding of what Bush was capable. In other words, Kerry didn't realize when he voted for the use of force that Bush would (RIGHTFULLY of course) "blow off" the UN when the UN refused to follow up on their resolution that stated "dire consequences" would ensue if Saddam didn't comply. So he used the $87 billion supplement as a form of protest saying, in effect, "You tricked me Bush, and here's what I think of 'your' war". Wrong of him to do? OF COURSE! But that's not the point of this post. The point I'm making here is, he explained himself, and I'm not sure why there are some on here that refuse to see that. Right now we shouldn't be hiding our heads in the sand, pretending Kerry didn't do a good job, when his (obviously erred) message WAS "explained". In other words, we should be willing to accept that Kerry bested Bush, and attack his (Kerry's) obvious flawed reasoning. Attack his message, but don't try and claim he didn't "explain" himself. That will only make us conservatives look foolish to those that listened to the debate without any prejudice. (I'm not saying he's not a flip flopper, but last night, with reguards to Iraq, he did "explain himself". Don't go down that road, that's all I'm saying)

The man needs to be shown for the "globalist" that he is, and, since his "style" was better than Bush's, that message simply didn't get through to the "undecideds" who usually don't care too much about politics. Granted there was one time that Bush picked up on Kerry's "global test", but that point wasn't driven home. Also, as a side note, there were many errors that Kerry said (if not out right lies) that Bush rarely challenged, like, for example, when Kerry said the RNC stopped all subway traffic in NYC. Bush should have picked up on that, and smacked him down for it.

The undecideds are going to decide this election (as usual of course). We have to remember though, they are people who aren't as informed as anyone here on FR or any other forum or blog. These are people who's greatest decision usually revolves around who's going to get the car for the weekend, or should we paint the house this week or next week. STYLE MATTERS, for better or worse, in this country, almost if not as much as SUBSTANCE. And for the undecideds, the "feel" (style) IS the most important, because they don't want to put too much thought into this. After all, it's "only" an election to these people; something they might end up skipping anyway if the commute home from work that night is extra long.

I'm sorry. You're right. I suddenly remembered when I saw it spelled the correct way. Isnt that weird? I know -- I knew that . Dont even -- know where I picked up the "k".....

Bush did a good job! He didn't spend his time quoting this person or that person, Unlike Kerry, President Bush Told us what HE thought and what HE would do.

Kerry came across well. He was collected and articulate.

Bush seemed a bit passive, or perhaps tired. He was frustrated by some of Kerry's lies. He was searching for words at times, but presented his case straight-forward and articulate. He missed lots of opportunities to expose Kerry.

Kerry's arguments and points were just plain wrong. Many were outright lies. His presentations contradicted his previous speeches and his voting record.

Bush's content was correct.

If we assume the purpose of these debates is to sway the undecided, then we have to decide if style is more persuasive than substance for that group. Will more facts help them at this point? I think not. But will more style help them at this point? I can't see why it would. We've seen Bush's cowboy persona and Kerry's Billionaire Boy-Toy persona for a year now.

Personally, I think anyone who was undecided on Sept 30, 2004 shouldn't be voting anyway. This election is a clear choice and the differences has been open to all. The undecideds are either too stupid to discern what makes sense, or they just don't give a damn. Either way, they should play Gameboy and stay home on election day.

gitmo

Seriously, we've already tried the bilateral talks. We got our current situation.

The key here is that W was right, Kerry was proposing walking into Kim Jong Il's trap. If you go bilateral, the Chinese walk, the Russians walk, the Japanese sit there and ask you, "OK, you screwed up, what's your next trick?", and the N. Koreans start laying their ears back and getting ready to fight the war Kim wants, because now they've got you one-on-one, and Kim thinks he can deter you with nuclear weapons and overrun the South with his million-man army.

Bad scene. Bush should have clubbed Kerry mercilessly for that Korean exchange.

Personally, I think anyone who was undecided on Sept 30, 2004 shouldn't be voting anyway. This election is a clear choice and the differences has been open to all. The undecideds are either too stupid to discern what makes sense, or they just don't give a damn. Either way, they should play Gameboy and stay home on election day.

Too bad that's exactly who is going to decide the next four or eight years, and our outcomes for all that time.

And they'll do it on atmospherics and impressions. Bush, unfortunately, lost, and he may have lost the election already. It was his first, best chance to make a real impression -- in the round, in the flesh -- with those undecideds. His best hope is that they'll keep on watching baseball and NBA games on cable instead, right up to Election Day, and that they didn't see the debate.

It was a missed chance, and the 'Rats' gloating tells us everything we need to know about them. Anyone see Larry O'Donnell on McLaughlin last night? He looked like he was possessed by Pazuzu. He was radiating dark light.

Bush, unfortunately, lost, and he may have lost the election already.

I don't think so. Reagan did far, far worse on his first debate in 84. Conservatives were despondent. But I remember well his comeback in #2, and his sweep of the nation.

Bush was worn out from long days in Florida comforting hurricane victims and cheering up Red Cross volunteers. Boy Toy had spent a day and half in a massage spa getting his orange skin buffed and his nails polished.

bttt