Kerry seemed to control the tenor of the debate, and that makes him the winner, regardless of his positions.
bookmark bump
Yep, that was good.
Taken from the viewpoint of the avereage "undecided" who doesn't know the facts or the history of both candidates, I'd say it was a tie.:
Kerry "won" on "formal debate skills" and "speechifying" .
President Bush won on likability and honesty.... And he came across as "a guy who don't take no crap". while Kerry came off like kind of a supercillious wimp.
Never met anyone who was really good at debating that was any good at management and decision making, while I have known a lot of bad debaters that were great executives.
I don't see this debate making any real difference in the election.... I was hoping that The President would give a more polished performance, and that Kerry would have had a complete "melt down" on stage.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1231992/posts
I thought the biggest mistake Bush made was not jumping on Kerry's comment that we should lead by disarming our nuclear weapons. That point could have been mined for a million zingers tonight.
Something like: "Senator Kerry, I do not equate us with our enemies, and I do not intend to lead by disarming with nothing but the hope our enemies will follow."
Kerry acted like NK isn't lead by a insane dictator. I just don't see how Bush could let that pass.
Republicans eating there own and throwing int he towel already. *sigh*
Cowards.
I hate to say but after the way so many on this board kavetched tonight and submitted to the orchstrated efforts of the Dems to demoralize us.
They swamped the online polls and flooded the net and the rest of the net with their propoganda. They struck out in unison at the talk radio shows possing as self defeated Republicans and what did we do? Cried on our own shoulders and declared a very French surrender.
Freedom only belongs to those who are willing to fight for it. Stop your kavetchin and start the spin you schmucks. Time turn this around and not lay down.
We should be full networked with every family and friend member before the next debate and be prepared to flood the online polls, websites, talk radio station, and TV instapundit shows the second the debate ends. Or we should just put on our little berats and move to France.
Just because Kerry did well also doesn't mean that Bush completely sucked.
"Migjagger" is a subversive, desperate, and scummy the liberals troll that has managed to stay under the radar for since 98'. He's like an AlQaeda sleeper only coming out of the closet now. Just look at his past post history and it's a dead giveawy full of left wing talking points and subversive tactics.
I don't understand Bush not doing a better job of defending his position. God knows that Kerry gave him plenty of opportunities to blow him out of the water. He should have responded to Kerry when he said the first thing he would do was axe the bunker busting nuclear bombs. I thought Bush did lousy but after seeing the debate again I think Kerry did himself no favors. No matter how slick Kerry was and how badly he beat Bush with words, in truth they were just fancy words.
Bush looked and sounded tired. If the President is not tired by 9:00 P.M. he isn't working hard enough. I hope the general public keeps that in mind. The President has a day job, unlike Kerry, who has a no-show job.
Bush was also on the defensive a lot because he was going against 2 opponents, not one. Am I mis-remembering or did Lehrer actually ask Kerry to list Bush's lies as one of the questions? And then he asked Bush to list his mistakes.
Three statements made by Kerry now need to be stressed: (1) "Global" support before using preemptive force; (2) Nuclear fuel for Iran; and (3) "unilateral disarmament". The President should focus on these three points, and ask: How do they, in the post 9/11 world, help in the fight on terrorism; how do they help keep America and her people safe?
Kerry has talked the talk; however, Bush has walked the walk. End of debate.
I expected the President to be loaded for bear, armed with the finer points of comparison of these times to other times of war in U.S. history, such as when doves were crying over "not winning the peace" in Germany. I thought that maybe he would lash back at Kerry for his assertion that he could restore "credibility" to the Oval Office that would get Gulf War-era allies on board for Iraq when the fact is that Kerry voted against the Gulf War.
Armed with the newly discovered gift of the 1997 Kerry quote that 'France and Germany can't be counted on' to aid the U.S. in dealing with Saddam, I never figured he would keep that in his holster.
To use baseball lingo, when Kerry made his slanderous implication that oil profits and Halliburton's bottom line was a motivation for "the grand diversion" of Iraq, Bush stood and let it go by him like a 3-1 fastball down the middle.
It seemed to me that Kerry was ready for a response from Bush including the statement of fact that North Korea began their deal-breaking weapons-grade nuke experiments during the Clinton administration, and responded to a charge that Bush didn't make too strongly.
There were so many opportunities that could have been taken to set Kerry back on his heels. And Bush, seemingly out of respect for Kerry, didn't respond forcefully. Very strange for a guy whose enemies think he is combative and impulsive.
When Bush gave his acceptance speech at the RNC convention in 2000, I was shocked. For the past eight years, Al Gore's speaking stiffness was the stuff of legend, but Bush's podium manner was more rigid and tight than Presidential candidate I had ever witnessed (he edged out the monotonous Dukakis). Bush set the bar low for Gore, and after that awkward and embarrassing make-out session he and Tipper had on the platform, the then-VP gave the best speech of his life. Gore got a huge bounce out of it.
Bush got the post-election bounce this time around. And the first reports don't show that this debate has changed any of the numbers. But if Bush puts in another anemic performance on topics in which he is more vulnerable (not his strengths, national defense and homeland security), the results November 3rd could shock us all.
3 problems with this analysis.
First, the disclaimer that "if I didn't know anything about either guy, then..."
That is a meaningless premise. Because anybody who watched the debate tonight knows *something* about the candidates. Especially Bush, who's only been the POTUS the last 4 years. And they are not 4 eventless years, they are four tumulous years. A person who after the last 4 years who is totaly oblivious of who Bush is is not somebody who's going to vote, or watch the debates.
2nd. Bush's support is much firmer than Kerry's. As polls have shown, many more of the people who say they'll vote for Bush say they are certain, compared to Kerry who's support is much weaker. I don't think Bush lost any votes tonight, he may not have persuaded many undecided, but he is polling about 50% in many polls, so he doesn't need the undecided, just to hold on to people who already plans to vote for him. So even if all the undecided who "doesn't know anything about either guy" go for Kerry, that's not enough. Proof of this is in the Gallup post election poll, despite most people thinking Kerry won the debate, Bush still came out post-debate ahead of Kerry is "who's more likeable", who "agrees with me on the important issues", "who is more believable", and "tough enough to be president". In fact he won the tough enough to be president question 54 to 37. That's right, only 37% of the people who watched the debate afterwards think Kerry is tough enough to be president.
3rdly, I disagree that the later debates count less. They count more. Remember 84 when Reagan was terrible against Mondale in debate one, but came back and won the 2nd one. Also in 2000, Gore won the first debate fairly handily, and then got taken out of his game by W in the 2nd one, which completely turned the momentum of the race. This debate did not change the momentum of the race. Kerry proved he is a better debater, but he didn't convince that he'd be the better president.
Bush could have put him away on so many issues.
Kerry trashed the coalition of Asian nations with the USA working to contain Korea... Bush let him go on that.
Kerry said his VOTE against the 187 billion supplemental was a mistaken way to TALK about the war... Bush failed to mention that SENATE VOTES are not just TALK. Bush let him go on that.
Bush let him go on his 20 year anti-military, anti-USA voting record in the Senate. This was a foreign policy debate. A 20 year voting record is an important foreign-policy predictor. Bush let him go on that.
We all laughed when Kerry changed his campaign team several times.
Bush should have been doing the same.
There are Bush advisors who should have been fired long ago. Now it's too late for that. Now they should be shot.
This was not a true debate. This was a series of short speeches. Bush's advisors didn't send him him with any good short speeches. Kerry's advisors sent Kerry in with a lot of good (lying) short speeches.
All of Bush's advisors --- including Rove --- should be lined up against the wall and shot. They should be replaced with a team run by Rush Limbaugh.
What a sad, sad, day. I just hope we dont get that commie traitor anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist, pro-Europe, pro-terrorist scumbag Kerry and his scumbag lawyer boy in the Whitehouse.
Did I mention? Bush's advisors should be lined up against the wall and shot. With large caliber weapons.
We all laughed at the idea of Clintonistas sabotaging the Kerry campaign.
I'd like to know who's sabotaging the Bush campaign. Clearly somebody is doing that. Clearly somebody in the Bush camp does not want Bush to be president. I'd really like to know who that is.
Bush spoke the truth while Kerry lied.