I thought President Bush looked pretty bad on the first one.
Tonight he looked just great.
Tonight he asked the American people if they wanted a President that would make the tough decisions based on what he thought was best for the country, or one who would base his decisions on what made him popular with Hollywood, European leaders,and the MSM polls.
The difference in the character and leadership qualities of the two was laid bare for all to see.
If you want someone who talks a good game, then choose Kerry.
If you want a leader in which to place the welfare of your country and your family, then vote for President Bush. It really is that simple.
If America doesn't re-elect this good man, then I'm afraid once again we will get what we deserve.
Bush did quite well. Bush did well defending and explaining his position on everything from the environment to homeland security. Certainly an improvement from his performance at the first debate. He did seem, though, to have a uncomfort in his jaw. I realize that's me just being picky. He came across "cool" too. Not that cocky attitude that was on display last week. Good for him. You know what he believes in and he doesn't pander. I think Bush could've done a better job answering the final question about his mistakes. He should've been better prepared for that one.
Kerry, as expected, seemed comfortable (he's done plenty of these townhall meets) some of the time and stiff at other times. Surprisingly (he's been trained well), Kerry actually put some zest behind some of what he talked about. Still on certain questions he insisted that he "respects" a difference in opinion (eg, abortion) to the point that he comes across as pandering in an attempt to attract voters for the sake of doing just that. [Really, really, did you hear Kerry repeatedly say "really"?? Ok, enough, we gotcha Mr. Kerry.] And, that's problematic in that he doesn't seem genuine. Kerry enjoys to hear himself talk, doesn't he?!
Kerry's ongoing problem is that some of his past (eg, votes) doesn't quite gel with some of what he said (and continues to say on the trail). How do you believe someone who says one thing today, but did/said quite different in the past? Votes in the Senate to cut intel funding, while now he's all for mucho spending. (At one point during this debate, Kerry even admitted that he's going to have to cut back on some of his "favorite programs." As scary as it might seem, it begs the question about how many "favorite programs" he really has. Yikes. $$$$)
Yes, different circumstances, and yes things aren't always cut and dry, but it's still not clear who Kerry is and what he stands for. Kerry says things now, portraying himself as a moderate, but his nearly 20 years in the Senate clearly shows a different man. Hysterical how Kerry tries to wiggle out of it by complaining about how we shouldn't "label." Yah, but all your leftist surrogates can label your opponent, Senator? [Senator, in all fairness, you did refer to Bush as the "compassionate conservative" and mocked it.]
Wasn't it the nonpartisan National Journal that, after going through Kerry's voting record, placed the Senator left of the ideological center? If that's who he was for so long, how can it be that he's changed just in time for the presidential elections? Or, should we simply ignore Mr Kerry's voting record and fall for whatever he shovels our way?
Overall, no low blows or gaffes. Bush, 2; Kerry, 1.
###
You're absolutely right, Bush came out swinging and won BIG!!!