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.
###
I thought he handled such an assinine question very well.
But I sensed that Kerry was not comfortable tonight like he was the first debate. I still think he had some type of inside help on the first.
Tonight was different. I even once or twice seen a flash of fear in his eyes.
It is very different to make politcal speeches and take canned questions than to look at a real live voter who has an unknown question that they want a simple straight answer to.
People like him Bill and Hillary do not like to be face to face and questioned by ordinary people. They will desperately try to avoid any environment where they do not have some degree of control over.
How many times have you seen anyone of the three take questions from a live audience even one that is totally partisan?
Bill would review the troops but you never seen him mixing with and talking with the rank and file like President Bush. How many interviews have you seen Hillary give in an uncontrolled setting whether they do not know the questions or the person asking the questions in advance.
Kerry was criticized for not have enough interviews while on campaign. He has yet to appear on OReily's show although he almost has to.
These liberal elitists have nothing in common with ordinary people and most have a fear of them because they are an unknown.
This is why they favor government control of the people.