Posted on 09/30/2004 7:41:42 PM PDT by Mobilemitter
In your opinion, how did the debates go? Did Kerry get the upperhand (yeah right) or did Bush come out strong?
Also, was it just me, or did Kerry seem a little too prepared for those questions? Kerry usually trips over himself whenever he has to answer something, but he glided through this.
I guess it depends on whether the people want to a clear and simple message or if they would prefer to be baffled with BS.
I agree that Kerry seemed a little too prepared. Maybe we have another CBS debacle with PBS. I think considering the questions were so obviously stacked against Bush he did well.
I agree. If Bush did anything tonight..he gave Kerry another 14 days of life to his campaign. Bush for some reason looked like he was "holding back" a bit. I have a feeling something really damaging is going to surface on Kerry in the next week or so,or something BIG is going to be coming from the White House in the next week.
Bush let Kerry hang himself on his words.
I agree that Kerry seemed a little too prepared. Maybe we have another CBS debacle with PBS. I think considering the questions were so obviously stacked against Bush he did well.
It was a draw - Bush answered the questions but with the same sound bites, didn't rip into Kerry enough but Kerry never answered a question, all he said was Bush was wrong and "I have a plan". He never told us what his plan was other than to go to other countries for help. Oh and also to learn more about his plan go to JohnKerry.com--- lol
Kerry "won", without any doubt, but only in the conventional sense. Especially for those, (and remember that they exist), who don't follow blogs everyday, etc, who check the news once in a blue moon, those who managed to tune in tonight, for the first real experience of Forbes since the primaries. Yes, this is primarily a *style* commentary, but that is much of what was needed, and gained, by the JFnK.
Bush did not "lose", though I would say he didn't gain much. Certainly he didn't gain anywhere near what Kerry did. Perhaps W's expression of his position will make some more confident in him, but he managed to perform even slightly less well, I would say, than our normally lowered expectations of his "traditional rhetorical sophistication". I mean, we all know, and knew, that he is not a Churchill-Reagan mix when it comes to speaking. Certainly I hope that his team can coach him a *little* bit more before the next one, if only to help him avoid those pregnant pauses, and the too-oft repeated phrases.
In short, he seemed slightly nervous about being attacked by the mighty-mouth of JFnK, which is not what we wanted.
Now, the real question, I think, is what impact this "debate" has on what follows, id est, outside the debate, back in the real world?
While Kerry may take with him a newly earned peception of sophistication and confidence, will it really change anything? After the substance of Kerry's various complaints *sink in*, as it were, will it really be anything other than, "We should have gotten the French to help" ?
Ultimately, can anyone remember what Kerry really said? Iraq was a diversion... um... Shoulda got OBL... um... OK, perhaps America has now seen a Kerry which is not nearly the bumbling fool which he usually is. But did anything he say have the gravity and traction it needs to really STICK?
What aftermath will exist from any of Kerry's accusations? Unfortunately, I didn't hear him step in real poop at any time-- he was obviously coached to be dern careful-- but still he's made alot of charges which are now additional fodder which the DNC can use in complaints about the eternal Kerry-reinvention-strategy. Can Kerry live with another few weeks with this current position?
Although I judge Kerry the "winner", there's also no denying that it was close and that what Kerry needed to win the election is a knockout punch, which neither side had, even remotely.
Very sad to say Bush was horrible tonight .Yes, we know Kerry is full of sh*t but the general public dosent follow things as deeply as we do in here. Kerry seemed cool and on the ball (eventhough he talked a lot of crap ) I, for one , am VERY bummed out now.
I think undecided people watching the debate expect more from the President than his challenger. Obviously, Bush has been President for 4 years and should be able to defend and speak clearly on his record. He was not able to do that tonight. I don't care if the debate was biased or not (which I do not think it was). Bush needs to come out as holding the high ground which he did not do.
I am insinuating that too. Kerry seemed to have answers too quickly as if it was rehearsed. Something just didn't seem right with Kerry. What I would also like to know is why Kerry has a Bush/Kerry Debate book from the Bush camp on his website. Does anyone know if that is just a joke or what?
Good observations. Bush had a few sounds bites ready, but missed many opportunities to call sKerry on the mat.
Bush proved himself to be a steadfast Commander in Chief.
sKerry proved himself to be a consumate politician.
Both probably think they won. The MSM will try to give sKerry the trophy, but history will call it a draw. Tie breaker goes to the leading candidate.
I look forward to the Cheney/Edwards debate. Dick will be ruthless.
BTW, GREAT 'Yes - 35 year' concert on PBS. Where have they been the last 20 - 25 years?
Kerry stuck to the creedo: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s." - He certainly has a large stack to fork it from.
I think President Bush looked tired compared to Kerry --maybe thats because today Bush was in Stuart Florida visiting Hurricane devasted people (while John Kerry went and got a manicure)
Bush's stump speeches are passionate and high energy - none of that was on display tonight when the topic certainly called for it.
Don't know where the real Dubya was.
Now that I've taken a deep breath and thought about it for a few minutes, I don't think this debate will make a difference or change too many minds.
When the rubber meets the road on election day, Kerry, an eastern liberal elistist pacifist, can not and will not win.
Maybe he is just better at debating?
Kerry appeared paternalistic and condescending...he reminded me of every college professor I ever hated.
I can only stand Fox a little and the others not at all. Fox said Kerry did pretty well and Bush so so. Someone said the race is back to neck and neck. I think Bush won. Kerry lied and flip flopped but no one on Fox called him on it.
Kerry showed what a lying POS he was.
He told the American people that he would give Iran nuclear fuel
He told the American people that the subways were closed in New York during the RNC -- they were not.
He talked out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq.
He said that he would have a global test before a preemptive strike.
Bush spoke to the American people. Bush has a plan. You know where he stands for. Bush fared just fine. Kerry came off as a used car salesman who has zero credibility.
"What's his position on Iraq again?"
Definately not the Missionary position-likely some really kinky position.
He actually said that nuclear proliferation was the greates threat to U.S. security. The greatest threat is Muslim terrorism. Nuclear proliferation is merely one possible tool, and not the next one most likely to be used.
I feel far more concerned about a truck bomb in front of a major building than I do about nukes right now.
Also, how is the President of the United States supposed to secure nukes in Russia? Don't the Russians have to do that?
Just curious.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.