Printable View
What did everyone think of the debate last night? :uzi:
I did not think it was anything unusual, Bush was bashing Kerry about his flip-flopping. And, Kerry was bashing Bush about his decisions on Iraq.
To tell all of you the truth, I could not tell who came out on top last night.
Kerry said nothing, and did so eloquently.
Bush laid out his plans, but fumbled over the English language as only he can.
Toss-up.
I give the edge to Kerry in this one only because of his better debating skills. Three wasn't much substance there. I thought Bush could have done a better job on tearing apart Kerry's record and thrashing his Iraq and terror stances with better pin point accuracy.
The next debate may favor Bush as it's a Town Hall style. The President is better when he can work a crowd.
I was 'underwhelmed' by President Bush's performance. Kerry for the most part actually presented his answers more thoroughly in terms of context (not substance), although he still had the positions all confused and contradicting, like he always does. But just from a 'presentation' stand point, President Bush did not perform overly well. He can do much better, as he did against Gore four years ago. Perhaps its more difficult debating on the defensive than when you and your opponent are both on equal footing going into the debate?
Going into the second debate, I give Kerry a slight edge in terms of scoring the debates only. Looking at this mornings "ratings", most have Kerry winning the debate, yet most still feel GWB is still the better man for the job - particularly in handling Iraq.
I really hated how directly after the debate the liberal media started bashing GW and praising Kerry. I had it on CBS and was disgusted right after the debate... I quickly switched it to FoxNews where there was a bit more equal bashing. :tongue: But definetly more praising of Bush. They were in fact giving the edge to Bush.
That's an interesting point you bring up. I find myself watching FoxNews more since I feel they lean more towards a conservative point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
However, here is something interesting:
I listen to a conservative talk radio station when going to and from work.
They were interviewing a the head person from The Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Inquirer
This newspaper is considered very liberal in Philly. Philly of course is a democrat town. But, here is the interesting point when they asked her about who the newspaper endorsed over the last 25 years in the Presidential Race, it was a 50-50 split!!!
That I would never have guessed.
I don't know, Slaughter. I watched Brit Hume after the debate, and everyone seemed to give the nod to Kerry, albeit by a fairly small margin. Even the two Weekly Standard panelists (Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol) admitted that Kerry far surpassed expectations. Barnes even poked fun at Bush's pronunciation of the word "mullah" (moo·lah). I agree with the consensus here that Bush was more substantive, but Kerry was more polished and articulate (and self-contradicting). Some of Bush's uncomfortable silences really made me squirm. Advantage Kerry.
It was actually Hannity & Colmes I was watching that gave Bush the edge.. and bashed Kerry, as well as Bush, quite evenly. However FoxNews did say that most of the media was giving the edge to Kerry.
But it just doesn't bode well for you when you get your own campaign slogans and things you have said in the debate used against you. Advantage Bush.
Hannity is a huge Bush supporter so he is not going to say anything negative. I agree with the general consensus here and I didn't hear anything new or earth shattering.
Kerry continued his flip flopping but said he wasn't and Bush repeated himself many times in a stuttering fashion using exactly the same phraseology. Kerry continues to say he would do things different but he can't offer a detailed plan other than he will talk to the UN, France, Germany, and Russia and supposedly win them over. How naive! And Bush didn't talk to them???
I give PBS a zero but you can't put all the blame on them. This is what the two parties wanted when they made thirty pages of rules. They did not want a real debate!
I would like to see Hannity make a stop at the University of Nevada to offset the Michael Moore visit. Mike the floating scumbag is getting a large amount of money to appear and the Reno conservative university contributors are very upset and threatening to pull their support. They have offered to pay the university 100K to keep him out. Hannity appeared in Reno a few months ago. Although he is an impressive guy on TV and radio he is so much more in person. I got to shake his hand and get a book signed. He is so sincere and funny at the same time.
I wish President Bush would have performed better. He had plenty of opportunity to pin Kerry down but simply didn't respond in a manner that would cause anyone to doubt Kerry's motives. I believe he will during the next two debates. Kerry may be articulate but there is no way that I can see putting him in the white house. His voting record is enough to keep him out in my book. I just can't believe that these debates will make that much of a difference in how the majority of voters will vote. These two candidates are so different that most people must have their minds made up by now.
Including all the College kids that a brainwashed by the media..
Remember this - Dukakis won the first debate. So did Al Gore for that matter. And Ross Perot.