Kerry Tanked it?

[dilloduck]

Let's be honest.

Bush sucked.

Bush is a good man whose mouth and brain are often disconnected.

Kerry is a lying rat who covers his incompetence and cynicism with glibness.

To borrow a line from a Clint Eastwood movie, "A man's got to know his limitations". George Bush should have recognized his inability to debate. Matter of fact, I think it was the height of stupidity on the part of the Bush campaign to agree to a debate. Nothing good could come of it. Bush would give kerry a boost simply by sharing a podium with the sleazeball, thereby adding to kerry's credibility. Kerry is a glib fast-talker in the Clinton tradition. Bush is slow, halting, often almost inarticulate. If I were GW, I would have refused to debate kerry on the basis that he has conducted a dishonorable campaign of lies and distortions and I would refuse to besmirch the office of the President of the United States by being in the same room with kerry.

cheer up Merlin ! The guy held his own against a professional flim flam flip flopper. Kerry gave the RNC all sorts of new ways to attack him. "global test" "summit" will haunt the dude. Ya just need to give a guy enough rope sometimes !!

 

[Merlin1047]

cheer up Merlin ! The guy held his own against a professional flim flam flip flopper. Kerry gave the RNC all sorts of new ways to attack him. "global test" "summit" will haunt the dude. Ya just need to give a guy enough rope sometimes !!

I guess you're right. It's just that I was disappointed. I wanted to see GW put a boot up kerry's butt all the way to the knee and he didn't do it.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess you're right. It's just that I was disappointed. I wanted to see GW put a boot up kerry's butt all the way to the knee and he didn't do it.

Me too--he had a lot of chances !! I'll give him credit for holding back from knocking the shit out of Kerry. (literally)

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess you're right. It's just that I was disappointed. I wanted to see GW put a boot up kerry's butt all the way to the knee and he didn't do it.

There are still too more debates. and the next two will be earlier in the day so Bush wont be as tired from working hard with the relief efforts for the hurricane. Kerry will probably get another manicure though.

 

[wade]

Wow I went to another site I post at, it is chock-filled with Democrats. They are saying that Kerry is doomed. I was shocked. Everyone here seems to say it was a wash except the Democrats. The Democrats on that site and the Libertarians were all saying that Bush pointed out Kerry's errors effectively and clearly and right after he made them, even though he stuttered through a few answers.

I am shocked.

Did people on this site watch a different debate?

Look at the poll results:

Bush supporters still support Bush.

Kerry supporters still support Kerry.

Undecided's split 61% for Kerry, 39% for Bush.

 

[wade]

Kerry wins debate hands down (multiple press statements including FOX News)

Read it and weep!

Just shows you conservatives see things the way that suits you, regaurdless of the truth.

 

[jimnyc]

Kerry wins debate hands down (multiple press statements including FOX News)

Read it and weep!

Just shows you conservatives see things the way that suits you, regaurdless of the truth.

Would we expect anything less from "democrats.org"? I'm sure I can find contradictory info on the republicans site. Would that make you agree Bush won "hands down" if I can find similar on their site?

 

[wade]

Jimmy, did you even open it up? I bet not :funnyface

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Kerry wins debate hands down (multiple press statements including FOX News)

Read it and weep!

Just shows you conservatives see things the way that suits you, regaurdless of the truth.

Just shows that some liberals can't read. Maybe you should go back through the thread.

I thought Bush did quite good, but overall Kerry probably did come out looking better. However, Kerry certainly didn't win the election with that debate. A lot of people have been saying Bush looked tired, that's because he probably was tired. He went out that day surveying hurricane damage and talking to people. It was a nice thing to do, a presidential thing to do, but it made for a long day. Let's see how Bush does in the next debate when he is better rested. Bad thing is, he missed his opprotunity to go for the throat on Kerry over foreign policy and I don't know if those chances will come again like they did Thursday.

 

[theim]

hey look at it this way: On Tuesday it will be even sweeter when Cheney eats Edwards alive. The former whitehouse Cheif of Staff, Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Haliburton Board Member vs. The Trial Lawyer turned 5-year Senator. :dev1:

 

[Comrade]

Just shows that some liberals can't read. Maybe you should go back through the thread.

I thought Bush did quite good, but overall Kerry probably did come out looking better. However, Kerry certainly didn't win the election with that debate. A lot of people have been saying Bush looked tired, that's because he probably was tired. He went out that day surveying hurricane damage and talking to people. It was a nice thing to do, a presidential thing to do, but it made for a long day. Let's see how Bush does in the next debate when he is better rested. Bad thing is, he missed his opprotunity to go for the throat on Kerry over foreign policy and I don't know if those chances will come again like they did Thursday.

Great observation on Bush. You have to cut the Prez a little slack for not just running the country, but also running around the country.

 

[sitarro]

I wouldn't even buy a car from Kerry. I have a serious problem with a guy who was hired to be a Senator and yet spends most of his time playing , b.s.ing , having a chemical tan sprayed on him and then caking on makeup to hide the orange glow . The lip stick brought it way over the top . I saw nothing "Presidential " about this clown . His "facts" were distorted , he didn't acknowledge President Bush's Guard service (slap in the face to all National Guard members), He brought his 4 month cruise on a ski boat up again with the attempt to show he knows what it is like to go to war , that wallet he calls his wife looked like a lump of crap next to Mrs. Bush .
He has been screwing around for 2 years now , how many votes has he been present for in the Senate . The President has continued serving as The Commander-In-Chief as well as campaign , while being criticised about everything he does upon waking up in the morning. He doesn't have time to primp nor would he want to if he did. That crap is for "girlie boys " like Kerry .

 

[Comrade]

Kerry wins debate hands down (multiple press statements including FOX News)

Read it and weep!

Just shows you conservatives see things the way that suits you, regaurdless of the truth.

Some things never change. Democrats.org will always support a Democratic candidate blindly. Their job is to feed people like you quotes from the vast sea of media and it looks like they are doing a job on you.

Why do you come here to troll 'conservatives' about being stupid and blind when you propose such 'truths' as you do.

For example, the crumbling bastion of the left, CBS, disagrees with you, and are you saying they are conservatives to you, or just blind?

Media divided on who won the debate
CBS Market Watch - Oct 01 7:12 AM
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) - The media were divided Friday morning on which presidential candidate won the first debate.

#3 on this list.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=who+won+debate&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-news-t&cop=mss&tab=5

What's far more interesting, other than the fact that CBS is 'conservative' to you, is how the original title in the Google cache is revised in the same story to now say:

"Media: Kerry appeared `presidential'"

NEW YORK (CBS.MW) - While a hands-down winner didn't emerge from the Bush-Kerry debate, Sen. John Kerry accomplished his primary goal of showing that he could act "presidential," according to some reactions from media.

WOW! Imagine how newsworthy that is! Certainly worth a full title change and opening paragraph!

CBS is always in touch with the real opinion of some media. Especially CBS!

But if you read the story beyond the first paragraph, "Media divided on who won the debate" was right from the start. It certainly is!

If CBS wanted to change the headline to cater to Dems, the truth should read:

"Some Media: Kerry appeared `presidential'"

Or better yet:

"CBS: Kerry appeared `presidential'"

But you can't be a lefty propagandist that openly, or else it's clueless viewers might catch on you are manipulating them.

If you ask me, the left resources you read are sure doing a job on you!


Who 'won' isn't a truth, as you would declare. It's not even what your far left sources will repeat for you.

It's not like I was impressed with Kerry's debate skills enough to overlook all else on the table and say he 'won'.

Indeed, who won the debate in any sense, means how it will win the election. And in that aspect I declare Bush victor of this debate based on hard facts. If you read my next post you can debate the facts.

 

[winston churchi]

I am suprised at the dems. I haven't heard (myself) any of them saying Kerry tanked. Most of whom I saw on tv thought he did well.
To be honest, if I were an undecided voter, I would still have no clue as both did well for the most part.
While to me Kerry was more stern - Bush was more approachable.
Kerry pointed his reasons why Bush makes an unfavourable pres....but Bush came back good - and kept reminding folks that you cannot change your mind and vote two different ways all the time.
If I were a dem. I would say Kerry did quite well....BUT I AM NOT.

Vote Bush/Cheney.

 

[Comrade]

Why Bush won this debate:
(And why wade should stick with trolling Yahoo)

I'll start with a CNN poll first:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html

Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll.

CNN is not known for bold statements but there it is.

After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.

The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate.

That's plus or minus like, 3%, right CNN? Or are there poll numbers somewhere to reference online?

Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.

Might not? CNN, said it didn't change minds at all! Is this still CNN?

Here's a genuine poll with details to pay close attention to.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/Default.aspx?ci=13237

John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event.

615 is hardly a statistically significant figure but much better than a CNN poll no doubt.

One part of this poll is cracking me up already:

Among viewers who indicated in the pre-debate survey that they intended to vote for Kerry, 93% thought Kerry won the debate and only 3% said Bush did.

Hehe, and conservatives are the puppets?

Actually, this also means if Dems are overrepresented in the sample obviously the results would correllate too. The poll never asked who supported who from the start, so I can't say either way.

Despite the positive assessment, viewers said they favored Bush in handling the war in Iraq and serving as commander in chief, little changed from opinions expressed before the debate. And a majority of viewers said it was Bush who better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

Now there it is, the only way to win a debate to be president is to get the majority saying you are 'tough enough for the job'. That means the media saying Kerry 'appeared more Presidential' is wishfull thinking.

The detail on this is clear:

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate?

In other words, who won, actually?

(sorted by advantage for Kerry)

Kerry
Bush
Advantage % pct. pts.

Expressed himself more clearly
60
32
+28

A fine skill in a debate and reason enough to declare Kerry the victor, if he was not also running for President.

But really, who really came out ahead on issues that affect voters?

Had a good understanding of the issues
41
41
0

Tied. Better to be smart than eloquent anyway.

Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
46
49
-3

Which is basically what drives voting fundamentally.

Was more believable
45
50
-5

Clinton spoke well, and so did Nixon. And they were all liars too.

Was more likable
41
48
-7

More liked Bush in the debate and still that's Kerry 'winning'?

Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
37
54
-17

In other words, the viewers are voting Bush because he appeared Presidential to the majority, not Kerry. He spoke well, and in a debate you can appear to others as 'winning' by solely that alone.

But when it comes to any effect on the election based on issues with influence votes for people, Bush has most certainly won this debate hands down.

 

[wade]

I agree Tuesdays debate should be interesting.

However, I am pretty sure Edwards will destroy Cheney, who is neither personable, well spoken, nor seems to be able to control himself when provoked.

We shall see.

 

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, did you even open it up? I bet not :funnyface

Uhhh, yes I did open it up. One line quotes without the rest of the stories don't do much for me. Like I said, there are similar stories with similar quotes on many republican owned websites discrediting Kerry and making him look like even more of a flip flopper. Does that mean GW won hands down?

My point is that I wouldn't jump up and down and declare Kerry the overwhelming victor just because democrats.org paint that picture. I think it was a draw. Obviously, Kerry was a much better speaker but I think GW added much more substance. What I want out of the debates are answers, outlooks and plans - not just good speaking skills.

I'll decide the victor based on what they are offering compared to what I'm looking for - not based on what a newspaper or organization regurgitates to me.

 

[MtnBiker]

I'll decide the victor based on what they are offering compared to what I'm looking for - not based on what a newspaper or organization regurgitates to me.

Hmmmm, swallowing reguritation.

 

[green lantern]

That's weird. I didn't get to see the entire debate, but from what I did see I thought both had a couple of uneasy moments, but both did great for the most part. No clear cut winner from what I saw. If they think Kerry bombed, far be it for me to change their mind, though.

i agree, both did well, i saw it as a draw

 

[krisy]

As much as I hate to admit it,I thought both candidates did well too. Fox news creamed Bush up one side and down the other,yet their polls showed them in a tie or Bush winning on a lot of issues except for how clear he came across-Kerry won that. I really don't think it was a tough debate though. They didn't seem tough enough on each other. As far as the faces he made,I say-who cares?!!!! He isn't allowed to make a face? It's not like he behaved like Al Gore in 2000. Interrupting,talking when his time was up,and trying to be "physically dominant". I think the media over analyzes this stuff way too much. Kerry did contrdict himself a few times and I wish G.W. would have jumped on it.I knew I shouldn't have watched that stupid crap afterwards-they always piss me off!!!!!