debate is over how'd they do?

[Geoff_M]

60% of the Independent voters said Kerry

Robin, a lot of Republicans also thought that Kerry was the better public speaker last night... but that doesn't mean they're likely to vote for the man. It undoubtedly will cause some Indies to vote for Kerry, that doesn't mean a majority of them are about to jump off the fence in his direction.


In the "That Didn't Take Long" department: It appears that the DNC is the first group to break the rules governing the debates. From the agreements:

Neither film footage nor video footage nor any audio excerpts from the debates may be used publicly by either candidate’s campaign through any means, including but not limited to, radio, television, internet, or videotapes, whether broadcast or distributed in any other manner.

Today the DNC has launched an internet ad of Bush facial reaction shots from the debate. Who'dda thunk! I can already see the justification: "The agreement says the campaign can't use video... It doesn't say their party can't!" My guess is that it'll be another case of what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
If you had as much intelligence as DUMBO has in the tip of her pinkie, we would all be much happier on here!

Ooooo.... you really hurt my feelings.


I think I'm gonna cry....

 

[DisneyDmbNut]

I saw the add this morning...it is a black and white shot...how do you know it is from the debate...he looks puzzled ALOT!

 

[Sonny Eclipse]

Bush looked downright incompetent compared to Kerry. It's amazing how badly Bush stumbles when he doesn't have someone telling him what to say. Why anyone would vote for that buffoon is beyond me.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by KarenC
What he said was that he would strike pre-emptively if he felt the US were at risk, but he said he would not do it if our motives were suspect, i.e., if it looks like we're in it for oil, not to protect ourselves from an imminent attack.

If we were looking for oil, we would have invaded Mexico. Its closer to home. Kerry's harping on the guarding of oil fields seemed very silly. What else does Iraq's fledgling economy depend on, wheat exports? Of course the backbone of their economy had to be safeguarded.

 

[tiggersmom2]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
If you had as much intelligence as DUMBO has in the tip of her pinkie, we would all be much happier on here!

That is REAL nice! It is really sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Psssst!!!! Minnie.....A personal attack is still wrong, even it you do insert a stupid smilie face behind it!

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by tiggersmom2
That is REAL nice! It is really sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Psssst!!!! Minnie.....A personal attack is still wrong, even it you do insert a stupid smilie face behind it!

Sorry to disagree with you Tsmomtwice, but It may be RUDE to attack, that doesn't not make it morally wrong, however.

Besides. it's fun! Go ahead Flame me! You will like it! You Will Like It! You will......


Tony

 

[Teejay32]

In a nutshell, Independents have trouble with the far ends of each party. I think it's quite possible to reject both the Christian Coalition's pet causes and the Socialist Party platform and still have a strong set of beliefs. At least I hope so.

So Independents may not be unified in thought, but are usually interested in how far each guy is going to swing to the right or left, respectively. I didn't see anything overt on Bush's side (though I did miss some of the debate) but I noticed it right away on Kerry's. We have to be signatories to Kyoto, we must accept the ICC...? Unilateralism is bad for Iraq, good for North Korea? "People like us" shouldn't see tax breaks while there's work to be done on....homeland security? He raises more questions than he answers for me - always has.

Bush clearly represents the right wing, but has a proven history of deviating from it toward the middle. Kerry tries to represent his own positions as practical and necessary due to Bush failures, but has a proven history of following a lefty agenda, and pretty much everything I heard from him last night confirmed it. I think Kerry definitely did a better job in the debate, but I wouldn't go throwing bouquets around for substance. Bush probably won there. I'd have to read a transcript to say for sure.

JMO.

 

[mickyzzzzz05]

My husband and I listened to the debate on radio (while we were driving back from our daughter's college). We were very impressed with President Bush's answers and thought that Kerry side-stepped and danced around direct questions. Kerry's plan sounded a lot like what President Bush is doing to us!

At the end of the debate we both felt that President Bush had done well in addressing the issues and we both commented that Kerry did not always speak to the question!

Imagine our surprise when we saw the results of the mainstream media polls! Maybe watching on tv was different but as I said we were just listening to the radio.

Our impression from what we heard was that President Bush has stayed the course - he doesn't waver and we believe that it is the right course. Much of what condems Senator Kerry in our eyes has come directly from Senator Kerry's own lips (in the past).

So - this radio listeners viewpoint is that Bush really scored on substance and gave a clear cut idea that reinforces our intention to vote for him.

 

[puffkin]

I think no opinions really changed after last nights debate (although plenty of Bush voters believe Kerry DID do a good job) because they are talking about the same old stuff. The issues discussed last night have been the focus of both campaigns for months now. I think the true determining debate will be the one about domestic issues. A lot of people are waiting to decide after that one. These are the issues the public hasn't heard a whole lot about. It was a good start for Kerry, a morale booster. It didn't provide a huge boost in the polls for him, but I don't think anyone expected it to. What it did was set both campaigns into overdrive for the next debates. I think that the real bump/decline will come from the domestic issues debate.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by orvilleair
Bush has never been a good debater. His strength is in a more relaxed setting.

Especially when that "relaxed setting" consists of a handpicked friendly audience, vetted questions, or having a script in front of him.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Especially when that "relaxed setting" consists of a handpicked friendly audience, vetted questions, or having a script in front of him.

And what EXACTLY is your point????

-Tony

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by robinb
This is from the same poll that Geoff quoted blah blah...

For the vernacular challenged (ergo, those who don't understand the difference beteween the terms UNDECIDED voter vs. voters who carry no registered party affiliation, e.g. INDEPENDENTS).

An INDEPENDENT voter is one with no registered party affiliation.

An UNDECIDED voter is different. They may or may not have a registered affiliaton. The point is, they are still UNDECIDED.

Gallup DIDN'T measure the read on the debate by voter decision status (ergo, they didn't screen to target UNDECIDED voters). Instead, they simply classified respondents by party affiliation, or lack thereof.

Or stated differently, what Gallup did NOT do - but which ABC and CBS did do -- was to measure the impact of the debate on UNDECIDED voters. And again, the ABC and CBS results both showed that Kerry did NOT win with a majority of the latter group.

Bottom line for the vernacular challenged. I was and remain correct.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
If you had as much intelligence as DUMBO has in the tip of her pinkie, we would all be much happier on here!

ROTFLMAO.

I just love when a CB debate takes the intellectual high road.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by snarfer1
And what EXACTLY is your point????

-Tony

You've got to be kidding.

Please, tell me you're kidding.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
You've got to be kidding.

Please, tell me you're kidding.

Come on now, its ME!!!!

Of course I was kidding!


Now what do you mean by kidding...?

-Tony

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by snarfer1
Come on now, its ME!!!!

Of course I was kidding!


Now what do you mean by kidding...?

-Tony

Whew, glad you cleared that up.

Dude, you had me scared for a moment.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dmadman43
This isn't the same UN that had been ripping of the Iraqi people and the rest of the world in the "oil for food program" is it? If so, what credibility do they have in this issue?

I will even bet its the same UN that is ignoring the Sudan (Kerry would like to respond there unilaterally). Unilateralism it seems is fine for a humanitarian mission in which there is no US interest. (The Sudan) but we must have a global coalition for a humanitarian mission with US interest at stake. His entire stand was a contradiction.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by puffkin
I .... In my opinion, that is one of the MAIN criteria for the job of President of the United States. ......

Sorry - I have to disagree. The most important criteria for president is character, integrity, and leadership. Being glib serves none of these purposes.

Glibness is the coin of the evangalist - the Elmer Gantry type of person who charms with words, but has no substance.

Give me a plain spoken man who beleives what he says, and who puts the security of the nation above all else - that is the man I will follow.

You don't "debate" your way to a "win" in foreign affairs. They don't care what words you use. Much of the time they listen to interpreters anyway - even if they speak the language.

No - what "wins" in foreign policy is fear and respect and self interest. You must make sure the others know you mean what you say - regardless of the particular words you use to say it.

Now - of course you can be POPULAR with foreign leaders if you do not confront them - if you give in to them - they will invite you to all the swell parties and say nice things about you in the press. They will be really happy you are in power, if they get to do whatever they want to do without your interference.

That is not the president I want - I want the man who doesn't give a darn about what the FRENCH think of him - one whose only concern is the safety of America.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by KarenC
What he said was that he would strike pre-emptively if he felt the US were at risk, but he said he would not do it if our motives were suspect, i.e., if it looks like we're in it for oil, not to protect ourselves from an imminent attack.

This is really an amusing post.

So - if something bad is happening in a country that happens to be an oil-producing country, we have to let it go - because someone might THINK that we are "in it for the oil" = is THAT the message??

Just what does it "look" like when you think we are "in it for the oil"???

Question - does it "look" like the USA is in Iraq "for the oil" = if so how??

Methinks that this is just another Democrat red herring that they toss out whenever they need time to think of something else more intelligent to say.

Really a quite silly comment.