debate is over how'd they do?

[gr8tpanther]

Bush isn't a very good public speaker, and he hates doing it, but i do think that he stands behind what he does manage to say.

I wasn't planning on watching the debate, but with it being on just about every channel...

 

[Planogirl]

In President Bush's defense, he has never been a good speaker or debator. Even when he was governor, he mispoke and said "ummmm" and such things a lot. Communication just isn't his forte.

I did watch some of the debate and I could see that Senator Kerry was quite polished while the President was just his normal uncomfortable self. Of course, Senator's Kerry's answers were more vague as anyone running for that office usually is when it comes to foreign policy. The future debates should be quite interesting.

 

[Geoff_M]

I didn't have a chance to see the debates, but it appears from all I've read in the last hour that Kerry "won" on style points (looked more at ease, etc.), but Bush "won" on substance. As for Bush being "on the defensive", well the debate was centered on Iraq and with that Bush's policy in Iraq, so by definition Bush would be in the defensive position in that regard.

 

[Lebjwb]

Kerry was confident, had an excellent command of the issues and took control of the debate from the word go.

Bush looked weak,confused and uncomfortable. He seemed to search for answers that should have been at his finger tips.

Kerry clearly won this debate hands down

 

[Loftus]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
I didn't have a chance to see the debates, but it appears from all I've read in the last hour that Kerry "won" on style points (looked more at ease, etc.), but Bush "won" on substance. As for Bush being "on the defensive", well the debate was centered on Iraq and with that Bush's policy in Iraq, so by definition Bush would be in the defensive position in that regard.

I disagree. President Bush obviously believes that the actions taken in Iraq are 100% correct. If you believe what you are doing is right you have no need to be defensive about them.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
I didn't have a chance to see the debates, but it appears from all I've read in the last hour that Kerry "won" on style points (looked more at ease, etc.), but Bush "won" on substance. As for Bush being "on the defensive", well the debate was centered on Iraq and with that Bush's policy in Iraq, so by definition Bush would be in the defensive position in that regard.

No, Kerry won on substance and style. The debate will be run on C-SPAN all night long if you would like to see for yourself.

 

[Teejay32]

No, not really....when Kerry said that his plan would include training Iraqis to provide their own security, because this administration isn't doing it, Bush had to counter with however many thousands of personnel have been or are being trained. That's what I meant by "defensive" - rebuttals, basically.

 

[cati]

I think Bush and Kerry scored equally well on all points. But I for one do not vote for someone just because they can speak well. I vote for what I see the candidates have done THROUGH OUT their lives not just for one or three nights right before an election where they have been told what to say, told how to act, and told what not to say. JMHO

 

[Geoff_M]

I disagree. President Bush obviously believes that the actions taken in Iraq are 100% correct. If you believe what you are doing is right you have no need to be defensive about them.

So if your opponent attacks your decisions you don't have to defend your actions if feel you were correct? That's what I mean by having to be on the "defensive". Whereas John Kerry only had to answer 'what would you do?' questions; which means Kerry could give fanciful answers without having to see the consequences of them and not be held accountable.

No, Kerry won on substance and style. The debate will be run on C-SPAN all night long if you would like to see for yourself.

That's not what I've read from the excerpts I've read. The analysts on NPR (not big fans of the GOP) all agreed that on substance Kerry didn't manage to extract himself from the corner that he's painted himself into with regard to his positions on Iraq. He said he has "plans", but that was about it. There was also mention that his "global test" comment may come back to bite him.

 

[momof2inPA]

It wasn't just about who spoke better. It was about Kerry filling in the gaps and answering people who wondered what he stood for and what he planned to do in Iraq and other countries throughout the world. He provided clarity to his foreign policy and earned the faith of the voters.

Kerry clearly outlined how he plans to clean up Iraq, provide support for the troops, and that his main foreign policy focus will be to stop nuclear proliferation, a subject rarely addressed by president Bush. He was fabulous.

 

[momof2inPA]

I didn't listen to NPR, but Kerry's message seemed to reach the broadcasters on ABC and MSNBC. Are you sure you were not listening to a republican review of the debate, since NPR does make a point to present both sides?

 

[stemikger]

I was one of the undecided ones and this debate helped me make up my mind. I was leaning more towards Kerry anyway, but this was the deciding factor for me.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
I didn't listen to NPR, but Kerry's message seemed to reach the broadcasters on ABC and MSNBC. Are you sure you were not listening to a republican review of the debate, since NPR does make a point to present both sides?

Yea, sure they do. Just like Fox news, right?

 

[Geoff_M]

Nope, it was the NPR political analysts. Also I understand that Kerry staff Joe Lockhart was miked on C-SPAN in "spin alley" and when he didn't realize that he was on-air commented to fellow Clinton staffer Mike McCurry that he thought the evening was "a draw". Doesn't sound like a "slam dunk."

 

[Geoff_M]

From CNN:

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 615 registered voters who watched the first debate, most said Kerry did the better job and nearly half said the debate made them think more favorably toward Kerry.

By narrow margins Bush came out better on believability, likeability and toughness. But there was virtually no change among those polled on which candidate would handle Iraq better or make a better commander in chief.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.main/index.html

I'm not sensing "Kerry by a knock-out"... This is pretty much in line with the predictions of the guy that runs the "Kerryspot" at National Review:

Prediction One: The Kerry camp will come out of this high-fiving, convinced their man did no worse than a draw on a debate that was supposed to be Bush's best area. They probably feared Bush was going to put this race away tonight, and so far there's not much sign he did.

Prediction Two: The Bushies will be a little down. Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them. Bush focused almost entirely on principles tonight, not policies.

Prediction Three: Here's my shocker: No bounce for either side out of this. This evening's comments just reinforced the messages that came out of each party's convention. Of course, Kerry got no convention bounce, while Bush got a fairly solid convention bounce, so maybe he'll get a little bump.

But my sense is that in the coming polls, Bush retains his lead, outside the margin of error, in the mid-to-high single digits.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

 

[dmadman43]

I didn't watch. Listened to bit and pieces of it on the radio while stuck in traffic. If one were to just read the text of the debate, which I just did, Bush had a clearer message. Kerry was his usual vague attacking self. That said, just listening to it on the radio Bush came across as nervous, tense and scripted. Kerry was also scripted but sounded more confident in his answers, however vague and repetitous they were.

Kerry had a major faux paux that I'm sure if Bush had committed people would be all over him and he would really suffer. When he launched into one his typical "I've been there so I know" and giving us an example of his "vast foriegn policy experience" he talked about going "down into the bowels of the KGB in TREBLINKA SQUARE!!! Er...um.. Sen. Kerry, Treblinka Square was a Nazi Extermination camp, you moron!!! I think you meant to say Lubyankaya Square. And this from a man who claims to have Jewish heritage.

All in all, Kerry presented himself well. Not much substance, though.

Bush will recover. He came out weak in the first debates with Gore then hammered him in the next two.

 

[dmadman43]

Also did I read that Kerry said he'll defend America only if it passes a global test? What the heck does that mean?

 

[Geoff_M]

Some other Kerry dangers I read:

Thinks the number one threat to the US is nuclear proliferation.... Leaves him open to charges of living in a "9/10" world.

Wants to give nuclear fuel to Iran... Well that approach didn't work so well in North Korea.

The "global test" line...

 

[momof2inPA]

Again for those who did not watch the debate, it's running on CSPAN all night, and if you look at the other DIS thread about the debates, the Republicans are admitting Bush lost.

http://disboards.com/showthread.php?threadid=654640

 

[Geoff_M]

Republicans are admitting Bush lost.

I never have viewed debates through a sporting event lens. Kerry may have done a better job in some areas, and Bush sounds like he left a lot on the table that he could have used to his advantage. Will Kerry's performance pay dividends in opinion polls, perhaps.... but time will tell. But even if you state your position better than the other guy, if people don't find you believable then it doesn't matter. I find it interesting that the CNN poll shows Bush also coming out on top in the "likeability" department. That was one of the main factors that influenced the poll outcomes after Bush's debates with Gore!