Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

I guess I'm not Dennis Miller. Bush's occasional flip-flop isn't going to make waves (eh, I mean be noticed :wink: ).

Aaaaahhhh. Now I get it!

Now, that IS sorta tacky, pad. But don't let me stop you ... that's exactly the thinking that has brought The Democrats the success they've racked up since 1998. Good job. Forge on.


Oh, and just whutinhell is a "satyrist"? ... gotta say that brings up an intriguing mental image.

You might have chosen, as suggested not to take it personally.

But the usual blah blah blah from your camp is expected. And everything with you is personal. Like your governor, you can do no wrong.

How do you do with the ummm uhhhhh?

Nixon used expletives. Bush uses long "commas?" or are they comas?

The debate was clearly a Kerry triumph, but people who think Bush was eviscerated are kidding themselves.

The more quick-thinking, knowledgeable Kerry dominated the debate in a technical sense. However, Bush's strategy of running his themes into the ground, then raping them again and again is a crude but efficacious tactic.

The same thing happened in 1994 when Bush squared off against Anne Richards in Texas: Richards displayed her mastery of the nuances of policy, but Bush ended up "wining" the debate by utilizaing his Marlboro Man image and ceaselessly repeating his themes.

It looks like the public may have seen through it this time, judging by the first reactions. Still, Bush won the Texas debates because people underestimated the effectiveness of his dumbed down strategy, and he may just do the same this time around if Kerry isn't careful.

Oh, I don't take much personal, pad, not even partisan label-mongering.

As for how who did what, spin aside, the debate didn't deliver much for anyone:

Wa Times: Political strategists declare debate a draw

Miami Herald: Hype aside, debate has no TiVo moments

LA Times: It's the Spin, Not the Debate

CBS: Experts Rate Debate A Draw

ABC: More Viewers Say Kerry Won Debate, But Voter Preferences Remain the Same

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Score it a tie

NY Post: DEM CHALLENGER STANDS TALL BUT STILL COMES UP SHORT

Macon Telegraph: Both candidate's supporters claim victory in debate

7.Com: Bush-Kerry debate lacks knockout punch

Loisville Courier-Journal: Panelists see little to change opinions

And then there's this from C-SPAN:

About all that happened is Kerry managed to stay in the race. That won't be enough.

What the Bee Bee Cee said:


(German commentators/correspondants see a slight win for Kerry.)

Kerry is accorded a "Win on points" by most debate analysts, but while he certainly didn't go down in flames, there is nothing to suggest his performance will substantially aid his campaign. He has to do more than merely remain in the race.

I saw some of the debate.
It wasn't particularly notable.
Neither man ever said anything I'd label "profound".
Kerry came across as more intelligent and literate, W came across as... dogged.

W is passing himself off as some kind of scrappy yard dog, making his appeal to the broader base, the mongrels... like that guy in the bar.

Do they have the numbers?
Only time will tell.

"11/02/04... the end of an error."

That's my fave bumpersticker so far.

"11/02/04... the end of an error."

Huh ... kinda like that myself. On the otherhand, I really don't expect their statistically highly probable broad failure on 11/02 will drive home to The Democrats the error of their ways.

Bush proved he is a simple minded individual...who can only deliver simplistic, overly rehearsed responses to serious questions.

If the intellectual acuity he showed in the debate is indicative of the intellectual acuity he brings to questions of large moment to this country...

...it is no wonder the state of the war in Iraq and the state of our economy are what they are.

The man is an embarrassment to the office.

Kerry misspoke when he referred to looking at KGB records in "Treblinka Square" in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square...

Imagine if Bush had said that, but no, Kerry is the moron.

Kerry also blew it when he said he would go into Afghanistan and get Osama. But Osama's not in Afghanistan. He's in the caves in Pakistani terrritory.

"We didn't need those tax cuts." The economy sure did, and those tax cuts are what stimulated the economy out of its Clinton/Gore recession.

Unilateral disarmarment: Kerry forcefully declaring that he will kill the bunker buster nuke program. Kerry's website should be moron.com.

Unilateral talks: WTF? The same Kerry who says 30 countries aren't enough in the Coalition of the Willing says five countries are too many for talks with North Korea. Go figure.

Kerry says with a straight face: "I have never wavered on Iraq." Oh yeah. The GOP commercial wrapped around this one should be up any minute now...

My biggest laugh of the night came when Kerry said, "Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am." I found it quite amusing that the man who's changed his position umpteen times had the audacity to proclaim that he is "steadfast and resolved."

Kerry's stance on North Korea is downright scary and his global test comments are going to kill him. I still have no freaking clue what his plans in Iraq are (love the new spin though - like pottery barn if you break it you own it. We *broke* Iraq?). Bush slammed him on this though - how does the Senator expect to change anything on the ground (again, plans for this Senator?) when everyday he is chanting *wrong war, wrong place, wrong time*.

Kerry doesn't understand why we are in Iraq or how to handle NK, two glaring reasons why he(or whoever is advising him) don't need to be involved in being CIC.

Kerry doesn't have viable plans, no one is going to come to his side, those leaders keep saying they won't but Kerry keeps on with his make believe wishes.

He doesn't have a plan...just a lot of conjecture.

I don't entirely agree. One of the things that got Bush the post-convention bounce was the Republican's excellent job as painting Kerry as an unacceptable alternative to Bush. What Kerry did last night was show that he is a viable alternative. Bush's charges of inconsistency and mixed messages kind of fell flat, especially when Kerry pointed out how Bush himself has sent mixed messages by contradicting his own state department publicly.

The other thing I think is interesting that Kerry did was to invoke previous presidents: Bush 41, Reagan, and Kennedy. By doing so, the inevitable comparison was between Bush and those presidents, not Bush an Kerry. And there is no question in many minds that Bush doesn't do well in that comparison. I think that Kerry could get some votes from those who watched the debate. But for those who only read about it afterwards, it won't make much difference.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next two debates. I expect the Bush people will be working away to make the next one better for him.

After reading this thread I have to wonder if we watched the same debate. I thought both candidates did an acceptable job answering the questions and their rebuttals were good.

the only time I winced was the last time Bush mentioned kerry's "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". To me it seemed like a talking point he was trying to force out.

I also think that Bush couldn't actually believe that Kerry would seek unilateral talks with N. Korea. He appeard flabbergasted, and I gotta admit I was too. Bush has worked very hard getting the nations around Korea to get into talks about the problems of N. Korea. Now Kerry is saying he will throw all that work right out the window and cave in to Il Jong's demands.

Overall, I think the debate was a draw.

Thanks, Brand X, for that summary from Drudge.

McG, I don't think you could say the debate was a draw. I watched it on C-Span, which did a split screen of both candidates for the entire debate. If you believe strongly in George Bush, then nothing Kerry could have said would change that anyway. But anyone else could see that Kerry looked more presidential, more respectful, more in control, more eloquent, more prepared. A lot of Bush's points were rehashed campaign slogans.

Was it from Drudge? I thought it was a good summary, whatever the source.

I enjoyed a very pleasant dinner with friends and missed the debate. My impression from the news reports was that Kerry was Kerry, and Bush was Bush. If so, probably not an event that will significantly change the current trajectory with the voting public.

Is it really true that Kerry advocated bilateral talks with North Korea? ( Unleashing Margaret Albright to go and pay more bribes for nothing?) A very strange, and in my view, stupid idea.

Freeduck, I don't want a president that looks and talks presidential. I want one that ACTS presidential. I honestly do not think Kerry would be a good president. His beliefs in appeasement and the weakening of America as well as wanting so many governmental programs that we will all be in the poorhouse worries me.

McG - I think the only reason he said that more than once, is because he is truly offended (as am I) for the troops. Kerry has done more to lower morale by using the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" malarkey and one need only to talk to the men who are serving.

But...Kerry is the same man who cared not about the those being tortured in the POW camps, as long as he could promote his agenda after returning from his weeks in combat.

Understood, there, McG, but that doesn't mean Kerry didn't win the debate. Also, it seems maybe you are letting the Republicans define Kerry for you, because your assessment of him doesn't ring true for me. Rather, it sounds like the same old tired Republican party line about liberals wanting to socialize and weaken America.