The audience seemed to react as if it were a “zing”. I’m trying to figure out why (the ‘rich Laura’ comment is my theory, I’m honestly not sure what the audience was reacting to). Reroll the tape and turn up the audio. There was quite a reaction in the studio.
Not worried about Osama. I hope it bites him real hard. With big sharp nasty teeth.
No, RTFirefly, it wasn’t just you. He just ran out the clock babbling on about god stuff.
I might prefer to have a beer with Bush, but I damn sure wouldn’t let him partition my hard drive.
Hey, slow down there. I hate that William F. Buckley accent he had when he was young. I’m just pointing out that it’s a big shift to talking like a hick. (My mom talks like a hick too, though I different kind of hick.)
I watch a lot of CNN and MSNBC, with a little bit of Lifetime (television for women) thrown in. I would bet that there are almost none on local stations.
Tavis Smiley is a hothead. He used to host a talk show on BET and eventually became so snide, angry and belligerent with his guests that BET fired him. I wouldn’t give his take on things any credence whatsoever.
Bush 196, Kerry 222, Undecided 120.
Kids, can you say “revolution”?
I knew you could! 
Dead heat.
Yesterday Kerry was at 280. This changes every day.
Bush does not have a statistical lead.
We must preserve the sanctity of the hard drive. Partitioning is a horrible procedure and should be banned by constitutional amendment.
Oh, c’mon…you’d have a beer with anyone!
Are you saying that if Busj wins the Presidency but loses the popular vote, you predict some sort of “revolution”?
Those online polls are usually freeped by the democrats, Bricker, and I agree, there won’t be much shift after these polls because neither hit one out of the park, because neither is so desperate to take the risk.
What has been happening in all of these debates is this:
Bush/Cheny distribute a message of hope, a little bit of “don’t rock the boat,” a little bit of cheerleading, a little bit of how Kerry is out of the mainstream, and a little bit of things are getting better. They use statistics to prove that things are getting better.
Kerry/Edwards highlight Bush mistakes, promises a new message, and say that things have gotten worse. They cite statistics to show that Bush has presided over many failures.
They are arguing different premises to begin with: Vote for me because things are getting better, and Vote for me because Bush has screwed up bad.
Basically its just a he said she said presidential “debate” Their ideas of what is going on and what is happening. Bush’s ideas obviously persuade a certain group of people, and Kerry’s also persuade another group.
The question is which approach would appeal to the most people? Because judging on the facts presented, its difficult to reconcile them. If you aren’t predisposed to one of the other cantidates, you don’t know who to believe. I believe Kerry, but on objective viewing, you can’t really determine when Bush says something is true, and Kerry says its not true and that something else is true. That is the end of the debate. They’ll cite different statistics to make their cases. You know what they say, “ther’s lies, damn lies, and statistics” Each person put out favorable statistics.
Some people will look at the news shows and see how Bush (objectively) DID say that he wasn’t concerned about Osama, and score him a negative point. Some will look at Bush’s human side, and see how he seems much more trustworthy than John Kerry.
Who knows? I for one am dissapointed in all the debates because there was little resolution of the facts and the positions. It was all Kerry says A and B about Bush, and then Bush says C about Kerry and then D about himself. When there was a rebuttal, it was normally in the form of a fact that wasn’t reconcilable without further investigation, or it was used as a segue into another point that each cantidate prefered to talk about.
It wasn’t a draw, but this was a debate that won’t be won on points, or any objective basis, but on what people are more likely to belive.
I’ll bet Bush really, really doesn’t like “the Internets”.
Well, Peter Jennings laughed and agreed with him. Did anyone read Larry David’s opinion piece in the New York Times? I just think it was a funny remark. How the hell could anyone be undecided after seeing four years of Bush?
As I told the FBI and the DHS, Bricker, “predict” and “encourage” are two different things!
I guess Bush “forgot” there are a lot of people from New York like myself who think the for the “war on terror” was to hunt down and kill Osama. We don’t want Osama marginalized, we want him caught.
Both RTFirefly’s quote and the clip on NBC cut off after Bush said the disputed words. What did he go on to say?
You’re confusing “a beer” with “dinner and a show”.