I put this in the pit to save the mods time.
Well from the half I saw of it, Kerry didn’t come off like a total moran. Bush on the otherhand wasn’t looking too good, with the chimp face and stammering and all.
What’s your take people?
-
Has it finished already?
-
You do realize there’s a thread for this discussion in GD
Why would Kerry come across as a Moron? From my POV he has never shown any hint of being a moron.
My take is that it went as I half-expected, and fully hoped it would go (or rather the little I saw of it) i.e. Kerry was confident, intelligent, articulate. Bush was repetitive, bumbling, moronic.
I think Bush did better than most people thought he would, but I also think that the set-up wasn’t conducive (sp?) to a good debate. I did think it humorous when Bush misspoke early in the debate and said Saddam when he meant Osama when claiming he knew who attacked the United States on 9/11 (I believe that was the issue that was being debated at this time, I could be wrong).
I don’t think Kerry did too bad, but Bush certainly won the soundbite battle, with the 87 billion bit, and the ‘global test’ bit. We’ll see in a few hours what the morning shows fixate on.
Bush had no idea what Kerry meant by ‘global test’, and you consider that to be a great soundbite for your side?!?
How amusing.
I think “global test” gets beaten by mexed missages hands down. Bush was less articulate than I’ve ever seen him. He seemed geniunely flustered. He may be in bad position going into the town hall debate where the questions won’t be as scripted and he’ll have to think on his feet.
For the easily amused, sure. But when Good Morning Akron is playing a soundbite of Kerry saying preemptive action needs to pass a ‘global test’, and Bush saying preemptive action is called for whenever needed to protect Americans, guess who Joe American is going to favor?
A very good point, Brutus. Though I believe Kerry won the debate hands down, it will take until the spin settles down to get a grasp on how the nation as a whole reacts.
I’ll be dissapointed if this does become a popular soundbite, because immediately after he used the phrase Kerry defined it, and his definition included the American people…
Unlike you, when I think “Joe American” I don’t think “lowest common denominator”. I think “Someone who has seen what this President is willing to do, using Joe American as a tool, to get what he and his cronies want.” “Joe American” isn’t the simple-minded dolt some make him out to be. “Joe American” knows that the global situation is a little more complicated than “Us Good Guys” versus “Them Bad Guys.”
Indeed. Who knows what will play the best in a few-second bite that will be devoted to the topic?
I didn’t think either candidate did too badly.
As to the “global test”, Bush’s point highlighted the difference between the two. They were talking about preemptive strikes, both agreed the President should reserve that right, but Kerry suggested there was a “global test” to determine if a preemptive strike was justified. Bush was disagreeing with that. The test for a preemptive strike is the honest belief that there is a threat that can not be mittigated by other means. He was mocking Kerry’s apparent desire to kowtow to other world leaders at the expense of Americas position.
Both candidates did well. Bush always stammers. He always looks a little lost.
One thing I noticed about Kerry, though, was his insistence on throwing jabs about domestic issues into the debate at the expense of giving a clear answer. I also noticed he snubbed Poland several times, even after Bush pointed it out to him. Kind of made Kerry come off as desperate to court favor, but only with the rich, popular kids.
To be fair, though, one thing I noticed about Bush was his insistence that Iraq was tied in to terrorism before we invaded. I’ve never believed that. I believe Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. I believe sanctions had failed and would not work. But I have never believed Iraq was tied to terrorism or the war on terror.
But Kerry’s Monday morning quarterbacking bugs the shit out of me.
All I have to say is, Bush’s stuttering throughout almost the whole thing didn’t make him look to good to me. Also, I got sick of him constantly bringing up “Kerry said that this was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” sound byte over and over again. OK, I get it, he said it, sheeze, it, to me, made Bush sound like he had very few original comments on his own and so had to beat Kerry with one of his own in order to cover it up.
These comments brought to you by a conservative republican.
Seeing as this is the pit, what debate was Hugh Hewitt (hughhewitt.com) watching? He was keeping score and rates this as a “big” win for Bush. No way that Bush won big. It was at best, a draw, and I think most people are giving this one slightly to Kerry. It irritates me to see a supposedly responsible pundit filtering the responses through what he wanted to hear.
The Daily Show was hilarious just now. Stewart’s last words were something to the effect of “we’ll see you tomorrow, when what happened will be shown to not have happened.”
Bush just said how Iraq went from a place where people got their hands cut off to freedom.
Kerry should have said, “yeah right mofo, it went from a place where you get hands cut off to where you get head cut off”.
Missed a juicy zing.
Good God…How badly were they expecting him to do!!!
I thought they both did fairly well. Kerry was better than I expected; Bush wasn’t as nearly as bad as I feared. However, I’m probably more unhappy with the way Bush handled the debate. I think he should have challenged Kerry on just exactly how he was going to accomplish all the things he was promising to do if he was elected. And how he was going to go about creating all these coalitions among countries that we all know damn good and well aren’t going to go to war in Iraq or anywhere else on our behalf.
I remember Carter doing the same thing; then once in office and failing to deliver on his promises, he said what I knew all along: that once you’re actually in the position of dealing with these things you find out things were as they were for a reason, and/or that he had learned things subsequent to taking office that he didn’t know about previously that kept him from doing what he’d said he’d do.
And I think Bush could have reacted more strongly to Kerry’s comment that he made a mistake in talking about the war, but that Bush had made a mistake in prosecuting the war. I would have liked to have seen Bush respond with something along the line of “No, you made the mistake when you reversed yourself and decided to withhold support for our forces after you’d previously supported them.”
Bush did stammer and stumble around somewhat, but he always does and he wasn’t nearly as bad as I feared he might be. And I think he spent too much time and verbiage on Kerry’s inconsistancy without citing the numerous ways in which it was manifest.
All in all, I thought Kerry was confident and dignified and that Bush was strong and scrappy, but I’m afraid that if any gain was made at all, it was Kerry that made it.
I also thought they both showed class – and responded as well as they could given what they were trying to accomplish – regarding the “character” question posed by Leherer.
That wasn’t the entire line. The entire line included something about “place where you got your hands cut off or you got executed to a place of freedom.”
Did he not forget about the whole death penalty thing we have in this here country and in the place he used to govern?
I have commentary posted in my livejournal. The bias will, I assume, be no grand surprise. I caught the debate from about 9:20 or 9:30 on.
Just saw some post-debate footage on FNC. To confirm, the Bush daughters are still hot.