Post #177,276
9/30/04 11:17:08 PM
|
It was a tie.
I thought they both did reasonably well. Stylistically, they're very different of course. But on substance they each did a pretty good job of making their points without being goaded into responding to the criticism by the other and going off-message.
Bush forcefully defended his policies, and Kerry didn't do as good a job as I expected in pointing out Bush's mistakes or how he would do things differently. I don't think Kerry did a good job in explaining how bilateral talks with North Korea was better than multilateral talks.
Kerry wasn't as good as Bush in keeping his responses on topic. Bush let his smirking come out too much. Kerry was more articulate.
I don't think it changed the race much if at all. It'll reinforce preconceived notions.
In short: it was a tie in my opinion.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #177,284
9/30/04 11:37:05 PM
|
Mostly agree, but would give Kerry slight edge.
On the other hand, given the effective fear mongering of the recent past, this debate is the one that Bush should have had the largest advantage.
Not sure how the "town meeting" version of the debate will go. It depends on the questions.
Bush will be toast in the final debate when the subject is domestic issues.
Alex
"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
|
Post #177,286
9/30/04 11:44:54 PM
|
It matters not who won . . .
It matters who the media says won in the morning after.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #177,288
9/30/04 11:48:08 PM
|
Yup.
I just wanted to get my opinions out before the hurricane of political spin decends.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who remembers how Ford's remarks about Poland were twisted in his debate with Carter...)
|
Post #177,293
10/1/04 12:26:15 AM
|
Right, and if the media says . . . .
. . "Bush looked like a moron", that could swing the powerful moron vote which may be enough to tie up the election.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #177,307
10/1/04 9:18:40 AM
|
No chance of that.
The medja rarely reports the truth ;-)
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #177,294
10/1/04 12:43:09 AM
|
Boundless cynicism
-drl
|
Post #177,310
10/1/04 9:26:13 AM
|
An unscientific survey says it DID change some votes
WGN-AM radio did a most unscientific poll (the first 10 callers who called in got ten seconds to critique the debate and say who they thought won). Final result: Kerry won: 8, Bush won: 1, Both are "knuckleheads": 1.
But the kicker was that two people who claimed that they were "lifelong Republicans" said they were going to vote for Kerry. Which indicates to me that Ross is right: These ass-clowns are not the Republicans of Goldwater.... (It may also mean that Duh's support among "Republicans" is softer than they think!)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #177,313
10/1/04 9:41:10 AM
|
On bilateral talks
Bush says it's wrong to hold bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il, because that's exactly what he wants.[1] He said, "When you're talking with a madman, you want to be surrounded by allies." Like China. Allies.
So when talking to a madman, you want to make sure you're surrounded by allies. But when invading a country with the world's fourth largest army to depose a madman ... eh, we'll do that one on our own.
[1] Let's ignore for the moment the possibility that what Kim Jong Il wants just may also be good for us.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #177,427
10/1/04 8:52:48 PM
|
Re: On bilateral talks
Bush also neglected to mention that the other four parties—Japan, China, Russia and South Korea—all want the US to engage in bilateral talks with NK.
But I suspect that he was genuinely unaware of this.
cordially,
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
|
Post #177,431
10/1/04 8:55:55 PM
|
But...here's the spin...
Kerry supports international approval and cooperation and thinks all of our foreign policy depends on it...but he wants us to go at NK by ourselves.
Flip flop.
Heard that one today.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #177,446
10/1/04 10:07:50 PM
|
This must be that exclusive-OR I've heard so much about
Mere fact of a US/NK confab -?- implicitly nullifies any other agreements, understandings, sub-rosa attachments etc. ad legislatum..
Flippant flop-flip, that - ya can't spin jello!
Gerrymandered in Joisey
|
Post #177,466
10/2/04 8:43:13 AM
|
Used the same by Kerry camp
as you know that our military could not possibly fight in Iraq and still look for Bin Laden.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #177,470
10/2/04 10:19:27 AM
|
According to your military
not if they want to do the latter job properly.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
