Bush owned it.

It was, more or less, a tie. Which means the MSM will spin it into a slight Kerry victory.

Humm...

I'd call it a tie, but a slight edge to Bush for not losing . (which is all he really needed to do).

Bush looked tired and angry, spouted cliches, failed to respond to easy set-ups due to Kerry's ridiculous positions and most of all said "ummm" WAY too much.

Tomorrow the Kerry people are going to be energized and the MSM will have Bush on the defensive.

Prediction: race re-tightens.

evariste -

pwned ... by any chance?

{All hat tips belong to you}

MSM will make sure that a tie goes to the wiener.

i didn't think anything very interesting or new was said

watched it on c-span.org's live stream

i liked that they had both candidates on screen at all times

bush seemed disgusted by some things kerry said

kerry really annoyed me the way he would CONSTANTLY nod in agreement to all of Bush's rebuttals

I had several friends over, some Kerry supporters, some Bush supporters, and most of us undecided. We all thought Bush looked angry, and lost. We all thought it a slam dunk for Kerry.

#4 KevinV

What's the word at the Dept. of Arabian Interests?

So to recap, Kerry's biggest gaffes:

"Weapons of mass destruction" crossing the borders of Iraq every day...

Visiting KGB headquarters in "Treblinka Square"...

What did Bush screw up on? Come on, where are the Bushisms?

"Jiang Zhemin" pronounced as "John G. Men"?

"mullahs" pronounced as "moo-lahs"?

Bush was on top of his game as usual. Kerry flip flopped as usual and, quite frankly, I don't think that he really said a damn thing.

I'd call it a tie as well. Ofcourse we've seen Pres. Bush lay traps before and then hit people when he least expects it. This could be one of those times, we'll have to wait and see in the end.

Cheers all and good night.

I didn't see tired and angry in Bush but

failed to respond to easy set-ups

some of that was definitely going on

Kerry's answer: "Do it better and faster" WTF?

What did you think, Charles? I'm curious to know what your take is.

Here's where I think Bush missed some really great opportunities (in no particular order):

** What do so many LGF posters have in common? The were bline, but now they see and the light fell upon them on 09/11/01. Bush failed fully to capitalize on how that was the transforming event of our times. He mentioned it, but didn't seize it.

** He should have nailed Kerry on this "phony coalition" stuff much harder. Yes, he talked about Britain and Australia and Poland. He should challenged Kerry to identify who he'd bring to the table that isn't here now and how he'd do it.

** Kerry should have been challenged to detail all of his "plans." Bush never challenged what those really were. Yes, we know what Bush is and Bush is good. But why leave it at that. Bush has to answer for what he's done. Make Kerry answer for what he's proposing.

Final: Kerry by a touchdown (no extra point). The race tightens. Bush needs to pick it up on the campaig trail and dust himself off and prep better for the next debate.

The debate was won in the first 30 minutes when Bush repeated the "Wrong War,Wrong Time, Wrong Place" line several times. This statement is utterly indefensable. It is also impossible to recconcile this position with leading the armed forces to victory as CINC.

The average American (not the type who instantly responds to on line polls) tuned out literally and / or figurativey after the first half hour.

Let's face it, 90 minutes is too long to debate a relatively simple issue; who will be best at protecting your family. Trust is instinctive and natural.

Game, set, match. And to all a good night.

GWB bitch-slapped Kerry, several times.

And Kerry was in Vietnam.

I'd say it was a wash. Kerry was slicker, had better speechwriters . . . but W. will keep the lead in the polls: the people are voting on the President of the United States, not the President of the Yale Debating Club.

What was the deal with the pottery barn remark?

"you break it you own it, and must fix it?" (paraphrase)

So, logically, if W 'broke' Iraq, then we need to elect Kerry to get the French and Germans to fix it.

WTF?

How can anyone think he won the debate? At best it was a tie...

evariste (#1)

Bush owned it.

I disagree. Kerry was far more fluid than Bush was. No substance at all, but Bush was agitated and he missed a lot of opportunities to highlight Kerry's weaknesses and his own strengths.

Thom -

The Dept is obviously pro-Kerry, but only to a point. Most of the officers I know (and I'm pretty new, keep in mind) seem to think that Bush doesn't have the diplomatic skill required to get his policy working. At the same time, most agree that liberty is the long-term answer to the Middle East's problems, so they like that idealistic bent.

Whoever wins is my President, and I'll follow either one of them, but I'd prefer Bush. Actually, what I'd really prefer is Bush with Blair's rhetorical skills, but that obviously ain't gonna happen...

Kerry didn't win it as much as GWB lost it...

and what this about Kerry talking about nuclear proliferation being a big issue??? the guy hasn't ever even brought up the subject before...

a search of john kerry's entire web site for the words "nuclear proliferation" shows those words appear only 1 time as a 2nd hand remark.

Kerry was the better orator, by far. Bush did well in that he didn't stumble n fall anyver.

Bush didntr really seem angry anywhere, or did i miss something? Did say he's calm in the end, tho.

Bush has my vote all tied up. The fencesitters aren't gonna be wooed by bush tonite. Am worried that foriegn policy was supposedly Bush's citadel and he shouldn't have allowed kerry so much steam in this one.

All in one, 1-0 for kerry but Buish still leads the polls..

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

Unbelieveable...

Kerry lost with the nuclear question.

Game over, John.

Back to Beantown with ya.

I posted this on the previous article by misatke I menat for it to be here sorry to be redundant:

my 2 cents

its clear that W is no debator...kerry is

its clear we are at war...not at peace

what is needed now is someone that will pull the trigger

when W came under fire he pulled the tigger and has been on full-auto ever since, even when the incoming was/is overwhelming

when kerry came under fire he ran, left early, and then dispearaged his brothers on his return which brought dishonor on himself, and his country

which would you want in combat with YOU?

kerry may have won the debate on points

W will win the War with his steelie determination and his fighter pilot instincts...

words won't win the war on terror: bullets, guts, and determination will

I think my favorite line from Kerry was when he said (paraphrase) "You send the wrong message to the Iraqi people when you guard the oil fiels and not the nuclear facilities."

What? Iraq has nuclear facilities? Wouldn't that qualify as traces of WMDs?

#17

I hear ya...but unfortunately, those same people that tune out after a 1/2 hour don't make up their mind based on that 1/2 hour. They wait for the summary of the MSM.

my wrap-up: Kerry still sucks

Thom :-) Bush pwned Kerry, who is boned and doesn't know it.

I would have liked to see a REAL debate, not this stilted show loaded down with artificial rules. I'd rather see the candidates get angry, get passionate, speak what's really in their hearts with conviction.

I know. I'm dreaming.

Kevin (#4),

I agree with you that Bush's pregnant pauses and "umms" were embarassing. I initially heard parts of the debate on radio and concluded that Kerry did significantly better than Bush. However, after coming home and seeing it (my wife taped it, God bless her), it's clear that Bush does much better than Kerry when you can SEE both of them (I'm glad the networks ignored that stupid rule that you can't show the opponent when one is talking). The pregnant pauses are far less annoying when you see Bush looking strong and thoughtful before he speaks.

During some of Bush's best comeback lines, Kerry was NODDING in agreement! Bush looked far more presidential than Kerry, but if it means anything, Kerry looks more like my grandma, so he's got that going for him...

I'd have to say that overall it was a tie (which means Kerry's not going to get a bounce from this). The MSM can say what they want. I think the country's finally starting to see the MSM for the partisan hacks they are.

'Coop

I agree with Cornholio's conclusions but not his methods [(~;}œ. Some polling data out which parallels my take: Kerry did a better job of attacking because he has no real record to defend but it will be a wash because this didn't change anyone's mind about the two candidates.

Next debate, let's hope W can bash John Frijole Kerry's dismal Senate record.

Bob Graham is going to "produce" notes on his meeting with Tommy Franks over troops being diverted to Iraq from Afghanistan. (He is holding the 2 year old notebook in his hands right now on Fox.

Charles, warm up the forgery machine...

#28 oceanfire...

Kerry: That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.

Full transcript of the debate here... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html

I have to agree with the "tie" people. W wiffed on some pretty slow softballs. You could clearly see he was pissed.

Lurch took Slick Willy's lessons to heart.

Lurch said nothing very well. W made great points poorly.

Kerry was, as expected, more loquascious, Bush was, as predicted, more parsimonious. No minds were changed. Kerrys North Korea position is a looser. Kerrys "our allies" position is a looser. Both will wear poorly as the days to the election pass and events overtake his positions.

The fun debate will be Cheney vs. Edwards.

The bright, no-nonsense CEO vs. the $50-million-dollars-of-skill-trial lawyer.

It'l be a battle royale. The debate equalivalent of a cage match!

I liked how Kerry said multiple times "I have one consistant position on Iraq." That cemented him in my mind as a liar.

President Bush's style was angry, halting and conversational, Kerry's was Senatorial and polished and empty.

On likeability and genuineness, Bush wins, but he's probably not persuaded many people who weren't already on his side.

Kerry has adapted and used the mailed fist in a velvet glove approach, and came across slightly less harsh than he might have.

Given Kerry's numerous gaffes, I'll call it a draw.

Bush: style B- substance A+
Kerry: style A substance D+

My take.
JWM

Bush jumped to early lead then looked a little tired to me. Kerry did not get the KO he needed.

Here is the bottom line ... the race will tighten because the MSN wants it to tighten.

I am calling the Florida Republican Committe tomorrow to see what I can do to help. Is there something else I should do?? I already dropped 20K, can I work phones, what?? Anyone??

Kerry was more articulate, but that was to be expected. Face it, Bush slept through public speaking class in high school. He just doesn't do that well.

Still, nothing new from the Kerry Kamp. He sounded convincing to anyone who doesn't read a newspaper, but it's still the same old story.

I would have done it different. 'better, faster, stronger, because I have the technology'. and with more of my buddys with me - chirac and schroeder's opinion be damed.

Bottom line, not a loss for W, but advantage Kerry on style.

... and in case nobody mentioned it, Kerry had a great "Kerryism" at the beginning when he talked about "working with the Muslim world" and said that Bush "almost hasn't done that."

Ahem... I think he meant "Is HARDLY doing that."

Kerry tripped over his lips a lot (not as much as Bush, but still a bit too much for such an alleged super genius).

Oops, weren't we supposed to be emailing the MSM right about now? You know the lefties are doing so.

36 SBrooks1

Thanks for the tip!

It was dreadfully boring, they both repeated the same things over and over and covered nothing new. Both are poor communicators. I think it would have been better if it was more free-form with Jim Lehrer interacting more in response to what they were saying, rather than what was really a series of mini-speeches.

Oh, and did anyone notice that Kerry only generically referred to have been in "a war", never saying "Vietnam" one time? I bet his handlers were beating him like glue factory horse during their mock debates to keep him from EVER mentioning VIETNAM.

I should have asked this first: Did you guys know Kerry served in Vietnam?

Not a very exciting debate. Kerry looked "rehearsed" and Bush was Bush. Don't think this one will change many minds if there are that many left to change. Do however think Kerry's comments about a "global test" and picked up by Bush in rebuttle was a great point. Something like "I don't need a global test to protect America".

I was suprised how Kerry deftly wove his Vietnam experiences into the modern war narrative. He articulated the fundemental issues of our current conflict and gave them context an meaning with the backdrop of his heroic fight in the Mekong delta. In addition he made a persuasive case for his vision of the future with focus sharpened by the bitter lens of a history personally witnessed. In all he made the grandeur and breadth of the struggle facing the Union accessable and personalized for an elecotorate often baffled by the whirlwind of events.

/just kidding

on drudge -

Kerry lied about lying - anyone suprised by this?

lie on a lie

#50 Dar ul Harbarian

I was suprised how Kerry deftly wove his Vietnam experiences into the modern war narrative.

Did anyone get a count how many times he did that?

#37 reaganite

Lurch said nothing very well. W made great points poorly.

That's my take on it too. Kerry was better stylistically, but the problem is, he's just wrong on so many things. I don't care how well he can articulate a bad policy position, it's still bad policy.

I don't see many people changing their votes over this.

#37 reaganite

Lurch said nothing very well. W made great points poorly.

Good point, if you'll pardon the pun.

So where was Kerry's "secret plan" he was supposed to lay out tonight??? All I heard was "Go to my website, blah, blah, blah."

Cross-posted from my own reaction, this was the thought that was ringing through my mind, post-debate:

I so desperately wanted to have Bush rebut more of Kerry’s claims. Oh, how I longed for him to say: “90% of the costs? 90% of the casualites? Really? I wonder where my opponent got those numbers… Do the sacrifices that the Iraqis are making account for nothing in his view? Their casualties of the ‘resistance’ dwarf ours. They are losing sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, true Iraqi patriots on a daily basis. And yet, each day, we see huge lines at Iraqi police and National Guard recruiting stations. We see countless brave Iraqi men standing up for the cause of freedom, standing up for their future, regardless of the cost. They see, first hand, the costs of standing up to terrorists, thugs, bandits and monsters, and yet they continue to line up, day after day. How dare he denigrate those brave citizens by implying that their losses, their casualties, their costs don’t count?”

I read this somewhere tonight

Watching ABC. Poll says people think Kerry won, but no one changed their minds about who they would vote for.

I have such a visceral dislike of Kerry its not healthy. I am going to break something and go to bed.

#48 Hankmeister, actually he did say Vietnam...1 time

Kerry: I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

Kerry needed to hit a home run tonight...and hit a ground rule double.

My take: Draw. Slight movement in the polls (maybe 1-2% towards Kerry). No real shift in the undecideds...

#52 reaganite

Did anyone get a count how many times he did that?

I think it was four (five?) if you count the "other war" referrence.

Hankmeister:
You're wrong. He said "Vietnam" precisely once. I know, because my wife then ordered me to down a Scotch or two...

I only heard/saw the last half hour of the debate. When John Foney Kerry said he could rid Russia, N. Korea and Iran of nukes in 4 years without saying how. That is a real scary thought--Does that mean he is going to nuke them first? It is laughably unrealistic. If he has problems with the Iraq war, how is he going to deal with nukes? And you KNOW that Israel will be added to that list, even though they don't deserve to be.

So what if he can pronounce nuclear correctly? He is still going to be the ruin of our wonderful country if he wins.

Thom and All Others:

If you need proof that not all American diplomats are candy-asses, check out

The Diplo-mad

Right now MSNBC has Kerry winning the debate 71% to 29%.

But of course we know that they are fair and unbalanced...

What a bunch of rot! This is exactly the kind of MSM bullshit blitz that I expected.

The dinos must think we are brain dead. And Alan Colmes? You might as well bundle him up in a box and send him to Mars.

Substance - Bush won. He nailed Kerry several times yet he missed loads of opportunities. He was consistant throughout.

J. "I have a plan" Kerry (sounds kinda like "I have a dream"?) didn't win very many points for substance.
I love his unilateral nuclear disamament position...

Style - Kerry won hands down. Bush was stuttering, pausing and looked indecisive. He did not get his points through clearly. He kept getting rattled and continuely flopped about in his answers sometimes changing the subjects. Meanwhile Kerry's flip-flops sounded good and reasonable to the clueless.

Unfortunantly, the undecided uninformed voter will see Kerry as a better leader. Since they are the whole reason why we have debates and TV commercials, it's painfully obvious that Bush blew his chance to bury Kerry once and for all.

#51,

Lies and the lying liars who lie about lying...

#43

Republican Party of Florida

Get busy. I'm working here in Orlando. We need people to man the phones, people to work in the mail center, and people to do neighborhood walks.

I'm honestly a little concerned about the ground game here in the I-4 corridor. Repubs should not be taking ANYTHING for granted right now.

I think W needs to get p.o.ed before the next debate. Thats when he seems to be at his best.

#34 Hankmeister  
LOL nobody agrees with my methods. But what expression does [(~;}œ signify? I'm stumped :-0

#37 reaganite

Lurch said nothing very well. W made great points poorly.

That sums it up! I wonder if a person who did not see the televised version, but instead read a print transcript would conclude that W hammered Kerry.

#53 Purple Fury

I don't see many people changing their votes over this.

That's because you assume people actually judge the content. America, where we have shows like 'Amish in the city', Sex in the city', and 'Survivor'. More people watch that trash than the news. Most people in America get their "news" from the MSM. Most people in America never read past the headline.

Now the MSM will spin it.

Everybody loves a horse race.

Race two comin up ...

completely and totally OT, but important!

I just returned home after having my pacemaker replaced!

Doctor's Observations and Final Report:: Patient is a Green, scaly, Lizard - type creature who tolerated the procedure quite well. Patient is tired and exhibits the usual soreness, but states he "feels OK" and requests Roasted Morlock Buttocks for breakfast. Patient observed for several hours and then released; kitchen staff said to be quite unfamiliar with the item "Roasted Morlock Buttocks" and doubts they have any on hand.

i dont know if i would say tie. If you follow the issues W won because Kerry has nothing. If you weren't you might not have been able to see through the BS from Kerry. But I definitely wish Bush would have cleaned him up better than what he did.

#64

Get busy. Links to MSM polls.

Purple Fury, Thank You, I'm on it. Gonna grab some kindred spirits with me to. Thanks.

Dick Morris said Bush was terrible. He said Kerry's positions are impossible. But he said if Bush performs on the next debate, the domestic policy debate, like he did tonight he'll be in trouble.

#54 Spiny Norman

So where was Kerry's "secret plan" he was supposed to lay out tonight???

That's a rhetorical question and I refuse to answer! :-Þ

Bush: style C substance B
Kerry: style B- substance D+

Kerry keeps saying, "I could do better!" That's a theme to follow, but not something you can come out and say. You have to say what you're going to do, and all he has to offer is that, with his magic touch, everything would be swell. This was repeated time after time. I think most viewers will automatically conclude from this that Kerry is a dickwad, even if they can't really tell you how they decided. I have great faith in such intuitions!

I think the post-debate wil actually determine the winner. Kerry had some amrvelous speeches. Unfortunatly only about 15% of what he said was even remotely true. All of his BS will come out in the next couple days for the world to see in all the debate dissections that will be occuning on news shows.

If you want to be seen as having no credibility, if you want to be regarded as a blind cheerleader, then go ahead and say that it was a draw or that Bush won.

#60 Spiny Norman
I counted at least 7 times, I know I missed some because I was on the phone.

Yes, Kerry is a better debater, but that doesn't surprise anyone and is already factored into people’s expectations.

Bush missed some opportunities to get Kerry on obvious points, such as Kerry's insane plan to give Iran nuclear material, or Kerry's inconsistency in wanting to deal bi-laterally with N Korea yet also claim we weren't multi-lateral enough in dealing with Iraq.

On the other hand, these Kerry waffles will be picked apart in the days to come while Bush really didn't have any major slip-up that could likewise harm him. However, since Bush did not deliver the hoped for knockout blow tonight, Kerry will likely get a bit of a bounce.

best debate in recent memory...

really both guys laid out thier cases well...

kerry is fudamentally a multilateralist and has a somewhat confusing vision for foreign policy, but he put it out well and he did not act like a prick know-it-all..

bush is fundamentally in favor of a muscular unilateral foreign policy... he was not super strong...

kerry did say one thing that sealed the deal for me against him when he talked about

GIVING IRAN NUCLEAR MATERIAL, TESTING THEM... MAYBE PUTTING SANCTIONS IN...

that and the total undermining of china russia, japan, and SK with negotiations with the lunatic norks... i mean dude, the comment re affirmed my belief that a kerry presidency would get lots of people killed...

My take: Both did okay, neither did great, and both could have done better. The Kerry Kamp will remain with Kerry. The Bush camp will remain with Bush. The undecideds will remain undecided. No one lost, no one won. The only downside I see for Bush is that this was the foreign policy debate and thus theoretically should not be a tie and Kerry came across prepared. Even though he said stupid things, he said them reasonably well.

Bush emphasized principle-based strength (good), but missed a lot of opportunities to dent Kerry.

Kerry has a "plan" (do what Bush is doing faster and have meetings). I think Kerry made a mistake by saying that we should separate the war from the soldiers, but I remember some senate testimony where he was attacking soldiers "reminiscent of Ghengis Khan". Once again he played the "Oh, and did you know I was in Vietnam?" card too many times tonight. He doesn't realize that is his own a weak spot.

#28 oceanfire 9/30/2004 08:41PM PST
I think my favorite line from Kerry was when he said (paraphrase) "You send the wrong message to the Iraqi people when you guard the oil fiels and not the nuclear facilities."

Wait...Iraq doesn't HAVE any nuclear facilities...

and didn't I hear Kerry say something like 'Bush saved Iraq for Halliburton?'

#80 beck
FOAD

can I vent,another big lie: 57 varieties!

[Link: www.snopes.com...]

But greater things were yet to come. It was in 1896 that Henry Heinz came up with one of the most recognized slogans in advertising history: Heinz "57 Varieties." This catch phrase had nothing to do with the actual number of varieties produced by H. J. Heinz, though, which by then totalled over 60 (including plum pudding, strawberry preserve, India relish, olive oil, spaghetti, euchred pickle, currant jelly, chili sauce, peanut butter, and celery soup). Rather, Heinz was riding an elevated train in New York when he spied an Heinz advertising placard in the train car promoting "21 styles" of shoes; struck by the concept, and recognizing that catchiness and resonance were far more important qualities for a company slogan than literal accuracy, Heinz cast about for the perfect number to use for his own company's version of the phrase. Settling on fifty-seven, Heinz soon put the number to work, and within a week the sign of the green Heinz pickle bearing the words "57 Varieties" was everywhere Heinz "could find a place to stick it." He soon ordered the construction of a six-story, twelve-hundred-light display featuring a forty-foot pickle; installed at the intersection of 5th Avenue and 23rd Street in New York City, this electric marvel dazzled New York residents and tourists until 1906.

By the time the H. J. Heinz company celebrated its 100th anniversary in 1969 its product line included more than 1,100 items, but over the years the number 57 had permeated almost every aspect of the Heinz corporate culture. Besides being a company slogan, it appeared in the name of one of their best-selling products (Heinz 57 steak sauce), their mailing address (P.O. Box 57), and their phone number (273-5757). Yankee great Joe DiMaggio reportedly lost out on a $10,000 promotional deal with Heinz when his major-league record hitting streak ended at 56 games in July 1941 (he later claimed that the Heinz deal was "just talk"), up until the 1950s anyone who wrote to Heinz about an upcoming 57th birthday received a free case of Heinz products, and in 2001 Heinz paid $57 million to have the new home of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team dubbed Heinz Field.

Kerry's secret plan is so secret he'd have to kill himself if he knew what it was.

Take home messages from Kerry:

1. Stop US nuclear weapons, especially bunker busters. (U.S. bad.)

2. "Global test" will be our watchword. (U.S. bad.)

3. Give nuclear material to Iran. (Trust Iran first, clean up nuclear attack later. Because we are wrong to tell the world what to do.)

4. Ask American soldiers to be the last to die in Iraq for the wrong war at the wrong time. (U.S. bad.)

5. I'll join the Kyoto (taxation of the U.S. by the rest of the world) treaty. (U. S. B-a-d.)

6. Did you know I was in Vietnam? (I used to say Cambiodia, implyin the U.S. was baaad, but I want you to forget that now that you found out I was lying.)

Bottom line: U.S. BAD!!!

#81 reaganite,

Ah. After the first half-hour, I was paying more attention to LGF than the TV. I got tired of yelling at it...

:^P

What color was Kerry tonight? Puce?

I do like our President but Kerry did what he does best, BS. Mr. Bush missed this one. He can't BS as well as jaundice John.

biggest impact on the campaign is that the kerry campaign has been so awful lately...

bad july, bad august, bad september... and this was a strong debate by kerry... so his campaign no longer looks so inept... that will pay huge dividends for their campaign... it was kerry's best public appearance in months...

I would like to hear the Russian Ambassador's reaction to Kerry saying he could get rid of Russia's nukes in four years.

KERRY: I understand what the president is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war.

And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.

How would Kerry know about losing people in war? His implicit statement is that some of "his guys" bought the farm. How can he get away with this awful bullshit, the idea that he was somehow a man in command and control?

I'm sick of this self-serving fairy. I don't want a phony in the White House ever again. We are burdened with a higher responsibility now, because everyone and his brother knows that we are the big dogs on the block.

What we say is the law if we choose to enforce it. Let's not allow a loose cannon to take the reigns of the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of planet earth. To do so would be disastrous beyond belief.

President Spinmeister. Who is ready for that?

Exuuuse me, I'm just a housewife, and not as brilliant as all you all, BUT please tell me what is wrong with him being a bit angry. He's trying to save western civilization and Kerry seems to be concerned with manicures, $1,000 haircuts and not hurting the feelings of those that hate our freakin guts and want to kill our children! He is nothing more that a narcissistic sleezbag politician. I'm sorry I've had some wine. Please forgive me.

I think he won.

Informed, but not blissful in WA State.

55 Doug Stewart

That's exactly the type of response that Bush needed to make. Kerry left himself wide open so many times yet Bush kept failing to drive the stake home.

Or how about Darfur?

Kerry flipped around and said nothing really. Bush talked about sending $200 million.. (to whom??).

He should have said, "We're busy forming a coalition of the willing. Seems that France and the UN aren't really interested" or something to that effect.

I was hoping that the President would deliver the final knockout blow to Kerry tonight. That didn't happen, at least the way I saw it.

Kerry actually acquitted himself decently tonight in terms of his presentation. His substance was predictably lacking, but these debates are all about style, aren't they?

The MSM & the Kerry camp are already preparing to use extensively the cut-away footage of Bush looking "annoyed" during the debate.

The President needs to do a better job preparing for the next two debates. This debate, which dealt with foreign policy, was supposed to be a slam dunk for him. Now the polls will probably tighten again.

the transcript is better for bush by the way...

kerry does not read as well as he sounded...

I missed the debate tonight. Just finished reading one of the longer threads. Y'all did a great job of blogging! :)

Now, the reason I missed out is because we had a bipartisan meeting tonight for our county. I've joined in with others of the county to try to clean up one of the most corrupt groups anywhere in power county wise. If we are successful in ridding ourselves of what is called the 'group of 16', there are 14 more Texas counties that will follow our suit. We made the news all the way up into Seattle Washington with this thing.
The most remarkable part is this is democrats, republicans and independents coming together to have fair and balanced government for our county.

I'm sorry I missed out on sharing the debate with you guys, but proud that I've become more active in our local politics for something that is important for our little part of the country.

Kerry came off as a bit of a stuffed shirt.

If the debate seemed boring, overlong, and repetitive, Jim Lehrer's questions didn't help to broaden the discussion.

It sounded as if Bush was told not to attack Kerry off script. It would have been nice to see him vent. Instead he held it in, or searched for the closest canned response. He should have hammered Kerry on the Iraq:Coalition::NoKorea:Bilateral nonsense, and not let him off the mat.

Morris is wrong on Bush sucking for this reason:

Bush talked in "news clips", he was pretty careful with everything he said, and when played on the news, is really good, (and when edited for news- Awesome.)

Kerry's newsclips will be absurd, because most everything that came out of his mouth was pretty well, absurd.

The MSM will help Bush.

All Kerry has is Bush "facial expressions" to mock.
That won't wash.

/2 cents

it would ahve been better for bush to have gotten a little ritiously angry than visibly hhold it back,,,

On Drudge now:

Lockhart tells Mike McCurry:
the concensus is the debate was a draw.

Of course, Joe didn't know he was on camera at the time...

Charles,

I would have liked to see a REAL debate, not this stilted show loaded down with artificial rules. I'd rather see the candidates get angry, get passionate, speak what's really in their hearts with conviction.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Overall, I think that Kerry was the better orator tonight. On substance, however, Bush kicked his ass royally. He could have driven home a few more points, and I really wish that he would have at times, but Kerry was still looking like a lost puppy.

It does worry me, though, that tonight's debate should have been Bush's strongest one. Again, he should have pushed forward a bit more on a few points and made a few more connections.

Honestly, I think that the media watered down a lot of what Bush said before he had a chance to say it -- they've presented weakened versions of Bush's arguments and positions over the last few weeks, and so the average person listening to Bush very well may have thought, "Hm, I've heard this already," without actually listening to him.

A slight win for Bush due to the substance, but he should have had a slam dunk tonight.

On to the next debate, on with the campaigns.

I honestly could not stand to see that 6'4" stack of shit

on the same stage with my President, so at around 15

minutes in I turned my TV off.

Better that than throw my TV out the window. Although

that sounds like a great idea.

Jonah Goldberg was just on C-SPAN and he made a very good point about the debate being inherently tougher for George W. Bush because the type of questions John Kerry mostly has to answer have to do with 'what would you do?'; which means Kerry can give fanciful answers without having to see the consequences of them and not be held accountable. But when Bush makes a decision, there are cosequences --sometimes good and sometimes bad -- and it's easier to attack them often without providing an alternative.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions,and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

Bush should use this in a campaign ad.

Sheepdogess:
Brilliant! (Think Guiness Commercial as you read that).

That's an excellent formulation - "Why shouldn't I be pissed? I should be defending y'all and instead I'm stuck 'debating' this 'wicked hahd-coah' hoser and being asked insulting, leading questions by a man whose salary I sign off on (indirectly, of course)."

There were so many opportunities for Bush to nail John "Oompah F'in Loompah" Kerry to the wall that I was shouting at the TV for most of the debate.

The funny thing is, my wife, a born and bred Texan raised by Yellow Dog Democrats, who is going to vote for Bush this Nov. because Gephardt and Lieberman aren't available, was yelling the same things at the screen.

I love her more every day. *grin*

Sheepdogess,
I agree wholeheartedly. Let's just hope the other viewers also saw it that way.

To the informed, Kerry is an empty suit. To his credit, however, he managed to hide his tendency to come off as a smarmy arrogant ass.

OK, Kerry said it twice.

p>

That's esactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops went nto Baghdad was the oild ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities

And:

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Bush did not lose, but then kerry did not win. Talk is cheap...action is what counts...Bush has accomplished more in 3 plus years, then kerry has in 20 plus years as a representative of the people.

Yes he represents the people of Massachusetts, but not one significant piece of legislation that strengthens our nation, carries the name, kerry. Simply, kerry could have been a "somebody", instead he chose to be a "nobody". Hell the man missed 76% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then bitches, pisses and moans that the country is heading in the wrong direction. This IS a leader?

Bush was a "nobody", that became a "somebody". Bush through determintaion, courage and 'action' both as a Governor and as President, through three and a half of the toughest years this country has endured, has made himself through action, the champion of freedom.

kerry in 30 plus years, including his Viet Nam days and his anti-Viet Nam days, did nothing but weaken this countries spirit. And he did this, time and time again.

If one defines that as a contribution that kerry made to this country, then they are fools.

If this makes no sense, I'm tired and mellow from gin rickeys. If it does make sense, then I'm tired and mellow from gin rickeys.

Lurch spends 20 years on Mt. Olympus, with an emphasis on PUS, flapping his gums and doing essentially nothing but facilitating treason. The expectation was that he was going to perform better in the debates. Of course it will energize the Communist Party, but who gives a shit.

Bush didn't step on his dick, nor did he give the MSM anything to spin for the brain-dead undecideds.

Giving CommieKerry the Presidency is like re-electing Jimmy Carter. Appeasement, indecisiveness, weakness, an oil crisis and dead Americans all over again. The people see it in him. And that is why he will lose.

OT, and ominous:

Someone in Iraq with links to "insurgents" is interested in crisis planning by the San Diego, CA public schools

i kind of disagree with the CW that kerry owns the domestic policy debate too...

i mean no one ever won a lot of hearts and minds campaigning for tax increases... kerry will certainly raise takes on a lot of middle income people who vote...

bush should hammer home in the domestic debate that the domestic systems, social security, medicare, &c need to be reformed... and a kerry administration wont be able to make that happen... they are owned by the education, trial lawyer, and public sector unions...

HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR BUSH

He should have come back harder on the nuclear bunkerbuster (tied Kerry to the nuke freeze against Reagan) and his diplomacy addiction ala Jimmy Carter (who gave us the failed North Korea policy).

I think Team Bush has a huge opportunity for campaign commercials from the debate. Kerry's Klutze's really can't use anything from the debate in commercials.

If I'm Karl Rove, I'm picking the 2 or 3 best themes from LGF and other bloggers, talk radio, etc and turn 'em into campaign ads in the next 36 hours.

Opps! my last bit got cut off!

Sorry to keep harping on this one Kerry quote--it just seems like such a huge gaff to me that he said Iraq had nuclear facilities. Unless :gasp: it's new secret information!

Anyway, g'night all.

Once again Kerry has reminded us that he was in Russia around the time of the coupe, but apparently he didn’t learn anything about the difficulties of bringing democracy to a country that hasn’t experienced it before…is this carelessness on his part or was he to busy reading (his) files at the KGB?

MSNBC Poll -- Kerry currently up 70-30

I'm going to bed. David Brooks, like many of the astute LGF posters, confessed that the debate was more or less a tie. I've been trying to put this all in a positive light but I agree with Brooks -- either way, I can't imagine the momentum of the Kerry wagon will pick up any. Good night.

the media (like CNN, NPR, NYTimes, ABC) will spin and make Kerry look like a winner. Mondale beat Reagan too, and look what happened...

The United States is not the Yale Political Union. The United States is not the English Parliament.

The debates won't affect the election. Bush will win handily.

That doesnt mean we should not exhort our family, friends,
colleagues, and strangers to support Bush

#31 evariste

Thom :-) Bush pwned Kerry, who is boned and doesn't know it.

pwned and bwned. Great progress for Lurch. Indeed.

I'm still worried, though.

#32 Charles

I would have liked to see a REAL debate, not this stilted show loaded down with artificial rules.

Yeah. Same here.

---

G'night all.

I am voting FOR PRESIDENT BUSH... and I must say I was disappointed.

Now I know what it feels like to be a Kerry supporter in November...

:(

#116:
The campaigns can't use any clips or quotes from the debates in ads, as per the agreed upon debate rules.

#102 LSD 9/30/2004 09:08PM PST

Morris is wrong on Bush sucking for this reason:

Bush talked in "news clips", he was pretty careful with everything he said, and when played on the news, is really good, (and when edited for news- Awesome

You're right. The MSM networks are having trouble getting their pro-Kerry soundbites together that make any sense because of Kerry's wordy style. Bush was short and to the point--great for a 3 secdond soundbite.

At the risk of getting too far into the geek forest I equate Bush vs. Kerry to Kirk vs. Picard.

Picard (Kerry) Talk, Talk, Talk, Feel, Feel, Feel,

Kirk (Bush) Fire, Fire, Fire, Talk terms, Fire, Fire, Fire.

Since we ARE in a war I choose Kirk!!

#80 Beck
I honestly think Bush did a better job at the debate. I though Kerry seemed fake, and just wanted to fill up time. I liked the fact that Bush didn't always feel the need to fill up all his time.

Won - lost, blah, blah, blah.

Did anyone either change their vote based on tonight or move from undecided to one of the two camps?

I'd like to know what was said tonight that would have caused that to happen? It was a wash. Bush had the chance to knock Kerry out and it didn't happen. Otherwise, SSDD

slightly OT: I'll be curious to see Cheney on the attack against edwards in their debate(s).

#128 Atlas Wannabe

Two Words... Osama Bin Laden

KILL THAT BASTERD!

NOW!!!

I think it's obvious that the libs were looking for any excuse to claim a Kerry victory. The link below is a great example of the kind of cheerleading that the left is left with when trying to defend a candidate like Kerry.

You know they are in big trouble when they've completely given up on talking facts and resort almost exclusively to personal insults against President Bush.

[Link: mb7.theinsiders.com...]

126

Condi = Uhura?

Cheney = Mr Spock?

Rumsfeld = Bones ("Dammit Jim!"

Powell = Sulu?

Karl Rove = Evil Kirk?

LOL
..3

#111 Elcid

U R right.

Oooo, I loved Lurch's proposal to "send nuclear fuel to Iran, test their capabilities, impose sanctions"...obviously by mentioning sanctions he betrayed his own suspicions that they are up to no good - but if they don't check out, his only idea is to keep the "moolahs" from buying things. Jaysus, what an amadon.

Where was Zell, BTW? I didn't see him on Fox. Did I miss the dear man?

Dick Morris was on Fox; he's in London promoting Fahrenheit 4711 or whatever the anti-Moore movie is called. Good for him.

Good night. Wait for the overnights, then we'll see.

#113 Dar ul Harb
I just had a discussion with someone tonight about how easy it is to just walk into any school unchallenged. Why don't people think that a Beslan could happen here? It is just a matter of time. The person I was talking to thought I was crazy--I could see it in her eyes and I got apologetic about sounding paranoid. The malls are the same way. I wish I didn't feel this way but there are way too many evil people in the world to wish it away.

yeah...
cheney will be able to flame edwards in their debate...

also

a bin laden capture pre election wil drive the DUers nuts, but will basically invalidate 90% of what kerry was arguing tonight... also i find the kerry campaigns delight in US casualties a little off-putting...

#126 NewConToTheCore

Guess that is why I have always been a TOS fan over TNG any day.

Imagine the exchange Bush to Kerry: "John, you are flawed, you are imperfect EXERCIZE YOUR PRIME FUNCTION! Mr Cheney, energize!"

I think we're going to see a lot of what Kerry said dissected.

He made some monumental gaffs. That's what will be talked about and written about.

Is anyone checking on anything Bush said?

Treblinka Square anyone?
WMD into Iraq everyday?
Give nuclear fuel to Iran.
Immediately stop research on bunker buster bombs?
All nukes out of Russia in four years?

Per ABC
Dems said Kerry won by 81 to 6 w/ 11 a tie
GOPs said Bush won by 69 to 6 w/ 22 a tie
Inds said Kerry by 48 to 28 w/ 24 a tie
Both B&K gained a point in who is up w/Nader losing a tad.

IMO the import of Kerry on the NORKs and giving nuclear material to the moolahs will sink in over the next week and style will fade away.

I just did my blog entry about the debate on my site.

But here is what I wrote what Karl Rove should put on TV tomorrow:

?John Kerry thinks that French and German troops are needed to win this war.?
?Do you think that French and German forces can do better than American soldiers??
?John Kerry does. Let?s send him a message from our United States Armed Forces on election day.?

At least, that's what I'd probably put on TV tomorrow if I were him. :)

#36 SBrooks1

Thanks for transcropt. I wanted to make sure that Kerry did say that he was taken to "Treblinka":

along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them.

Treblinka was a Nazi extermination camp, and Lubianka is the KGB address in Moskow, but obviously Treblinka or Lubianka are the same for Senator Notbush. I can imagine what MSM would do were these Bush's words.

Cheney is going to smash Edwards. His pony hair isn't going to help him any.

Please bear in mind that Kerry desperately wanted this debate to degenerate into a name-calling rant, and the President never took the bait.

Kerry was looking for a knockdown, dragout verbal battle, where as a supreme debator he could scarcely lose. GWB wouldn't have any of it.

The big poll boost of Kerry has been lost, no matter what the spin might be, and rest assured the spin will be that Kerry massacred Bush. The American public is not so stupid. Kerry failed to bait the President into the street brawl that he needed to get even.

Historically, subsequent debates after the first have much smaller impact on the election, because the average Joe Blow is irritate about losing his favorite sitcom or crime drama to a jaw-jacking exhibition.

Kerry failed to do what he needed to do. Bush will emerge from the debate with roughly the same advantage as before, and Kerry has provided another few dozen points to ridicule.

Those who cannot see the writing on the wall are doomed to be graffiti artists...

Did anyone else notice that at one point Kerry said Russhar instead of Russia, and then a couple sentences later refered to Kennedy?

Oops. That should be:

"John Kerry thinks that French and German troops are needed to win this war."
"Do you think that French and German forces can do better than American soldiers?"
"John Kerry does. Let?s send him a message from our United States Armed Forces on election day."

#108 Doug Stewart

I am comforted to know that others yell at their TV.

Kerry = Nils Barris the commander of Spacestation K-7.
a diplomat to the core whose biggest threat is a board of inquiry but in reality is whiny, annoying, and ineffectual. When threatened with Klingon enemies he insists that everyone make nice to them and blames the good guys (Kirk and co) when the inevitable conflict breaks out.

Alright guys. I love GWB and literally hate Kerry. But, we have to look at the typical moron voter. Kerry kicked GWB's ass. It was actually painful. We know Bush isn't a great orator and Kerry is. I expected that from Kerry. A lot of gas and no substance, but Bush looked agitated and tired. God, I hate Kerry and McAuliffe...the spin has started.

I know Kerry for who he is...grew up with him as my Senator...an ass. But, I was very disappointed in Bush. He had a lot of opportunities to slam Kerry and passed. I think he ought to fire the staff that prepared him for this...

#16 Skippy

I agree. I was disappointed in the President for not being quick to rebut the continual spewing of lies of the left. He let Kerry get away with so much. He should have elaborated on the coalition - by starting to name countries, and not to forget South Korea this time. He should not have let the "tax cuts for the wealthy" slip by unanswered either. He also should have elaborated on the importance of the tactical nuke bunker buster that Kerry so blatantly said he would stop its program on day one. I also thought he should have responded better about the loss of life in iraq and whether or not it was worth it. He should have been strong and clear and I don't think he was. He was obviously frustrated by all the crap coming out of Kerry's mouth but I wish he was quicker at responding and portraying his leadership qualities. I am not an undecided voter, since I know his history as President and Kerry's as senator, but I don't think he gained any undecided voters tonight. I think, luckily, Kerry hung himself several times, with his UN this and diplomacy that, and, of course, the major part of the anti missile defense position he has. Let's hope a big majority of this country was not undecided until now. I don't think I will watch the next two debates. I think Cheney's debate may be a better success for the party.

CNN's poll on the winner is 87% Kerry, they have really swamped that one. That DNC mailer made its point, so unless you think online polls are worthless, get over there and vote!

Bush made one trivial but very obvious mistake to me (I debated from middle school through college). He needs to manage his facial expressions when Kerry is talking. If that means stoic, smiling, or taking notes, fine. The quizzical/angry look was not good.

But Kerry made some mistakes which will become Republican commercials.

1. "I have had one consistent position on Iraq" [dramatic music, fade, cut]

[Kerry speaking on Iraq giving about 10 different positions]

2. "GWB invading Iraq after Sept. 11 would have been like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor

[Long list of terror connections between Saddam, al Qaeda, and other terrorists]

3. "Global test"

Do you want a president who considers popularity in the world over the security of the United States?

There are more. But Bush lost the debate because he did not capitalize on Kerry's many gaffes. I really would love to know if the polls move much after this debate. I doubt it. But that's just a WAG.

People are already pointing to how John likes to talk out his ass:

Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)

The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1...

biggest impact on the campaign is that the kerry campaign has been so awful lately...

I agree with this, in that while I thought the debate didn't advance either side by what was said; however, Kerry did actually manage to string together coherent statements together and make some kind of sense. The real effect is that the democrats (who have been in a period of low morale due to the awful campaign that they've run) will likely get something of a second wind from this. The race will likely tighten slightly.

I also second that the president let several opportunities slip by without taking advantage of them.

Bush spent the day with his brother seeing storm damage in Florida (mostly in Stuart). Stuart was hit dead-center by both Francis and Jeanne. There's two bridges over the inter-coastal waterway connecting Stuart to a (formerly) heavily populated barrier island named Hutchison Island. Both bridges are out-of-service. I read after Jeanne, that the southern half of Hutchison Island was underwater. Stuart has (had?) many homes on the waterways, many "manufactured" homes, and many nearby trailer parks. It must have been devastated.

Knowing GWB, he probably spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people going through a very rough time. GWB is very empathic, and I imagine it was very draining. I suspect this is why he looked tired.

SBrooks1 (#36)

Thanks for the link. I'm going to read it tomorrow when I'm less tired. I want to see exactly what that dork Kerry said.

You know.. President Bush could have just said to me "we will kill them her , we will kill them there, we will kill them everywhere and we will WIN. He took the bait (Osama/Hussein) and Kerry set the hook.

My bet is dead even in the polls.

Okay, first of all and predictibly most of Leherer's questions went something like this "President Bush, can you explain why you screwed up so badly in Iraq?"

Also, nuance strikes again:

Kerry wants to stop nuclear proliferation by giving nuclear material to Iran - for nuclear energy when Iran has huge oil deposits? Is Kerry in favor of developing nuclear power plants here to reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

Kerry wants to solve all the problems in the world with summits (they always work) except for in the situation in North Korea where we should undermine the group of nations currently negotiating so we can negotiate bilaterally?

I agree that Kerry had more style but his positions are indefensible.

Hint.
Dear Kathryn, Tonight's debate was a decisive victory for John Kerry because America saw him as our next president. He showed strength, conviction, and a steady command of the facts. He offered clear plans for Iraq and fighting terrorism. George Bush has a record of failure to defend, and he failed to defend it. The president just gave us more of the same shallow promises. However, the Republican spin machine is already hard at work. We need your help to beat back their distortions. Right now we need you contact the media and speak your mind. Contact national media using the link below and remember to emphasize the points above. http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout/tv Thank you, Mary Beth Cahill

ajackson (#160)

Bush spent the day with his brother seeing storm damage in Florida

And Kerry got a manicure.

#151:
Sheepdogess - I also shout at NPR in the car on my way to work in the morning. Gets my blood going, plus they do the best job of covering traffic reports around here. *grin*

I'm available for birthday parties and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.

"Hurry up, Jimmy, or we're going to miss Righty the Right Wing Clown yelling at a rebroadcast of last Tuesday's Crossfire! "

141 Geepers
You got it!

Lets recap:

Kerry wants

1. ... to stop U.S. nuclear weapons development.
2. ...give Iran nuclear material
3. ... to use a "global test" on U.S. Policy
4. ...ask Americans to die for the Wrong War, Wrong Time
5. ...continue the Iraq "diversion" of resources away from finding Osama
6. ...to sign the Kyoto (third-worlders taxing Americans) treaty.

I put this on the earlier topic but I think pretty much everyone had already moved on:

To those who lament at GW's failure to rethorically beat Kerry about the head misses a big point. GW's folksey common man approach is what is an attraction to many, many voters. A huge chunk of the population is not nearly as educated about geopolitical issues as, say, your average LGF contributor, but they know GW is a great comforter who speaks in their language. Of course the pundits are going to give it to Kerry big time; they are mostly as eriudite, nuanced, and blury as JFnK. For a big chunk of Middle America the message boild down as this: USA Good, Arabs Bad. All this stuff about Iraq being the wrong war at the wrong time simply doesn't hold water who were PO'd that we didn't finish Saddam back in '91 and are glad we finally did. At this point Bush can erase a lot of doubts by moving in force into Fallujah, Najaf, Sadr City, etc and demonstrate that while Kerry talks about coolitions, the UN, France, Germany, etc. the President is taking action, not dithering about with words, platitudes, hand wringing and wishy-washy-ness.

This was a no decision, but damn if W couln't have taken this slick Johnny out. I believe W is at his best without the scripting. Please W, next time do it Texas style, one idea per answer but the right one.

Did anyone get that feeling in listening to Kerry that this is one slick SOB who will say anything to get elected? Jeez, where have we come across a guy like that before?

#153 cblesz

Would you feel better after taking a shower and having a nice nap?

Ad by the way, just who are you? I've never seen your nick before.

In sports terms:
W went in to prevent defence. (Football) Always sucks.
Tried to hit a sacrifice fly. Usually sucks. (Baseball)
Went into a "Hold the ball stall" Really sucks. (Basketball)

Next time;
Throw the ball downfield! (Farve)
Swing for the fences! (Ruth)
Shoot the shi*in ball! (Jordon)

W is a superstar, sure hope he can prove it next time.
Tonite kinda sucked

Reaganite: Lurch said nothing very well. W made great points poorly.

Dar Ul Harb: President Bush's style was angry, halting and conversational, Kerry's was Senatorial and polished and empty.

Europhobe: The race wil tighten because the MSM want it to tighten

How so?-- back to Dar Ul Harb, they'll spin it just like this: : I was suprised how Kerry deftly wove his Vietnam experiences into the modern war narrative. He articulated the fundemental issues of our current conflict and gave them context an meaning with the backdrop of his heroic fight in the Mekong delta. In addition he made a persuasive case for his vision of the future with focus sharpened by the bitter lens of a history personally witnessed. In all he made the grandeur and breadth of the struggle facing the Union accessable and personalized for an elecotorate often baffled by the whirlwind of events.
/just kidding

---
Me and My .02 cents

The most critical line of the debate:

Kerry: I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

If we expect him to go by what he learned in Vietnam, then we can expect him to do just what he did in Vietnam- call the war wrong, misguided, and a blunder and expect that he will do just what he did after Vietnam- proclaim that he is a war hero, that dissent is patriotic, and attack his own country, his own government, and his own military.

If elected we can expect him to remain true to form. He will confer with our enemies and lead his country into retreat and defeat.

---

PS- pictures available in a few minutes from the recent NYC Area LGF gathering with esteemed guest Reaganite.
if you want to know who you're looking at- Wait about 5-10 minutes. Pics are loaded but need to be labeled.

[Link: pg.photos.yahoo.com...]

Kerry lied. Bush died.

#148,

I thought I heard a Kennedy homage!

I thought it was "cube -er".

If anyone wants a perfect example of BDS, check out drezner's site and see moonbat Jor equate winning the debate with voting for Kerry.

[Link: www.danieldrezner.com...]

Rev C
Indiana Jones was there?

#164 J.D.

He offered clear plans for Iraq and fighting terrorism...

LOL! He did?!? That's enough spin to make anyone dizzy.

... I listen to "easy listening" radio, surf the internet for "associated link" websites and watched the first Presidential debate for 30 minutes.

I am ready to vote.

Damn...

#28 oceanfire, what the nuclear facilities remark calls to mind is that the Saddam's facilities guard themselves. So contaminated that no human can go inside without extremely good equipment.

#128 Atlas

Did anyone either change their vote based on tonight or move from undecided to one of the two camps?

Of course not, but like you, I wanted to see Bush deliver the coup de grâce tonight. In so much as he was unable to do so, I'm disappointed.

The latest poll data on the debate seems to indicate that Flipper was given an inch by Bush tonight, so I fully expect to see Flipper and his toadies in the MSM try to take a yard. I just wanted to see us rid of Flipper and his LLL cohorts once and for all. Now we'll have to wait, and hope.

Debate as boxing. Kerry on points. He had the footwork, threw more punches and didn't fall on his ass.

Bush did well enough. He kept throwing the same few power punches but none connected for the big blow. But Bush has stamina and discipline and now that exceptatiions are up for Kerry the next debate (a town hall forum that may play to W's strengths) should prove interesting.

If Bush can land one of his big hooks or straight rights, Kerry well be on the ropes.

Good news:

A Democrat told me he's not voting this year!

Another Dem told me Bush was going to win!

These guys are on the ropes and giving up.

We all have to make sure we get out there and vote.

Sorry, guys, you can spin all you want but Kerry was the clear winner. And, once the focus in later debates shifts to domestic issues, Kerry will gain even more ground against Bush. Tonight's topic--the war on terrorism and homeland security--was Bush's strongest suit; actually, the only strong cards he holds. But he appeared defensive, even petulant, at times. This does not bode well for Bush.

Once the Miss America Pageant-style analysis fades, there are a few things we need to talk about over the coming days.

- The utterly lunatic comment - and it is no hyperbole to say utterly lunatic - about giving nuclear fuel to Iran.

- Kerry's weird adumbrations about WMDs in Iraq. Evidence of them might have been found if a ministry had been searched quickly enough, sez he. They are moving across the border every single day, sez he.

- Kerry's bizarre insistence on abandoning multilateral pressure against N Korea in favor of bilateral talks in which NK would have no reason to seriously negotiate - the wrong flip-flop in the wrong place at the wrong time with too effing much at stake.

Grumpy

I've been in her numerous times. No, shower won't help and alcohol hasn't either. I am petrified of Kerry. I have a 14 month old daughter and am looking out for her. Also, I have worked hard to get wher I am and John Kerry will take that away from me..."for the good of all". I have followed him for many years...scary!

Neither guy is a captivating speaker.

Fact is that the debate will have changed few minds. bush reinforced positions that his supporters are with him on regardless of whatever he earns in style points.

Kerry has a mixed bag bas. He pleased the Bush haters. he pleased the fever swap intelligensia. His pragmatists will know it was a tie, but call it a victory.

The polls will be inconclusive.

Kerry drew no blood. No swing to him. Bush stayed on course and out of trouble, and now has some new sticks to hit Kerry with ("The Global Test"). This debate didn't change anything. Bush wins.

Cheney Edwards should be fun to watch.

Let's clear up some basic misconceptions.

(1) Ronald Reagan WON the 1st debate in 1984 on substance...where he LOST it was on style and his ending statement where he didn't finish. The media had built him up so much as a great debater that his handlers tried to have him absorb all the great talking points achieved in his first 4 years. He had too much info and ended up going away from "big picture themes" that marked his history in speeches and debates.

(2) Bush WON tonight based on substance. But because most of the MSM thought he would win it on "style" they are talking up Kerry's smooth talking style and "presence" rather than the substance of his ideas.

(3) That creates an opportunity: focus on the substance of tonight's gaffe's by Kerry. Remember, Team Gore thought they won the 1st debate in the first 2 days after it was finished until they style issue bit them in the ass. The Jimmy Carter Foreign Policy advocated by Mr. Kerry in North Korea and the Massachussets Liberal Anti-Nuclear Policy Kerry supported in the 1980's is a prescription for failure.

Kerry got nothing out of tonite for use in TV commercials. Bush's campaign did. I hope Karl Rove focuses less on spin in the MSM, print, talk radio, and Internet and gets some 30-second commercials out. Remember, nobody thought the $87 billion crack was a loser nor did anybody see the SBVT commercials as threatening...don't listen to the liberal elite in the MSM!!

I hate to say this to the group, but I thought Kerry spoke better than Bush on this debate. Both of them got their points across, but I didn’t gain anything from this debate. Nothing new was exposed. I did find Kerry’s hawkish portrayal of what he would do in Iraq unbelievable because of his liberal voting record in the senate. I sense that Kerry is saying what he thinks Americans are wanting to hear, and will revert back to his old ultra-liberal ways if he is elected.

The few people that I have talked to that do not follow the news closely saw Kerry tonight as "nervous and twitchy". He talked too much with his hands and every response seemed scripted. Each of them thought Kerry was lying. They kept commenting about how odd his head looked (which I thought was really funny).

Bush came across as unscripted and more sincere. For me, the Kerry comments about "global opinion" to send troops, slamming the coalition countries and Arawi AGAIN (by citing off the troop numbers), the "bilateral" talks about N. Korea, reducing our nuclear capabilities (yea that works great if terrorists sponsoring countries follow policies), mentioning nuclear reactors in Iraq (no WMD capability eh?), WMD being shipped in from other countries, etc all sent up flags with me.

I think the debate was slightly in Bush's favor but not by too much.

On NK and Iran:

Giving Iran the fuel to test their bona fides is exactly what Clinton tried to do with N. Korea!

Wrong answer!

Near the end of the debate they asked what Bush and Kerry considered the single greatest threat in the world. Kerry simply said nuclear proliferation. But Bush elaborated on it and said nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists ( although, I think he should have added to it with the nexus between WMD, terrorists and rogue regimes).

There is a fundamental difference here, and Kerry made it clearer when he criticized Bush of being hypocritical for conducting research into new nuclear weapons while at the same time demanding others end their nuclear programs. To Bush, it's not the weapons themselves that are the problem; it's the very nature of the people trying to possess them that is. That's why you don't see the U.S. demand Canada have it's nuclear facilities inspected.

But for Kerry, it's the nuclear weapons and he even draws moral equivalence between the US and other nuclear armed regimes. Hence, the idiotic nuclear freeze movement he was a part of in the middle of the Cold War.

Yeah..

Kerry got nothing out of tonite for use in TV commercials.

That was in the contract.

In this debate, anything that wasn't a Bush knockout punch has to be considered a Kerry victory. Kerry lives to campaign another day, so to speak.

Looking beyond the debate, Bush's handling of Iraq over the next month will move more voters than this debate. If there is the planned major terrorist attack before the election, who knows how that will move voters. Then you have Iran and North Korea simmering. Only GWB can actually do anything about any of those issues right now.

All of these critical issues are why I've been saying Bush on the stump is not near as good of a strategy as being the Commander in Chief. Oh yeah, and it's the right thing to do in very dangerous times. If Bush moves the news cycle through his actions, the debates are irrelevant.

All Kerry can do (in real terms) is start voting in the Senate. His constant attacking will seem very trivial if Bush does his job properly until the election.

Kerry's bizarre insistence on abandoning multilateral pressure against N Korea in favor of bilateral talks in which NK would have no reason to seriously negotiate - the wrong flip-flop in the wrong place at the wrong time with too effing much at stake.

It makes one wonder. So which is it, John, multilateral in Iraq and bilateral in North Korea? Or was that the other way around? I get so confused on this. If this guy was software, he'd need more updates than Windows!

Ugh.

#155 Mr. Neutron

I have much better things to do than invade a LLL circle jerk that is approaching group climax.

The media has no traction anymore, and nobody will pay any attention to their bullshit polls.

We aren't sheep, and we won't just bend over and take it.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up?

Like so many others tonight, Mr. Neutron - you don't pass the sniff test. Could it be that you are a Kerry troll?

Nah, Kos wouldn't do anything like that...

kerry did seem to make the point that the US nuclear arsenal is as much a threat to peace as a potential iranian one...

i still think the most horrifying thing kerry said is that he would give iran nuclear material to test them... you know, see if they really want to use it for peaceful purposes... cause midle eastern countries have no alternative to nukes to meet their energy demands...

the dude was well spoken, but the chewy nutty center showed up in a few places...

gumble (#191),

Kerry simply said nuclear proliferation. But Bush elaborated on it and said nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists

I also noticed that Kerry said he wanted Saddam "disarmed" not removed from power.

#52 reaganite

I counted 4 to 6 depending on your interpretation and the way he said a couple of these:

(From the transcript linked via InstaPundit)

#1
I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it
right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that
war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I
stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote.
And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

#2
I understand what the president is talking about, because I
know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it
worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from
fighting in that war.

#3
And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war,
ever, with the warriors. That happened before.
(my comment - and who helped with the confusion?)

#4
I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life.
And I've never wavered in my life.

#5
I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq,
you want to know who's the person who could be a commander in chief
who could get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace.

#6
And for all the rest of the parents in America who are
wondering about their kids going to the school or anywhere else in the
world, what kind of world they're going to grow up in, let me look you
in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at
war, and I will defend it as president of the United States.

when kerry said that 2/3 of iraq was a no fly zone i though bush missed the obvious riposte.. well, senator, 100% of iraq is a no fly zone now...

Kerry is a Hollow threat to our enemies. He is afraid of nukes and would NEVER use them. HE IS A PUSSY.

Tactical nuclear weapons should be, and are an option.

Um...

How can Sen. Kerry be for the Kyoto Treaty, when he voted against it in the Senate?

I don't know if he was the abstention, but the Kyoto Treaty was failed by the Senate (0-99).

Care to explain, Sen.?

We interrupt this thread for the following announcement:

Ron Reagan (Jr.) is an insufferable prick.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

techie thats easy...

he actually voted for it before he voted against it...

Unfortunately Kerry was better and more fluid and Bush seemed like he could not always summon the words he wanted to make his case.

Regardless, there was not too much news here. Kerry did finally seem to lay out an Iraq position that he can be held to but in the end I don't think either candidate changed anyone's mind.

Tomorrow's polls willl change little. Maybe the Veeps can swing some votes.

As my friend noted, I doubt the debate changed anyone's mind. Bush supporters remain so, same goes for Kerry supporters.

I like the way Hugh Hewitt has a chart of the debating points on his site and how he graded each answer.

#206

Ah, it's all so clear now!

I have not read through the posts because I have to go to bed. but the most telling thing to me is that Kerry said he would dismantel our bunkerbuster program at the same time selling nuclear fuel to Iran.

Weaken our military and embolden our enemy.

I don't see how anyone could agree with that policy. I hope I am right.

Did they have all the questons from Lehrer ahead of time?
The way lehrer moved JeffnK into the question on Nuclear proliferation, it looked like a set up.

I think it was easier for JeffK because he had a talking points survey to talk on, plus he didn't have to offer specifics on anything, and didn't really. Also he could throw a bomb before responding. For Example, he said
a number of times:"before I answer that, Id like to comment on ___." and Lehrer let him get away with it.
It is a debate trick. It allows him to meet the criteria set for him by his preparers, i. e. to mention tax-cuts in a foreign policy debate.
I thought it was amazing all the points he got thru, like a list of talking points from the left. It looked like W wasn't responding.
W was over prepared, like Reagan was in the first debate with Mondale

Since the Trek barrier has already been breached...

The Kerry/Picard comparison is accurate. A couple of nuanced Frenchman more likely to negotiate than say, "Fire phasers."

Bush is much more similar to Sisko. Sisko is spiritual, fatherly and an ass kicker when needed.

Clinton, if he weren't a "draft dodger" would be Kirk.

#208 zulubaby

Not the minds that need changing that count.. Its the ones with no minds

worst thing about the debate is it pumps some life into a flacid campaign...

and America can not afford the damage the dems will do if the election is close...

bush needs to win in the EC by a sufficient margin that kerry would need to mount legal challenges in like 5 states to change the outcome..

if its closer than that kerry will not concede on election night and we will be in for a nightmare... not the ridiculous paranoid DU fantasy of martial law.. but a repeat of 2000 on a larger scale...

We posted up a video of the "Global Test" exchange here:


VIDEO - PASSING THE GLOBAL TEST


recycler

I think the president needs to take time away from his other responsibilities and actually prepare for the debates. Tonight’s performance was embarrassing. There was John Kerry operating on autopilot and giving the Prez lots of opportunities to stomp his guts out. But GWB never took up these opportunities. Decisions on cleaning up the Sunni cities can wait. If John Kerry gets elected, we’ll have bigger problems than just Iraq. GWB needs to stop with the Iraq strategizing and start working on the debates.

One thing too that needs to be taken into consideration is that Bush had a long and busy day. He came from touring Florida, while Kerry was getting his french manicure.
One of the things I learned tonight at the PAC meeting I was at, many of the democrats are planning on voting for Bush. We're talking old lifetime democrats. So maybe Bush isn't so polarizing after all.

Oh.. I made a Kerry.. Sorry

Curse you, rw! Now I have the sound of Bill Clinton saying "Heh heh, so when do Ah get to have sex with some of them alien wimmen?"

172
My take exactly! Kerry's delivery was flawless, but the content of his remarks were empty or inaccurate or revealing a world view that is scary! But it is very hard to remember what he said...(ever been in an argument with some one and you forget what it was about, but you know you have lost?) Poor Teresa!
Bush seemed tired, and I swear the lighting on him was different (he looked washed out)...thought someone was trying to pull a Nixon on him...especially after Kerry spoke of 'Russhar' in that uncharacteristic Mass. accent...
Bush's delivery was weak, frustrated (he probably could not believe what he was hearing!) but it was clear and HONEST!

MSNBC group led by Ron Reagan Jr are sitting around complaining about Bush coming off as "stubborn."

This is exactly why Bush won this debate. When madmen are trying to kill you, you want a stubborn guyin charge concentrating all his effort on killing the bad guys first.

Not a debate champ telling you how he'll give nuclear material to Iran, then sanction them!

The American public is not stupid.

What the MSM thinks of as a style victory is actually a style loss. People don't plan on voting based on grammer and enunciation.

(continued from last post)... echoing around in my head.

Feh. I'm tired. Off to bed.

Bush looked tense. Kerry spouted nonsense. Bush nailed Kerry on the "global test", but missed a great opportunity to blast Kerry's idiotic proposal to send nuclear fuel to Iran. Overall, it was a draw.

Regarding Iraq, Kerry emphasized that he will bring the rest of the world into Iraq. He would have a summit, and he would be able to bring the rest of the world into Iraq, he claimed.

He didn't say how he was going to persuade other countries that have not sent troops to Iraq to do so.

"I know how to bring them back to the table" he said. He didn't say how he would get them to do more than come to the table.

France and Germany have already said that even if Kerry is elected president they would not send troops to Iraq.

Spain has been intimidated by a train bombing massacre and won't send troops.

The Phillipines has been intimidated by terrorism, and pulled out early, and won't send any more troops.

The countries not intimidated have already sent troops; how is Kerry going to persuade other countries to send troops, just by having a summit meeting?

As Bush pointed out many times, Kerry has said that this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is not going to get other countries to join in.

Also, Kerry has emphasized that he would seek to remove US troops as quickly as possible, and that is not going to persuade other countries to put their troops in.

And Kerry has said that he will say that the US has no long term desire to stay in Iraq, and that is not going to persuade other countries to put their troops in.

As for the countries that have already sent troops in, Kerry has insulted them by saying that they have been coerced and bribed. If Kerry is elected they may decide to pull out because of Kerry's insulting attitude toward them.

And how would Kerry be able to work better with the government of Iraq when Kerry called the prime minister of free Iraq, Mr. Allawi, a liar, and a Kerry campaign person (Joe Lockhart) called Iraq's prime minister a puppet of the US.? That cuts the ground from under Allawi, and makes it more difficult for Allawi to govern at home. That would not make it easier for the US to work with the government of free Iraq.

In other words, Kerry is making a phony promise. He can say that he will bring other countries in, but he would not be able to do it, especially with his defeatist attitude toward the whole Iraq enterprise.

Splatter (#203),

It's even worse than that.

Listen to what Kerry said:

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

What? We're developing a weapon we might even "contemplate" using.

I guess in Senator Kerry's "stronger" America we don't even "contemplate" using weapons to defend ourselves.

#195 beblebrox -

Which brings out another point - of course our approach to both Iraq and North Korea has been "multilateral". Only in DNC rhetoric did we "go it alone" in Iraq.

So why is Kerry insisting that we go it alone against North Korea? Especially when we can't realistically go it alone against North Korea, though we could have against Iraq if we'd wanted to (though again, we DID NOT GO IT ALONE).

Kerry seems intent on ensuring US failure. His idea of a true "alliance" in Iraq would have been a French affair that totally prevented us from taking any action.

Kerry was allowed to give Alawi and our coalition partners the contemptuous silent treatment. Bush pressed this point several times, and Kerry just ignored it.

ROn Reagan junior IS a prick and a little feminine...what an ass...his Dad is rolling over in his grave!

#196 zulubaby

Even if Kerry had suffered a stroke mid-way through the debate, democrats.org would still be spinning Flipper's performance like a Tilt-A-Whirl.

You should see the orgasmic lunacy that's going on over at the DU. They've already anointed Kerry as dictator for life over there.

#142 Levi from Queens

Thank you for the most significant piece of information. I listen to you poor souls try to reconcile the fact that your boy lost with "it's ok because nobody is changing their mind here anyway". I don't see a lot of conviction here as to W really making a show tonight.

I will admit that I am pretty biased but he really did look pretty pityful at times. Even I had to feel sorry for him being on camera like that.

Well you're right. Nobody here is changing their mind. The smart money always knew that.

The undecideds (the significant piece of info from Levi) are changing their minds, 2:1 in favor of Kerry. "It's the undecideds STUPID" you are already lost souls never to be recovered and really never really counted anyway.

I really like the ones that are now touting Cheney to be the big saviour. Just who is your man? Who ya gonna call when he goes down, RUMMY?

I found most amusing that JFK, ("who was in Vietnam"), and wishes to be Commander in Chief of the world's only Superpower - felt it fit to comment that due overcommitment in Iraq, the US would find it hard to field troops, if required, to police in the Horn, in Darfur.

Against the Janjaweed.

Who - butcher - on horseback.

With small arms and machetes.

Nice message, John. USA. Paper Tiger. Right.

I disagree that Kerry "won on points." The main one I saw from him was on the top of his head.

IOW, he spouted a lot of buzz words, but there was no there there, folks. The man sounded like an empty suit. He kept slamming Bush's performance and ending lamely with, "And I'LL do better."

"How, Senator? We need a How!"

Bush did get him on the alliance business, tho he should have slammed his tail in the door for letting his idiot sister go to Australia and piss on our Aussie allies. And should have pointed out, forcefully, that the people JK wants to brown-nose are NOT our friends. Missed opportunities, yeah.

But he did nail him on the "pass the global test"? remark, which was good. I thought Bush looked a lot more comfortable and in command of himself than Lurch did, esp. in the first 1/2 hour or so. And again at the end. He also seemed to actually think about what he was saying, whereas Kerry came across as overprepared and canned.

Hard to tell how the folks who're ignorant of the facts behind the issues will respond, though. On the whole, I was relieved. I also had the benny of seeing it at the Metropolitan Republican Club on East 83rd St., with a whole bunch of conservatives. :-)

SH***Y SH***Y Debate

Heavy wight match? More like a "Reality Tv" moment. I am a supporter of the President but I think this debate was won by the Chameleon.

220

Oh.. I made a Kerry.. Sorry

Dude, what are you talking about?

#43 Europhobe

Design an email that makes people want to forward it to their entire address book. There are email writers out there smarter than I who know what the keys to writing such things are. Can anyone here come up with some?

My only suggestions for now is to consider copying and pasting parts of this, this, this and this.

Don't forget, Bush is a poker player. The dems will be prancing around in arrogance and over confidence now, let's see how long it takes before they get the rug pulled out from underneath them...again. ;>)

#201

Spot on. Thank you. I will sleep tonight.

P.S. Don't watch the LLL MSNBC or CNN (Clinton News Network) watch Fox. Although they have Susan Estrich on...Dukasis' failure who sounds like she smokes 3 packs of Camels a day!

235 Troy Rochford

I misspoke.. Must be late in the evening. Sorry.

I agree with whoever it was - here or wherever - that said Kerry gave the Bush team PLENTY to work with but that Bush did not return the favor. And even more important - lest we forget - Bubba Don’t Windsurf.

I confess, I was a bad lizard tonight -- I only watched 10 minutes of the debate. During that time it seemed to me that Bush was doing an excellent job.

Mysteriously, came back later and found out from the pundits that Kerry "won" and that the DNC is elated.

Whatever. I'm in Salt Lake City for vacation (great town). Going canyoning tomorrow. Woohoo!

OT, but to a point.

If my take on sbrooks1 is correct (and I certainly could be completely wrong) she is dealing with a converted Muslim lunatic in her own personal circle. Please go easy on her.

It's not easy to watch young grandchildren being told that McDonalds murders babies because they are run by Zionist child killers.

People, we have a whole lot of hating Muslims living in our midst. It's only a matter of time until these persons are called upon to honor jihad.

It's time to ban the religion of death, and get these people out of our country. Like yesterday, already.

Per ABC
Dems said Kerry won by 81 to 6 w/ 11 a tie
GOPs said Bush won by 69 to 6 w/ 22 a tie
Inds said Kerry by 48 to 28 w/ 24 a tie
Both B&K gained a point in who is up w/Nader losing a tad.

IMO the import of Kerry on the NORKs and giving nuclear material to the moolahs will sink in over the next week and style will fade away.

Zhang Fei

If Bush does make major progress in Iraq in the near future, all of Kerry's talking points in this debate (he did somewhat clean up his many positons) become irrelevant. He boiled it all down to Bush's mishandling the post-war. If Bush turns the military loose, nails al Zarqawi, and gets more Iraqi police and security on the job, Kerry has nothing left.

My thoughts on the whole debate is that Kerry slightly edged out Bush not because of ideas but because of image. Bush is, as anyone can tell you, not the world's best speaker. I can sympathize with that, hell I'm twice as bad a lot of times but when compared to Kerry he comes off much worse. Kerry is much more fluid and spoke with more confidence and authority. Bush was stilted and ranged from unconfident to pissy. He did get in a few good jabs but became repetitive towards the end.

Idea-wise, Kerry was...bad. However, he at least did bring some ideas to the debate. Bush stressed teh fact that he's been consistent and has been a strong leader but didn't really get specific beyond that. When North Korea came up he looked much much better but in my opinion this debate is gonna give Kerry a serious boost.

Overall Bush coulda kicked some serious ass tonight but he stumbled. I think the campaign needs to take a moment and realize they need a slight change of direction because this one is apparently coming to an end. The next debate is the town hall style debate and hopefully Bush and his team will take into account tonight's mistakes and nail Kerry with everything they have. It should be the last debate where foreign policy comes up so on those parts Bush needs to get down and dirty with the details and bury Kerry.

My take is, Kerry clearly won, not because of debating skills, but on attitude. Bush seemed impatient, and distracted ("How come this girlie man even has a chance of winning?"), Kerry looked like "You did a good job while I was away, now let the blue-blooded lords take control now. The mess you did was inevitable, given that you're not me, but now me, and my party, must regain control and clean it all up."

Bush didn't challenge that enough. He's no Tony Blair, but worse, he seemed too desperate to show that it is not a matter of words, but of "difficult decisions", and standing with them. That's true, but it is only true. Kerry exploit the door opened, forgot about convicted democrats turned republicans, and focused on the undecided votes, hoping that they in the end won't care about his multiple inconsistent positions. There aren't many Bush haters available who aren't already on Kerry's side. Anyone's who cares for the war on terror, but are more concerned about suddenly voting for a republican despite their peers, would now vote for Kerry in a minute. But are these enough?

After the election is over, the problem that will be discussed will not really be how Kerry won, but on how Bush managed to be so hated, despised, humiliated, and (despite the effort on the immigration issue, the medicare issue), couldn't turn things his way? How could Bush loose (or be so close to loose) to Kerry, that is, how could be so despided?

Why is Bush so hated in America? I don't really know, but I have a theory that I think holds for the 3rd world.

Why is Bush hated? I get the impression sometimes that it is the democrats revenge from the republicans atack on Clinton. But here in Brazil, no one atacked Clinton, or his character. He was portraited as a regular "macho". Some good man sometimes do things like this. He wasn't elected for being a good husband or father, so deal with it. Of course, lying blatantly wasn't expected, but it was played down here (But imagine if he was the president of a Tobacco Company...).
I believe that Bush is hated here, and around the world, not because of american recent history (e.g. foreign policy, Clinton, et. al.), but becuse the world expected America to "swallow" quietly 9.11 (as I believe it would under Gore, I mean, just send some missiles to Afeghanistan, etc., case closed). To many outside the USA, 9.11 really is a tragedy, but only the grand USA could take it silently (as if a soldier wounded by a child with a gun). The third world are so used to suffer, that it seemed shockingly humane that even the might USA could be surprised and harmed by men (okay, crazily) determined to do so. Many hear expected something like a retreat, but none expected a call for help. And many I know would ask: "Help? The USA is calling for help? BS. They're probably trying to fool us, to use us, domestically. The mighty USA doesn't really need nobody..."

America's strong response ressonate here (I do NOT agree wtth this view! I'm kinda of reporting it to you), seemed disproportionate to the harm done. We compared America's power, military budget, etc., to Bin Laden's, Saddam's, Khomenei's, etc. It is easy to come to the conclusion that Bush could not only destroy and exterminate Afeghanistan, but also Iran, Korea, a couple a dozen by pressing a button – our government, if it could, would do it, and so many others in the 3rd world –. To some ears used to radical rethoric, Bush talked "macho" like Castro, Lula, Chavez, Putin, would, but without resorting to nukes (as the latter could). He put soldiers on the ground, when many here would simply push the button. So they hate america for bragging that they could smoke everyone, even though no one could think of no more of a reasonable response than Bush's and Blair's. Truman did nuke Japan. Why can't Bush? American's looks like the rich, spoiled kid, who has the toys, all the pretty flashy guns, but that at the same time is afraid, or doesn't know, or have the balls, to use it fully.

I think the replayed sound bite of this debate is going to be "Global Test." Everyone needs to hear this over and over and over again.

I'm seeing the sound bites even on the MSM outlets, and Bush is looking and sounding better and better. Anyone elese seeing this?

#242 globular cluster...I live in Salt Lake City. Yes, it is a great town. Enjoy the canyons tomorrow; the colors are gorgeous.

I'm watching a rerun of the debate now. The prez actually did great on substance. And Skerry's vision for America is truly frightening.

@237 billib

Well while you're over there smirking, you might remember this. If Kerry is CiC, and he stops us from developing efficient nuclear weapons, while GIVING nuclear fuel to Iran you won't be smiling for long.
Because the Iranians will not change their direction or their minds. When they've got control of the whole ME oil supplies, pricing oil at a thousand bucks a barrel you won't be driving anywhere not even to work. As a matter of fact you might even be wondering where your next meal comes from, since logistics will come to a screeching halt.
Of course Kerry won't be worried, Mr.Blueblood will be amply provisioned up in the WH.
Do you really think this flip flopping man gives a shit about you? If you believe his lies, then the whole of the US will pay for the decision the voters make if he gains the presidency.
You won't be smirking for long.

Just thought I would add some facts and context around Kerry's claim that GWB "misled" the nation and did not work with the "international community" to disarm Saddam's regime.

This is the timeline of events...

On February 17, 1998 President Clinton said:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

On February 18, 1998 Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State said:

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

[Link: www.fas.org...]

Also in 1998, President Clinton signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

September 11, 2001.

On February 24, 2002 Senator John Edwards said of "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

On June 12, 2002, a leader from the islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda" said:

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

[Link: www.memri.org...]

If Bush does make major progress in Iraq in the near future, all of Kerry's talking points in this debate (he did somewhat clean up his many positons) become irrelevant. He boiled it all down to Bush's mishandling the post-war. If Bush turns the military loose, nails al Zarqawi, and gets more Iraqi police and security on the job, Kerry has nothing left.

Considering we are currently in the process of crushing Samarra, and have been promised that this is the first of many, I think that is exactly what they have in mind. Actions speak louder than words.

President Bush addressed the UN on September 12, 2002:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

On September 12, 2002 John Edwards made the following statement on the floor of the US Senate to support his YES vote to Joint Resolution 114, "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

[Link: edwards.senate.gov...]

On September 23, 2002 former Vice-President Al Gore said:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

On October 9, 2002, John Kerry made the following statement on the floor of the US Senate to support his YES vote to Joint Resolution 114, "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

On Senator John D. Rockefeller, also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on the floor of the US Senate:

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury."

[Link: www.senate.gov...]

On October 10, 2002 the US Congress "voted 296-133 to give President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction."
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

The next day on October 11, 2002 the US Senate "voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."
[Link: www.cnn.com...]

On November 8, 2002 the UN Security council voted unanimously to adopt Security Council Resolution 1441, declaring Saddam in "material breach" of his disarmament obligations, and provided Saddam "a final opportunity to comply."

Shortly after, on January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said in an address to the UN Security Council"

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

[Link: www.un.org...]

In his address Blix also added:

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

And:

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

On September 27, 2003 Senator Edward Kennedy said:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

[Link: kennedy.senate.gov...]

On January 28, 2003 President Bush said in his State of the Union address:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

On November 2, 2003 Congressman Richard Gephardt said in an interview on CBS Face The Nation in support of his YES vote to Joint Resolution 114, "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq":

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST:
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:
I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Referring to the news archiving service, John Kerry recently said "I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis."

I'll bet he does.
 

Kerry won.
No contest.

Better just write off the notion that Kerry doesn't look "presidential"

Bush really needs to work on his speech game for next week.

sorry for doublepost--it just came up again--and I didnt kinow how to get rid of it w/o reposting

to billups -- have your glee for this evening. Kerry won on style but lost badly on substance. I think that giving nuclear material to the moolahs is not a winner over the long haul or even over the 5 weeks to election. I think tryin to pass the "global test" is a colossal loser. I think nobody pays attention to N Korea, but the sheer stupidity of sucking up to the NORKs is a loser strategically, tactically, and to the American people.

How difficult is it to enrich nuclear fuel into weapons grade material? If it is a relatively easy process then John Kerry, with his statement that he would give Iran nuclear fuel, has just lost his bid for the White House.

Will someone explain the following to John "Give em nukes" Kerry:

3% enriched uranium fuel can't be used for nukes. After it is delivered to Iran and cooked for a year in a reactor it then contains a signifcant amount of plutonium which can be extracted by chemical means (2 bombs worth for 50MW-year). After the rods are hot, Iran can tell us and the inspectors to piss up a rope. It will be extremely dangerous for us to try to retrieve the expended fuel rods by force.

The optimized process for safely extracting plutonium is technically complex, but many corners can be cut in efficiency and safety to do a quick lab batch. Once Iran has two bombs (one for a demo, one to keep), they can finish the job at leisure with the best French and Russian extraction tech money can buy.

I hate to say it ...but even though Bush might have won on substance...

he lost on style by a big margin...and lots of americans will be swayed. Look for the spin to propel this into a close race down the stretch...

Kerry is a great suit and debator...but is it enough??

Dances With Dhimmis (#230)

Even if Kerry had suffered a stroke mid-way through the debate, democrats.org would still be spinning Flipper's performance like a Tilt-A-Whirl.

LOL! I don't understand what all the kvelling is about. So he won a debate. Wonderful. That's what I want in a president, someone who can debate. Very important. It may actually work as a lethal weapon against terrorism -- he'll talk them to death. I can't follow what Kerry is saying because he strings sentences together but manages to make no sense while doing so.

You should see the orgasmic lunacy that's going on over at the DU. They've already anointed Kerry as dictator for life over there.

I'd rather not ;-) I woke up nauseous, I don't need anything to make it worse.

#237 quark2

my read, too. He's PRESIDENT for heaven's sake. He stayed very real and connected, human and sincere, and managed not to cause international furor by misplaced responses. He's not Zell - nor should he ever be. His job is to instill steady confidence, he said as much, and did so. I agree also with those who've said he looked irritated to have to even talk to Lurch the Clown, at all.

Cows and grass, and I believe most of America will agree and he'll gain in the polls by Monday.

I also believe he's lying doggo, and is going to deliver Kerry his head on the domestic and health issues (if the economy/market doesn't tank before 11/2...or oil hit $60...expect that, not, before)(but soon enough after, buy gold lizards - dollar went off the cliff today)
[I may not think much of US economic policy as through the Fed - but I don't see much choice here. The money HAS to be spent on the WOT and Homeland, and that means propping the buck and the mortgage bubble. There will be a cost, later, very big. Dubya's small biz thing, and the tax breaks, are sensible - as it'll only be hard work and American's initiative, not Big Gov, that can pay the astronomical Debt and truly rebuild. We're all 'on our own' here, really, 'cept for American Force which we simply MUST pay for (Canada's economy, too, of course - which will follow the dollar down) - as the alternative is simply unthinkable = Dar el Islam.]

I'm sorry Balisong,

To me Kerry looked like a puppet or a parrot. I still haven't decided exactly which one he looked MORE like.

But he definitely looked scripted and dishonest. Apparently in your neck of the woods that spells election success.

In my neck of the woods it spells R-O-P-E.

Can I make it any clearer to you?

Thomassowellfan (#260),

How difficult is it to enrich nuclear fuel into weapons grade material?

It doesn't matter.

There's only one reason a country awash in oil and natural gas wants nuclear technology, and it ain't to to generate electricity.

For Senator Kerry to even "contemplate" giving them enriched uranium is lunacy.

Another Kerry gaffe in the debate:
In answer to a question from Lehrer (in tonight's debate) Kerry - as if to PROVE his LONGTIME foreign policy experience, and his superior foreign policy knowledge - recounted how he had (with former Senator Smith (R-NH)) gone down into the bowels of the former KGB under TREBLINKA SQUARE.

ONE PROBLEM: Treblinka was the name of a NAZI EXTERMINATION CAMP.

The KGB was on Lubyankaya Square.

How could a presidential candidate - with Jewish heritage - confuse the name of a DEATH CAMP WITH ANYTHING ELSE!?!?!?!?!?

Instead of showing off his experience and knowledge, this exposes Kerry as a shameless ignorant fraud.

#248 Sandro Reis 9/30/2004 10:18PM PST

But regarding the hatred issue: the reason the rest of the world hates America is simple. "Sour grapes." That is all. And frankly, most people here couldn't care less what foreigners think. Our lives do not revolve around "global opinion." The foreigners we like the best are the ones who come here and become Americans. The rest we want out of sight, out of mind, for the most part.

It is pathetic that "radicals" would disdain America for not using nukes. Insanity. I doubt you would hear such a foolhardy attitude in the Middle East right now.

#153

Give your average moron voter more credit. Often times, less brain activity produces "clearer thinking". . .

The takeaways from the debate will all be negative to Kerry:

The "global test" remark

Kerry's abandonment of nuke bunker buster bombs

His giving nuke fuel to Iran

Kerry has some real problems awaiting him...

The GOP will get at least 4 or 5 great ads out of this debate...

Have I said that Ron Reagan (Jr.) is a colossal dickhead?

Just wanted to make that clear.

Scarborough is such a class act compared to that asshole.

#263

I disagree. I don't think Kerry's performance will sway a lot of voters.

Bush will be the one who can take what was said in this debate and milk it for all it is worth.

I think the "global test" remark will come back to haunt Kerry.

Remember, when Ford made his gaffe about Eastern Europe, it didn't register until a few days after the debate.