Debate #3 results

Bush did a lot better in this debate, Kerry did win several points, but Stem Cell research, abortion, fiscal policy, and the War in Iraq, Bush was able to be strong and agressive. He was a totally different Bush, the Bush I wanted to see in the first debate finally took place here. He truly looked like the Commander in Chief!

Definitely Bush, I can't believe the nerve of Kerry, calling us soldier's "kids." Again I say, boo on Kerry. Plus I thought it was funny that he accused Bush of waffling on Candian drug imports. He's one to talk.

Kerry befuddling his answers aside, Bush was extremely energtic and awake, with clear, concise answers that people could understand. Both were on the attack, but I have to think Kerry just repeated himself in a very negative fashion while Bush actually connected in a way his supporters were hoping for.

Definately~I have full faith that 4 more years will be happening in this election. I am far from being blindly lead here there is absolutely no way as I stated in my other replies Sen. Kerry will be able to enact all of these "plans" without us all of us footing the bill. I don't care how many times he looks into the camera and says he will not do it~!~

Maybe Bush should give him some wood hehee I(I just loVed that ~!~)to build a plank for him to walk off of all the bull crappie he is spewing towards us.

Have a good evening~!~

~Peace,LoVe,Health & Happiness~ Extended to all

McAwful is just furiously backfilling on Fox just now, actually trying to convince us this was a Home Run for Kerry. Making petty little critiques, like "he said internets when it's internet" - Oh, pulleez. Also went ballistic over Bush interrupting Gibson once to respond to a really cheap shot by Kerry (interestingly, can't remember what it was about!) - "Bush lost it, he was out of control! Not very Presidential." What a crock.

At worst, Bush demonstrated his ability to debate Kerry to a draw. In most respects, the issues fall to Bush's favor. At best. a strong argument can be made he won.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I think the biased will lean the way they are already were leaning. I don't think any set minds were changed. To anyone else, I think it was a tie. My determination was "tie", with the addendum that my (biased) opinion is that Bush had more tangible content, whereas Kerry continually told us what he was going to do and didn't bother to say how he was going to do it.

Draginol... It was the 2nd debate.

Sandy, This was the third debate...

The most striking thing for me was whenever Kerry was asked what would he do about a particular situation or about his particular plans, he spent most of his time telling what he thought the president did wrong, with very little, if any, actual answer about what he would do.

And I would have thought he would stop claiming to be able to bring his coalition of 3 in to help in Iraq, since now most of them are saying they would not send troops no matter who was elected. By now, he has to know how hollow those statements sound.

He also again did the 90% thing they did in previous debates, ignoring the Iraqi forces casualties. I found it odd that Bush didn't call him on that.

Well at least bush showed up this time.....

Draginol:

The debate was much more about the personalities of the men this time. Bush made a very bad error in not saying that he felt he had made any mistakes. That is what I think many will take with them. His sense that "history will judge" is sort of like Jesse James saying that he had to do what he had to do. It shows a sense of arrogance that many will find very unappealing.

Both men seemed ill at ease with Gibson and it seemed Gibson felt ill at ease with his role. That led to some sense that the candidates started to look more for sound bytes and photo ops (don't I look more at ease than my opponent) than they should. Overall this debate more than the first showed both men's strengths and weaknesses. However Bush needed a victory by a substantial margin in this and it looks like it was graded more like 5-4 Kerry by most of the media and the undecideds.

I was totally impressd with Bush. He will be our next president. I have no doubt.

As rare as it is, I have to agree with CrispE on the mistakes question. That was a golden opportunity for Bush to show some humanity, and instead he opted not to give Kerry any ammunition. I think the points he would have scored with viewers would have outweighed how the answer would have been used against him.

As rare as it is, I have to agree with CrispE on the mistakes question. That was a golden opportunity for Bush to show some humanity, and instead he opted not to give Kerry any ammunition. I think the points he would have scored with viewers would have outweighed how the answer would have been used against him.

I dunno, Baker -

Answering that kind of loaded rhetorical question is a lose-lose proposition for Bush and I'm a little surprised Gibson chose it, prejudicial as it is. After watching McAwful go nuclear over "internets" I have no doubt the Kerryites would have been all over any admission of error like flies on s**t. I thought he finessed it much better this time than he did at that news conference. As it is, they'll still trash him for not admitting to making big mistakes. And no similar gotcha question was tossed at Kerry.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa:

Bush could have made a very compassionate statement, such as "I believe we made a mistake when we _____________, but we have done everything we could to overcome and correct that and will work hard in the future if the situation happens again." This is how voters on both sides of the political spectrum know growth is accomplished. Doing what Bush did says "everything is a trap. Everyone really hates me and wants me to fail."

Don't you find those feelings scarier?

I've seen polls that show Kerry as a winner and polls that show a tie. None that show Bush won. The only thing Bush had going for him was that he was actually able to speak this time. Kerry made some great points. I think it will end up being a tie, but I thought Kerry got the best of Bush again.

"everything is a trap. Everyone really hates me and wants me to fail."

CrispE -

You can characterize it this way if you wish, but the track record supports my view. Loaded questions get tossed much more frequently to the incumbent. I don't have a problem having a President who genuinely believes that the major decisions he's made were correct - I want him to have conviction and determination. That kind of question is just bait, pure & simple. Look at what's happened to Kerry every time he's tried to admit a mistake and explain himself - he's gotten trashed (including by me!). That's why those kinds of questions have no real place in debates and Gibson should not have used it. Although a news conference is admittedly the equivalent of a grouper inviting the neighborhood sharks over for dinner & setting out empty plates, the reporter who asked that question of Bush in the news conference earlier this year really pissed me off at the time - it was just a shameful grandstanding playground move, the reporter trying to add a notch to his gun & jockey for position in his peer group.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Sorry, WiseFawn -

The steam has been let out of the media steamroller. You could just feel the mainstream leftist press coming out of their depression after the first debate and they've been furiously trying to make that 90 minutes mean more than Kerry's 20 year record, not to mention his current campaign, ever since. They still believe perception is everything, so last night's debate was not good for them. I think they will ultimately be disappointed.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Draginol.

It all depends on debating points, or CW. The prevailing wisdom is that it was a tie. Why? Bush held his own. However that is just from the standpoint of who uttered the most errrs and ums. Debating points? Bush won. We all know he is not as eloquent a speaker as Kerry, and that endears him to some of us (after all, who was the Grima Wormtongue of all time? William Jefferson of course!).

In the end, ti draws the race tighter, but I still see A bush win. Kerry still has too much baggage that, if it does not turn his supporters off, does not make them enthusiastic about him either.

Daiwa:

I think the point of the person who asked the question was to see if the President felt he could grow or was really stagnant at Kerry contends ("more of the same"). It is not a weakness with me or many others that a person admits they could have done things differently. W seems to think that if you or me were given the same information he was given that we would have made the same decisions he did. This might be true, right? The thing is, we weren't. So the appearance of arrogance is worse (politically) than weakness.

Where I think it will make a difference is with those undecided who have a Christian background and see the first step to redemption as repentance and acceptance of a person't sin. Please understand, I am not saying this as right or wrong, simply that such a perception is common among some in the church. This was actually mentioned in a Bible study this morning and Mr. Bush was criticized for his statement.

I think the point of the person who asked the question was to see if the President felt he could grow or was really stagnant at Kerry contends ("more of the same"). It is not a weakness with me or many others that a person admits they could have done things differently. W seems to think that if you or me were given the same information he was given that we would have made the same decisions he did. This might be true, right? The thing is, we weren't. So the appearance of arrogance is worse (politically) than weakness. Where I think it will make a difference is with those undecided who have a Christian background and see the first step to redemption as repentance and acceptance of a person't sin. Please understand, I am not saying this as right or wrong, simply that such a perception is common among some in the church. This was actually mentioned in a Bible study this morning and Mr. Bush was criticized for his statement.

The thing is, CrispE, I am absolutely convinced that if Bush were having an off-the-record heart-to-heart with you, he would be more open & forthcoming. The venue in which the question is asked matters and you could almost hear the Kerryites sit up a little straighter & reach for their pens with that question. You personally might take an admission of some errors as a sign of self-awareness and come away with greater respect for the man as a human being, but the Kerry hate machine would have none of it. It's the sad reality of hate-based politics. Do you really believe Terry McAuliff(sp) gives a rip whether George Bush has "grown"? A debate is not a psychotherapy session and the question was just completely out of bounds. Gibson should never have used it.

Long as we're on the subject, though, would such an admission win you over & get your vote? I doubt it, but even if we stretch our minds a bit and suppose it would, McAwful, et al, could mine 2 or 3 Democrat Bush-leaners for every reasonable person like you. Understand that Kerry's own party is not completely comfortable with him - with an 8% registration advantage nationwide and a tie in the polls, he's clearly got a problem, so everything McAwful's bunch can do to demonize Bush works to his advantage.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Cheers,
Daiwa

Nice Comments Draginol.. If anything it was a tie because both made some dumb ass mistakes. I do not think it won Bush any points nor do I think it won or took away anything for Kerry. It most certainly did not seal the election for Bush. My main issue with Mr Bush is he has not said, look we made some mistakes, I am sorry, or we are sorry anything like that and I would support him in a heart beat. It would show real compassion and I am always touched by REAL compassion.

I am not in agreement with you there Daiwa.. Kerry is not a hateful person and he did not make anyone hate Bush. His policies and the direction of this country is the problem. First, he thinks he was appointed by God to be where he is now. Wrong, if he was he would not know this is clearly a shot to the Christian voters. He has turned the entire world against us and this is my other problem with the guy. His free market no matter what attitude. While all of our patents are being stolen by China, jobs being outsourced by paid incentives out of our pockets, tax cuts to the rich mainly and above all else he is shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and lower class folks. If any of these things would change I would support the guy. I see 4 more years of the same old thing. More massive record vacations, more tax cuts, higher debts and a horrible unsafe homeland. How can anyone support this man it just gives me the shivers.

While all of our patents are being stolen by China,

Most of those patents you speak of were "given" to them by OUR OWN government!

tax cuts to the rich mainly and above all else he is shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and lower class folks

Again misinformation. Just how is he shifting this to middle and lower classes. I don't know about you, but I'm inbetween the middle and lower class and I recieved an extra check from Uncle Sam when his tax breaks went into effect. And can you please explain how our homeland is so horribly unsafe? Have we had ANY attacks on American soil since 9/11???

Desert Fox -

I can't say whether Kerry himself is a hateful person or not, but I can see that he is a political opportunist more than willing to surf the wave of hate created and perpetuated by others. Doesn't seem to bother him at all. And the Bush hating started before Bush even took the oath, so don't try to tell me it's his fault.

Your opinion about what President Bush thinks is also a tad off. He's said what many people of faith have believed and professed for millenia - that (insert deity here) has some sort of unknowable plan, works in ways we cannot understand and leaves it to us to have faith and make decisions and choices as best we can. He's never said (and doesn't believe) he was "appointed by God" - that's just you twisting his words and demostrating the shallowness of your thinking. For what it's worth, I'm pretty much an agnostic - just so you don't dismiss my comment as lockstep dogma. It ain't.

Have you considered the possibility that the "rest of the world" as you call it is wrong? That they don't get it? Personally, I could care less what those ingrates who have been the beneficiaries of the most generous nation in the history of the world might thinks of us. We helped rebuild Europe & Japan, made sure the oppression of the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and have come to the aid of countless nations in distress, both economically and militarily. Let 'em start sending the checks back if we're so hated.

And it appears you've not done your homework, content to simply parrot the Democrat party line on all the economic & tax issues that have been raised to demonic status despite objective evidence to the contrary.

Cheers,
Daiwa