I am voting for George W. Bush (please people, do not turn this into an argument because of that) and even though I am voting for him, I have to admit...he got crushed!

GokuDBZ3128 wrote:

I am voting for George W. Bush (please people, do not turn this into an argument because of that) and even though I am voting for him, I have to admit...he got crushed!

I’m not going to get to far into my reasoning, because of flaming reasons. But here is a quick answer.

I'm voting for George W. Bush as well. Because "I think he is doing a good job compared to what Kerry would like to do from his actions". However I do disagree that bush did a bad job in the debate, Bush talked like a normal guy would & he also had to be careful of what he said because of the raid on Fallujah early this morning.

Kerry was like any other politician. Ms-leading everyone when he changes his statements over & over again.

That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.

I agree with you on that. And actually, I would like to hear some debating about this. I am very interested on what you all think.

To be honest, in my eyes, Kerry is a big joke. He was awarded three purple hearts for injuring himself. I forget what they were but I do slightly remember one of them. He shot a bullet and it rickashaded off some motor and bounced back, hitting him. He is a complete retard and should not win (which he will not). He was in the war, now he is against it. If Kerry became President of the United States of America he might not ever goto war and that scares me. I know for a fact George W. Bush will, I mean look at him. Osama Bin Laden and those other people are scared to death of George W. Bush. They think he is a God damned insane maniac. That is a good thing!

All I am saying is, we are doing a good job with George W. Bush and the terrorists are scared to death of him. I feel safe with him. Now, Kerry, he is against war (even though he was in it) and he might not goto war. He might try to solve this peacefully and get us all killed. I would wrather stick with someone who already is doing a good job then taking a chance with someone else.

Let's go George W. Bush!

It is nice to see that most of the people replying here have some common sense, and I agree with much of it. However, there is one point I would like to add.

I watched it for the first ten to fifteen minutes and got tired of it. The reason I got tired of it was that it did not seem like a debate, rather it was a bash Bush fest in the beginning. Stupid questions were asked, and at one point they asked a question that basically said "Kerry, point out Bush's incompetance to us." though with more polite wording. Hopefully it changed later on, but what I saw looked like BS rigged in Kerry's favor. I would not have known it was a debate if I were unaware of it and tuned in randomly.

Neither of them are right as leaders, but Bush is at least better than Kerry will most likely be. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure since Kerry will not stand firm on anything (which is another bad point in itself). Kerry says whatever sounds best at the time, as is evident in many of the things he says - such as saying that Bush failed because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction then turning around 5 minutes later and saying himself that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that are now being shipped out into even worse hands. He just can't put his foot down on anything and has to lie and tell half-truths that make any distorted facts that he claims Bush made look like nothing in comparison.

Well, I will not comment on preferences for president, but I love candidate debates, no matter how formulaic they have become. They are the last remnant of the days when candidates did more then shoot for 3 second sound bites.

Anyhow, as to the debate, I think "winning" and "losing" are the wrong terms. After all, the debates are just part of a bigger process. Al Gore, for example, is often viewed as having "won" the debates in that election, but still is not president. The question, then is who performed better. I think this can be judged on 2 criteria: 1) Who delivered better? 2) Which candidate accomplished more tasks that will aid them in the campaign.

As to 1, clearly Kerry performed better. From the beginning, Kerry appeared calm, collected and authoritative, while avoiding the condescending attitude that some expected. Bush, on the other hand, seemed to be a bit unprepared. His mannerisms were defensive and uneven. Kerry's arguments were fluid and topical, while Bush tended to be rather dodgy and rely a little heavilly on ad hominem attacks. Bush did manage to avoid any major gaffes, however, and improved towards the end, giving a solid closing. I would probably rate Kerry's performance as a "B" and Bush as a "C". I would anticipate Bush will improve in future debates, however.

On helping their campaign, however, I think it is a much closer call. Kerry did a good job refuting alot of the "flip-flop" attacks, but still failed to lay out a clear vision. Giving some more specifics was excellent strategy. However, he tended to get a little bogged down by transactional matters, and seemed to be heavilly process orientated emphasizing coallitions, summits, and the like. I don't know that this will inspire voters.
Bush did a solid job of trying to keep the focus on why Kerry is wrong. He pounded away at Kerry's record and questioned Kerry's resolve. Bush also did well in emphasizing his experience as president. Bush also failed, however, to give any sort of broader vision. Relying instead on a piecemeal platform of attacks on Kerry and defense of Iraq, Bush would have been better served to artiulate a strategic global plan to help account for Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the like.
Since Kerry fared a little better in getting his message out (and needed to slightly more) I give a slight edge to him. However, only time will tell if his campaign will benefit.

Another factor to consider is that 2 debates remain. The "winner" will be the candidate who continues to improve and address issues that strengthen his election bid. The hitch here is that no only will the candidates need to effectively convey their views, the voters will have to agree with them! For example, even is Kerry proceeds to trounce Bush in the next two debates, if most voters disagree, it will benefit him little. It is the difference between winning a battle and winning a war.

Kerry acted very appropriatly throught it and was very offensive of Bush. He wrote down things often so he could keep one step ahead he did a very nice job. On the other hand Bush was very defensive and did a good job holding his position. Overall i believe Kerry won but that is just my oppinion.

<SARCASM>Really, the government? Making a mockery of an old practice? Taking too much control over something they shouldn't be changing? Masking the issues and hiding the facts? No, it just can't be!</SARCASM>

I don't like our government, but it is a neccesary evil. America would suck as a socialism (Hell, how'd you like a 70% income tax), and it wouldn't be the same as a communism. A direct democracy wouldn't work, as the masses tend to be so uneducated they can't even dissect many of the issues proposed by our leadership. I don't really know where I'm going with this, other than to saythat it doesn't surprise me that it was scripted... has been for years.