Who won?
There was a lot in the news earlier about who won the Presidential debate last week. The liberal media is trying to convince us that Kerry won while the conservatives proclaim victory as well.
I saw a piece yesterday off Google News that stipulated that no one can really win a debate. Bad news for countless High School debate teams I'm sure.
He said that he thought (and this was quite plainly an opinion site rather than a "news" source - at least they're honest about their biases) that Bush had quite successfully sandbagged Kerry. He used a racing analogy about driving your car at less than it's capable of so that the other drivers think that your cars performance is less. I'm relatively certain that Bush himself is not that saavy but he has some slick handlers so this seemed feasible.
The media proclaimed that Bush repeated himself time and again. This writer said this reinforced Bush's points and afterwards people will remember that Bush had X to say while they won't remember what Kerry had to say. True for my part, I don't remember much of what Kerry said (I only watched about half an hour of it before I had to turn it off, I got too mad), but Bush pissed me off mouthing pointless platitudes and rhetoric so much that I couldn't watch more of it.
Kerry wasn't telling us what his plans were, only that he had them, and Bush was repeating the same old lame crap that we all know isn't true now. I did notice that Kerry proclaimed that funds were being redirected toward training the Iraqis to take care of things themselves (police & military training) while Bush rattled off numbers of police (etc) trained. My question is if there have been 126,000 Iraqi police trained, why is the violence still escalating?
Whereas Kerry said a lot of things and the writer maintained that this gave Bush a lot of ammunition. And that it put Kerry on the defensive when Bush found a point to call him on. The writer maintained this made it appear that Kerry had changed his position, even during the debate. I haven't seen a lot of mud slinging on Google news which appears to be a result of the debate so I don't agree with this either.
Overall, I don't agree with the writer's conclusion but he did have some interesting points.
For me the debate didn't show me anything I didn't already know or presume, and it leaves me where I was before. Kerry might not do too well as President but I know I don't want Bush to have the job. He's just too fiscally irresponsible setting aside his international (insert assorted name calling here) policies. We'll see how the VP guys do tonight.
I saw a piece yesterday off Google News that stipulated that no one can really win a debate. Bad news for countless High School debate teams I'm sure.
He said that he thought (and this was quite plainly an opinion site rather than a "news" source - at least they're honest about their biases) that Bush had quite successfully sandbagged Kerry. He used a racing analogy about driving your car at less than it's capable of so that the other drivers think that your cars performance is less. I'm relatively certain that Bush himself is not that saavy but he has some slick handlers so this seemed feasible.
The media proclaimed that Bush repeated himself time and again. This writer said this reinforced Bush's points and afterwards people will remember that Bush had X to say while they won't remember what Kerry had to say. True for my part, I don't remember much of what Kerry said (I only watched about half an hour of it before I had to turn it off, I got too mad), but Bush pissed me off mouthing pointless platitudes and rhetoric so much that I couldn't watch more of it.
Kerry wasn't telling us what his plans were, only that he had them, and Bush was repeating the same old lame crap that we all know isn't true now. I did notice that Kerry proclaimed that funds were being redirected toward training the Iraqis to take care of things themselves (police & military training) while Bush rattled off numbers of police (etc) trained. My question is if there have been 126,000 Iraqi police trained, why is the violence still escalating?
Whereas Kerry said a lot of things and the writer maintained that this gave Bush a lot of ammunition. And that it put Kerry on the defensive when Bush found a point to call him on. The writer maintained this made it appear that Kerry had changed his position, even during the debate. I haven't seen a lot of mud slinging on Google news which appears to be a result of the debate so I don't agree with this either.
Overall, I don't agree with the writer's conclusion but he did have some interesting points.
For me the debate didn't show me anything I didn't already know or presume, and it leaves me where I was before. Kerry might not do too well as President but I know I don't want Bush to have the job. He's just too fiscally irresponsible setting aside his international (insert assorted name calling here) policies. We'll see how the VP guys do tonight.
posted by banzai at 11:24
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home