October 08, 2004

My take.

Well, Daily Kos is saying 'Shit, this isn't even close. This is worse than last Tuesday's debate for Bush. He's rude, loud, arrogant, angry, and has been outmaneouvered by Kerry on question after question. This one isn't even close. Not even close.'

Yeah, keep saying that and maybe it'll be true. Oh, and someone tell Kos it's spelled 'whoa', not 'woah'.

I say, slight edge to Bush, would be a Bush blowout if it wasn't for his mediocre performance in the first half. I think he took Kerry to town in the second half. Dawn Summers thinks is a draw with a slight edge to Kerry but that 'finally both candidates were present'.

Here's a funny opinion for y'all. We had two French reporters covering our party from Radio France, for a show called Interception. I talked to them for a little while, they're against the war in Iraq, pro-Kerry and they thought that Bush obviously won.

Posted by Karol at October 8, 2004 11:07 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:

Very nice job, Karol.

I know you love NY but you belong in the West. Stay out here for a few years.

Looking at the debate in an overall impression on how it will play in the hinterlands, I believe it was a blowout for Bush.

I think Kerry lost his only hope of becoming President tonight.

Posted by: Jake at October 8, 2004 11:18 PM

I feel somewhat bad for Bush seeing how expectations were lowered for Bush after the first debate and he still got trampled by a Kerry who wasn't even in top form.

Posted by: Ian at October 8, 2004 11:23 PM

As always, I thought Bush missed out on a lot of opportunities to explain himself and slam Kerry into the ground, But I think a sane person could watch it and call it a draw. Kerry was so wobbly in the foreign policy part, a piece of gum could have out-foxed him.

Posted by: Dorian at October 8, 2004 11:38 PM

Clear Bush win. Not a blowout but a definite win. Expectations were so low after the first debate that a draw would have been a win. But it was better than a draw. Bush was relaxed, confident, likable, energized, and he connected with the audience. Kerry was on the defensive all night. I think this may have been the best extemporaneous speaking I've ever seen Bush do (not that that's saying a whole lot I realize.)

The answer about doing the right thing making you unpopular sometimes and invoking Ronald Reagan was great.

Kerry really messed himself up with Catholic voters. He mentioned being a Catholic, but then waffled on abortion. So he annoys serious Catholics and people who aren't Catholic wonder why he keeps harping on it.

The closing statement by Bush was much better. Kerry kept on repeating stock attack phrases and crap about Halliburton, a sure sign of being on the defensive (or at least tired).

Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 8, 2004 11:44 PM

where's the kos link?

Posted by: Dawn Summers at October 8, 2004 11:54 PM

Bush won, hands down. Kerry flopped. Only biased observers see it the other way

Posted by: Olaf at October 8, 2004 11:56 PM

Very biased last question. Out of the thousands of decision that you have made Mr. President, do you feel any of them were wrong? How about you Mr. Kerry out of the thousand decision the president made did you see any wrong ones? Give me a break. Not a very fair or balanced question, especially to end the debate with. Lets end the debate with both candidates talking about what one of them did wrong. Its a shame to see two people running a race on such an uneven media playing field.

Posted by: charles at October 9, 2004 12:02 AM

One more thought. Kerry seems to think that foreign policy is like a popularity contest. All he seems to say is "getting our allies involved." But I did like President Bush's remark about the right thing not always being "popular."

Posted by: Zelda at October 9, 2004 12:04 AM

You guys are way off to see this as a clear Bush win, he missed the boat on women's rights, civil rights, tax policy and Iraq. He was solid and played to his base and certainly didn't have the kind of meltdown that he had last week, but no way did he blow it out.

Posted by: Dawn Summers at October 9, 2004 12:07 AM

Dawn. You are taking a NY view of the debate.

I am taking a west-of-the-Ohio-River view of that debate. In that view, Bush connected with those people in a profound way. Hence a Blow Out for Bush.

Posted by: Jake at October 9, 2004 12:25 AM

I agree Dawn.. it was only a clear win among non demos and the the mentally challenged

Posted by: Scott at October 9, 2004 12:28 AM

women's rights, civil rights, tax policy and Iraq.

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "women's rights". If you mean the two questions having to do with abortion, I think Kerry did very poorly and Bush did quite well. Kerry went out of his way to say he was an altar boy as some bizarre way of justifying his opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion. What? The partial-birth-abortion-ban polls really well and it hurts Kerry a lot that it came out, and playing the Catholic card in order to somehow justify going against the Catholic Church's position on abortion can only hurt him with Catholics I imagine.

Civil Rights? Again, I'm not sure what you mean. I like how Bush referenced the elections in Afghanistan today though. That's quite a civil rights accomplishment, as well as a women's rights accomplishment.

Tax Policy: This was probably a draw. They were both very repetitive. Kerry's assumption that no one in the audience made 200k was one of the most classist, condescending things I've ever seen but I don't know how many people would notice it.

Iraq: This was also a draw. Bush justified his policy a lot better than in the first debate though.

Anyway, I guess calling the debate as win, lose, or draw is probably silly ultimately, though I find it fun for some reason. I was very nervous going into tonight and now I feel much better, so that's my yardstick. I'll also say that all the pro-Bush spinners are pretty happy. They're at worst saying it's a draw, some saying blowout and the e-mail/comment box response from the pro-Bush partisans is very, very happy.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 9, 2004 12:29 AM

Putting my nose in the wind some more (ie. checking out MyDD, Reason, and Redstate), it's a toss-up. Granted it's only a couple of hours into a Friday night/Saturday morning. A winner will probably emerge tomorrow.

Posted by: Shawn at October 9, 2004 12:32 AM

Nice job, Karol. I don't think it was as close as you do - the spin over the weekend and Monday will tell, though. I think that Bush looked and sounded good and Kerry looked and sounded Boorish. Like his 'global-test' line from the first debate, Kerry really had some clunkers tonight that will come back to bite him. If they ever get heard, that is. We know it won't be told by ABC.

I'm just a pajama-wearing, ankle-biting partisan hack, though, so I could be wrong.

Posted by: RichieD at October 9, 2004 12:41 AM

I thought Kerry's rambling on the government funded abortions was the most pathetic answer of the night. It is one thing to dodge a question but what the hell was the "I am a catholic .... I respect jews, atheists, blah blah blah" rant about? I am pro choice but as far as I am concerned that was the dumbest answer I have heard in a debate. He would have looked better if he just would have said "pass".

Posted by: Paul B at October 9, 2004 01:03 AM

By the way - why the hell did they have it on a Friday night? All of the Republicans like myself are at football games not watching TV. I had to tape it.

Posted by: Paul B at October 9, 2004 01:06 AM

Man, this Friday night reminds me of when I was a kid. I was glad to see Roscoe P. Coltrane riding after them Duke boys again. But I always thought Boss Hogg would be president, not Roscoe. But if Roscoe loses, at least we get Enos as Vice President under Kerry.

Seriously. Darwin was wrong. Want proof against evolution ? Try going from George Washington and John Adams to George W. Bush and John Kerry. We have a report on Iraq that is casting doubts on why we went in; Bank of America and other employers are starting massive lay offs; the Baghdad Sheraton was attacked.

Let's talk about Bush's taxes !

I think Bush "won" the game of expectations since he did not come off as bad as he did in the first debate. But Kerry "won" too since he did not screw up the way Ford did in 76, the way Carter did in 80, the way the Duke did in 88, the way Poppy did in 92, the way Gore did in 2000. And that's the problem for Bush. There are still some undecideds out there. They have pretty much know who Bush is. While Bush did not flounder like he did in the first debate, Kerry did not flounder either. Something tells me undecideds will break for Kerry if this continues. Which makes me think that Karl Rove is about to offer up a smear job and so will Mary Beth Cahill. Buckle your seatbelts. We have an ugly month ahead.

Posted by: Von Bek at October 9, 2004 01:49 AM

i, and kerry, own you bitch!

shrubs done!!!!!!!

Posted by: Um Yeah at October 9, 2004 01:49 AM

If you have access to an online feed or a TV rerun, skim through the debate again and watch the audience's faces and body language. It's in no way reflective of how things will play out in the media and the public at large, but by the end you could see that the in-house audience was particularly disappointed with Bush. Snickers and frowns abounded as his 'answers' rambled and stumbled on.

But that may just have been because of something they could pick up on in person. Maybe he smelled bad today or something. :)

Posted by: Andrew at October 9, 2004 02:12 AM

Kerry lost his edge tonight. Bush regained what he lost in the first debate. I think mainly because of the repetition of talking points on his part. His skin began to be shiny and the amazing part of where he actually stumbled words told it all. There was no grace in him when he was pummeled with the historical facts of his senate record. The rapid eye action plainly gave him away.
Unlike many others, I was absolutely delighted when Bush propelled himself off of that stool in defense of his standings and to refute the blatant lies of Kerry. Bush's body english was strong and confident. Kerry's was just upright and rigid. It's too bad that Kerry doesn't take Kerry serious. The wild promises that came tumbling out of his mouth were nothing more than sheer desperation. And he really began to sound like a Bush echo chamber. :)

Posted by: ms at October 9, 2004 02:25 AM

For Andrew, it is funny you say that about the in-house audience. A friend called me to say exactly the OPPOSITE: that they seemed to like Bush more than they liked Kerry. Bush made jokes. They laughed. Bush ad-libbed. They laughed. Bush is a likable guy. At the end, my friend said "They were sooo much more into Bush...everybody wanted to shake his hand." It is funny how people can look at the exact same thing and interpret it so differently.

Posted by: Dorian at October 9, 2004 02:32 AM

I did not watch the debate but the Kerry contract is up on compared with yesterday. I find it hard to believe that Bush won the debate and is now considered less likely to win re-election.

Posted by: Dan at October 9, 2004 09:07 AM

Che's opinion:
After the first debate the press and pundits declared it a victory for Comrade Kerry. This includes the pro Bush pundits. Score one for the war criminal. After the second debate, the mainstream calls it a draw and Comrade Kerry's people call it a clear win for Kerry. Now, this is a serious character flaw with the left. Bush clearly won, no question. The mature thing to do would be admit defeat and plan your next move to do better next time as the Bush people did over the past week. And if you don't feel this way you ought to contact Mr. Bush for some cheap lumber from his timber company that we all just found out he owned and tap yourself on the head with it.

Viva la Revolucion!

Posted by: J.F.Che at October 9, 2004 09:17 AM

I only watched about 3 minutes total of the debate (the Yankees and Twins were playing), but I saw one woman ask Kerry about stem cell research and another ask about abortion. The way he carried on about respecting their opinions was so condescending.
But he should get some credit for bringing up his Vietnam service so seamlessly in his abortion answer. That's talent.

Posted by: Peter at October 9, 2004 11:27 AM

I have yet to see the debate (except for about the first few questions). From that tiny bit, I thought it was a draw, Bush much better -- but that ain't saying much -- Kerry relying too much on talking points and same old rhetoric, not as impressive as first debate.

However, simply based on what Karol said, I have to assume Kerry won, but not nearly as decisively as last time. I don't say this to be insulting, but everything I have ever seen on this site indicates she sees the world through "rose bush" colored glasses and if she is only giving a slight edge to Bush, then Kerry must have done well.

I'll watch the debate tonight or tomorrow and give my full views...I hope it is more 2nd paragraph than first.

Posted by: Signor_Ferrari at October 9, 2004 12:35 PM

whats the differance between a fresh masive peanutt shit and a KKKonservitive?

theres less nuts in the shit and its a hole lot warmer!


Posted by: Um Yeah at October 9, 2004 01:37 PM


The funny thing is that Bush actually does own that timber company, and that it was used to business-ify his tax return in 2001. Oops.

To be fair to Bush, his accountant probably bought the lumber company for him so that he could more effectively fudge Bush's taxes. That's his accountant's job, after all. I'm not surprised that Bush wasn't ready for that one.

Of course--what does that say about BC04's ramblings about Unincorporated and S-Corps above $200k? How many of those (450k, not 900k) are legitimate small businesses, and how many centered on $84 lumber company's that the filer doesn't even know about?

Go to any bookstore and flip through the 'Pay No Taxes!' self-help business books. Every single one of them will tell you that you should form a not-quite-fradulent company and abuse business deductions to get out of paying your fair share.

Posted by: Andrew at October 9, 2004 02:59 PM

Wow, Um Yeah, that's a pretty logically powerful argument you've got going. Though you may want to learn how to spell. And the slogan should read:
UN Bribed, Iraqis Died.
5000 a month under the Oil for Bribes scam.

Posted by: Robert at October 9, 2004 03:48 PM

Damn, i missed Kerrys reference to Vietnam. I was playing a debate watching drinking game and we would drink if Kerry said "vietnam". Damn. I missed that part!!. Bush did say "Poland" and that was a double bonus drink!

Posted by: PAUL at October 9, 2004 03:51 PM

Making my way through the debate on-demand - something about both of them still makes me cringe - thus far, i pretty much agree with von bek's take above...

Posted by: Alceste at October 9, 2004 05:49 PM

For all the idjits that keep spouting the "Bush Lied, People Died!" meme.

Given the following facts:

-Every Intelligence Agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD's.
-John F. Kerry believed it.
-Edwards called Saddam an "imminent threat".
-Clintoon believed Saddam had WMD's.
-We didn't discover that there were no WMD's until AFTER we had already toppled Saddam.

Just how in the Hell was it that GWB was supposed to have lied? How would he know that there wasn't any WMD's all those months in advance? Explain that you liberal leftist wankers.


Posted by: Chumley at October 9, 2004 08:10 PM

Because Bush is irredeamably vile and 'evil'. He's a 'hater' and one of those 'fellows' whose 'regeimes' must be toppled! He and Karl Rove probably bribed the whole world's international intelligence community out of their own pocket, just so that... um... BUSH LIES!!!!

(just kidding... I just think his administration exercised several key errors in judgment and that as chief executive he should personally be held accountable unless and until he satisfactorally restructures that administration.)

Posted by: Andrew at October 9, 2004 08:28 PM

"(just kidding... I just think his administration exercised several key errors in judgment and that as chief executive he should personally be held accountable unless and until he satisfactorally restructures that administration.)"

Ah! So, you acknowledge then that Bush DID NOT lie?

As for "key errors in judgement" name me one human that hasn't. GWB has had some hard decisions to make, and he has stuck by them in the face of opposition. I doubt we could rely on Kerry to stand by his convictions.

Oh! That's right...Kerry doesn't have any convictions.

Exactly what would you consider to be a satisfactory restructuring?


Posted by: Chumley at October 9, 2004 10:15 PM

Has everybody made mistakes and errors in judgment? Certainly. But isn't that exactly how we each judge each other? On an individual basis, we decide whether some set of mistakes and errors were sufficient to deserve punishment or accountability. Some believe the Bush administration (collectively) has met their personal threshhold, others don't. Of those that do, some still support Bush over Kerry and just want internal restructuring, others support Kerry over Bush and want wholesale change, and others prefer third parties or abstaining from voting in protest.

That's the nature of the democratic process. Those of us that believe the Bush administration has crossed our subjective threshholds will seek to assert our opinions appropriately and hold him accountable appropriately. If there's not enough of us or we have too weak a voice, que sera, such is the nature of the system we enjoy.

And as for what constitutes a satisfactory restructuring: I can't supply an answer. The system is so convoluted, and I have so little voice and knowledge, I'm just going to have to call it as I see it. Once/if the Bush admin or the GOP proposes new Cabinet secretaries or deputies in a 04-08 term, I'll do my research and see if I'm satisfied. I suspect you'll do the same. For now, all I know is that I'm not satisfied, and that's a sufficient condition for agitating for change.

Posted by: Andrew at October 9, 2004 10:40 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?