« John Kerry Has Been Outsourcing Truth | Home | John Kerry: Terrorism A “Nuisance”, like Fighting Prostitution and Illegal Gambling »
Debate #2
By Matt Margolis | October 8, 2004
I will be live blogging the debate tonight over at Blogs For Bush
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
October 8th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
I see on Drudge that ABCNEWS is specifically calling for ant-Bush bias in their reporting. CBS, ABC, who will be next do you think? Would NBC or PBS ever report with a lefty bias?
October 8th, 2004 at 11:31 pm
Matt,
Agreed. Bush did well. Kerry is the most liberal senator - how can he hide from who he is?
October 9th, 2004 at 3:32 am
That’s ridiculous! Kerry totally won this one. Why was Bush always so anxious to speak…invading Kerry’s space and jumping up during Kerry’s time…? Then, when it was finally his time to speak, he was struggling to fill the time with words? One time he even asked, “Is my time up yet?” Then he was disappointed to hear “No.” Next came him struggling to find something to talk about…
Kerry was more clear. He had better arguments, and proved most of what Bush was saying was garbage!
Also, Bush was always on the defensive.
Go Kerry!
October 9th, 2004 at 9:13 am
Are you kidding me, marshall?What debate were you watching? Kerry got creamed. Repeating “I have a plan” 33+ times as an answer does not mean he won. Shouldn’t you be off hammering online polls as per Lockhart’s orders?
October 9th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
What debate were YOU watching? Bush had almost nothing to say.
On Iraq: Kerry proved that we’re struggling there. Bush tried to paint the rosy picture of democracy. But Kerry pointed out the numerous bombings going on there. He proved it was wrong to prematurely invade Iraq without support from our allies…esp. since there weren’t any WMD there. He also pointed out that bin Laden is at large, still, b/c we diverted our attention. And I’m not sure what idiot believed that we’ve actually captured 75% of Al Queda. The number of members in Al Queda has dramatically increased. We don’t even have 2%. Of course Bush knows this. He’s just hoping you don’t.
On healthcare: Bush struggled to say that he wants medicine coming in from Canada. It was pretty funny…so obvious he was lying. Of course he doesn’t want that. His buddies would be faced with lower profitability in their companies. Kerry also disproved Bush’s stupid theory that Edwards’ lawsuits are driving up healthcare costs. It’s actually less that 1% of the cost increase.
On the economy: Kerry didn’t even need to touch this, ’cause so many people are out of jobs and know the status anyway. But creating 1.9 million jobs, or whatever, is a terrible number that Bush should be ashamed to rattle off. It’s barely enough jobs to cover the people coming in to the workforce. Clinton created 23 million jobs in his presidency, which should be a good benchmark for you guys.
The people who have done their research know that Kerry won.
October 9th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
ARe you kidding me?!
BTW reagan created 20 million jobs and well really created 40 million since he WAS BEHIND THE 90’s as well as 80’s!!!
Benchmark for you idiots!! W won this won big!! a joke if nobody believes it! W won!!
October 9th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
Richard,
…Ok, which would further prove my point that creating 1.9 million jobs in 13 months is a terrible number…
Thank you for supporting me!
October 9th, 2004 at 2:47 pm
not supporting you.
2 million jobs in less than a year is great considering what this president has had to deal with.
October 9th, 2004 at 2:57 pm
Deal with? A time of war usually creates more jobs…not less!
9/11 was more than 3 years ago…can’t use that anymore…
So, what exactly is Bush “dealing with?”
October 9th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
LOL, no it doesn’t. especially after a war you get either depression or inflation!!!
happened twice in our history. And this war is fought differently. Biigest challenge in post WW2 hisotry
October 9th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
We’re not “after a war.” It’s still going on.
And explain to me why this war means a net job loss…
October 9th, 2004 at 3:28 pm
ummm, no its not. Elections in both afganistan and iraq!
hussain is caught, iraq is in our control (and now actually in the people of iraqs control, not terrorists or anything like that).
No inflation, gdp fastest in 20 years, lower unemployment, housing boom lke never before…..its not worth argueing over the the facts. Its just the same old arguement with the left..
October 9th, 2004 at 3:30 pm
marshall sounds like a paid for shill, what planet were you visiting last night.
I listen to the debate from a car radio, and Bush won the debate because of subtance, after listening to Kerry I see him as a slicker version of Clinton, Kerry will say anything do anything to get elected, oh and BTW where are his Medical records and His Wifes Financials, Why do Democrats have a different level of disclosure than Republicans.
October 9th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Richard, Are you not reading the news these days?!?! Iraq is in a state of chaos. There are bombings and acts of violence every day! Our troops are still over there (and getting killed). Just because Saddam is toppled doesn’t mean the war is over. Even Bush refers to it as a war. So it’s not a democrat thing. It’s an “informed person” thing.
Ernie, you think Bush won on substance, because you were already for him, strongly. You were listening to the debate with a biased ear. I admit I was too, because I think Kerry rocked on substance. The truth is they were about equal (according to the more reliable polls - not online polls - Kerry is about 2 percentage points ahead of Bush on substance). And, no I’m not getting paid…unless you want to pay me!
October 9th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
Bush may have felt a little intimidated by Kerry’s STYLE, however his integrity and resolve qualify him over Kerry. Kerry’s and Edward’s reputation is impossible to ignore as well as their twist/spin of the FACTS. This presidency is simply about TRUTH vs. FICTION and the conjoining of MORALITY and ETHICS with REAL LIFE THREATS and CHALLENGES that undermine sound (i.e. biblical) principles. Any president who ignores or distorts these will inevitably end up supplanting God’s laws of nature written on the hearts of man. Unfortunately though, once the damage is done and people’s hearts and hopes are dashed to a 16th century pulp there will be no getting back up as we know it, and the only hope will be for an anti-Christ authority to stand up and lead humanity into a dark and futile future by deception and force.
October 9th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
If I was forced to blame this meager economic growth on anything, it would not be the Bush tax cuts, I would blame Keynesian style deficit spending. Supple side economics is dead and has been thoroughly discredited by real economists.
The Republican Congress has passed tons of pork legislation to satiate the business interests they are dependent on and has left fiscal responsibilty to the wind.
October 9th, 2004 at 9:24 pm
I watched the debate, and thought that while Bush clearly had the substance, a lot of libs would fall for the Kerry facade.
This morning, our local paper had high school students rate the debate, and a nascent Democrat said it better that I ever could, to explain the opinion that Kerry won: “It’s a debate—it’s not what you say but how you say it”. Of course, I’m not sure how well the school debate team is doing, with that kind of attitude, but it sure does sum up the left.
Two comments: A local woman had to listen to the first 2/3 of the debate on her car radio, and just caught the last third on TV. She said that without visuals, Bush had Kerry totally whipped. But on TV, Kerry’s presence overcame a lot of his weaknesses and distracted, to some extent, from his lack of coherence. A radio talk show host said he did not watch or listen, but pulled up the transcript afterward, and from the transcript, Bush won it going away.
So, what we can learn from this is if the package is pretty enough, the left will buy it. Kind of the philosophy I use when shopping for fishing lures. But hardly the perspective I want electing our nation’s leader.
BTW, what is happening with Kerry’s face? All those deep crevasses that have made him so Lurch-like are gone, just gone! His face looked like a baby’s bottom last night! I didn’t think Botox worked that fast. Bondo and a good sanding job??
October 9th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
if anybody thinks that A) we have meager growth its only the fastest in 20 years and B)that its keynesian economics, which it is not since those dolts believe high inflation is needed as well as high nominal demand to ‘grow’ the economy than you need your head examined. Its the tax cuts!!
October 10th, 2004 at 2:59 pm
What worth is economic growth (rising GDP) if no one sees the benefits of it. If job growth is sluggish, wages are stagnant, and necessities like health insurance and gas prices are going up, more people don’t have health insurance, and poverty has increased then the economy is not in the best of health for the majority of people.
Here’s more proof to my argument about Keynesian style deficit spending being more to blame here: “New Keynesianism, associated with Gregory Mankiw, currently chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush,” and “Even more important, higher defense spending raised the GDP by 0.4 percent in 2003, far more than Bush’s tax cuts to the rich (a 0.1-percent effect).”
If the chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors is a new Keynesian and increases in military spending are having more effect on the economy than Bush’s tax cuts for the rich then I think your just plan wrong Rich.
October 10th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
No, your wrong!!
it has shown benefits! You might not want to listen, but its true. 2 million new jobs, unemployment down 1%. no inflation, housing boom!!!
now the other incorrect theory holds that high inflation is needed and high nominal demand. Inflation is LOW, so is nominal demand!!!
Both were shown in the 80’s and 90’s!!!