(no subject)

[karenor]

wow. i'm really surprised at kerry. tho i have no love for him in particular, i'm surprised at how evasive he's being. he's not ANSWERING the questions he's being asked. at ALL.

this is a half hour in. if i can stomach the rest of this thing, i'll have more comments later.

Comments

[alannahrose.livejournal.com]

Did you not watch the first debate? It was basically the same way with that one too. But GAH, could Bush sound more like an ignorant kindergardner?

[karenor.livejournal.com]

well, yeah, obviously it was the same with the first one. however, since the vp debate, i've gathered that if i watch it on cnn, the question will be onscreen and its a lot easier to see if they are actually answering it. in this debate, where i paid close attention, nine times out of ten, kerry did not stay on track, and did the whole "well i'll answer that but first let me go back and talk about something completely different" a lot, whereas bush mostly kept to the questions asked. this isn't a skew or lean talking, as i have no love for either. this was just my observation.

and tho bush did not have a whole lot a new information, i thought he performed a lot better than the first debate. again, i don't think anyone won any votes. i really am convinced no one is undecided.

[alannahrose.livejournal.com]

Really, I thought the vice president/senator did worse with keeping to the questions then the president/senator did. I didn't think you were skewed--don't worry! I don't have love for either either (heh).

Yes, I agree that Bush performed better (but really, how could he not?) this time but that doesn't say much. And sorry, but what do you mean--no voters are undecided?

[karenor.livejournal.com]

Really, I thought the vice president/senator did worse with keeping to the questions then the president/senator did

I agree. tho i didn't watch the whole debate, just pieces here and there, since i had class on tuesday.

but what do you mean--no voters are undecided?

that is what i mean. i believe that most of the people who have decided to vote, know who they are going to vote for. i suppose there are some actual people who are planning to vote and really don't know. but i do not think they are a measurable amount, despite what polls say.

rallies

[sykopoet.livejournal.com]

Really? I would say after watching the entire thing that Bush was being way more evasive than Kerry. Did you notice the way he didn't even come close to answering the question about 3 mistakes he had made? And what about when he ran right over the moderator? The man has a real problem keeping his temper in check, probably because most of the time he is surrounded by people who have to sign loyalty agreements before they can go to his rallys.

Re: rallies

[karenor.livejournal.com]

Did you notice the way he didn't even come close to answering the question about 3 mistakes he had made?

i did notice that. however, i think it's a pretty unfair question. it's like the "when did you stop beating your wife" logic falacy (forgive me, i don't recall the latin name). in order to answer that, he'd be admitting he made mistakes. which clearly he doesn't want to do. whether that's true or not, its within his rights.

and clearly his decorum, or whatever, is lower than kerry's, re: the running over charlie thing. i don't think that's a major issue.

as for the rally thing, i haven't heard about it before. who are those people, and what is in these agreements? and how is such a thing binding?

Re: rallies

[sykopoet.livejournal.com]

You are not allowed to enter a Bush function without signing a loyalty agreement to the president. This is so that no person who actually disagrees with the president can get anywhere near him. A couple who bought tickets to a Bush rally and then wore Kerry/Edwards tshirts were actually arrested. These people were not yelling, protesting, or saying nasty things. They simply had a difference of opinion. This isn't something the Bush campaigne is denying either, even the conservative news anchors mentioned they were worried about how Bush would react to being in a forum where he was actually challenged instead of being surrounded by supporters.

Re: rallies

[karenor.livejournal.com]

i wasn't aware of that and obviously don't agree with making people sign agreements or anything...but on the other hand. isn't a "rally" by definition, a function at which someone is surrounded by supporters? i'm serious, not trying to be a smartass. isn't that the reason for them? to show himself being surrounded by people who love him?

Re: rallies

[alannahrose.livejournal.com]

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4076497

That's an interesting story about people being arrested for wearing Kerry shirts etc.

[about-worth.livejournal.com]

exactly. Edwards didn't either. several times it felt more like speeches than answering questions.

neither one answered the question about getting us out of the red.

[karenor.livejournal.com]

i think i must have missed that part. i did miss a bit of the debate, with preparing dinner n all.

its like every time a "how" was involved with a question for kerry, he totally ignored that part of it. but he talks pretty and sometimes seems to actually be addressing the issue, and i'm afraid people don't notice his evasiveness. at least when bush evades a question, its pretty clear he's doing so.