Friday, October 08, 2004

snap thoughts about the debate

I thought it was a good debate. I have the normal reservations. They didn't really answer the questions asked. It seemed like an hour and a half stump speech from each candidate. I am trying to get this knocked out before there is too much said about it because I don't want to be biased. I am not going to say who I think won because that is personal. I would imagine that 99% of Bush voters say he won and 99% of Kerry voters say he won. I think these debates are too close to say who won or really pull a clear winner. I think most of the people that say who won are politically motivated.
So what is my response. This is my real response. The questions asked were a sham. If you are asked to think up a question that you might get to ask a presidential candidate then you really think about it. You ask a question that you really want to know the answer to. You put some time into it. You know the question very well. These people were stumbling through these questions. If just one or two did it then I would think that it would be contributed to asking a question on national television. Nearly everyone messed up words or had to stop and look down at the cards. Not one single person said the question without reading it straight off the card. I think it was fixed. They may have come in with their own questions, but I think they may have been changed a little bit. It just didn't pass the smell test for me. Because of that I think the credibility of these debates really takes a hit. It just didn't feel right. Those are my initial answers. I might say something later about the debate, but I doubt it. I think people determine the winner of the debate based upon whether or not they like the person. i think 99% of Bush voters will say he won and 99% of Kerry voters will say that he won. It just works out like that and I think it is pointless, especially in such a close debate, to try and point out one clear winner to anybody.


Post a Comment

<< Home