Posted on 10/02/2004 12:24:49 PM PDT by NotchJohnson
actually stayed up to watch the so-called "debate." It's now before 5:00 am and I am drawing some notes together. No problem ... I can always take a nap this afternoon and, after all, it's not like my job requires any heavy lifting. Now ... some disjointed thoughts on the debate.
It looked like Bush was a bit slow getting started. The hesitations in his language stand out in contrast to the determined rhetoric of John Kerry. It's probably wiser to listen to the actual words being said rather than the hesitations. There's enough "ahs" and "uhs" during one of my shows to drive anyone nuts.
Kerry failed to make any convincing case that his "plan" for Iraq was any different than what George Bush is doing over there now.
The debates were basically boring and a bit stifled. Could this possibly be because that's exactly what the candidates wanted? They don't want an open confrontation with their opponents. We should demand it. Wouldn't it have been great to see these two men sit on opposite sides of a table for ninety minutes and just go after each other? That way the voters really would have learned something.
Strong moment for Bush? There was one Kerry line that Bush used to good effect; Kerry's line that this was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." How, Bush asked, would Kerry ask European allies to send their troops to a battlefield for the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place?" And what kind of message are you sending our troops when you tell them you are fighting the wrong war, you're fighting it at the wrong place, and you're fighting it at the wrong time?
This, more than anything else from last night's debate, is the most revealing admission from The Poodle. He was asked by Lehrer about his position on the concept of preemptive war. What he let slip should give everybody a very good reason to not even dream about voting him into office.
Here is what he said: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Oh really? So basically what he is saying...is that the United States is not allowed to defend itself unless and until:
We pass the "global test." That means that if attacked, we shouldn't defend ourselves unless France thinks it's okay. We prove to the world that we did it for "legitimate reasons." Really...so who decides whether or not our reasons were "legitimate?" Our leaders, or world leaders? What meets the standard of that legitimacy? Does the U.N. have final say? In all candor I have to say that John Kerry will be considered to be the winner, whatever that means, of last night's confrontation. He didn't win on policy, he won on smoothness. When I was practicing law there were many times when opposing counsel showed more style and class in presenting their case to a jury. Didn't matter. I had the facts on my side ... and my client came out on top. As for Bush and Kerry: It's what they said, not how they said it. I just hope we have an electorate that can figure this out.
Time to sit back and wait for the polls.
I am afraid people didn't catch taht. I sure as hell know my Dad didn't.
Thats why we need to drive it home, I know that most talk show hosts and editorial pages(save the lefties) grabbed a hold of that, even at the poker table I made sure this lady knew that, she is from Erope somewhere so she is a main consituency of Kerrys though so I doubt I changed her mind.
Well.. that global test don't cut it..I'm sorry but the Constituion guarantees me that the government will ACT to defend us against our enemies... When my kids are being burned and raped in their elementary school by the Islamic Facists will Kerry decide that well it doesn't quite pass the world's litmus test for us to act... This guy may be a good debater but he is an empty suit a snake oil salesman. I pray everyday that people continue to see how terrible a choice Kerry would be for president.
There is another poster who was posting news of far more significance just before FR went down. Specifically, some group is offering a reward to anyone who fingers a fraudulent voter. The more money in that reward the better. This, plus digicam equipped poll watchers, could undo this supposed registration advantage.
Lord help us.
bump
Kerry got the questions beforehand. Look at the transcript.
At one point he says to Lehrer, "I understand we'll be discussing homeland security later."
How did he know that?
Of course, Peach, of course. Lehrer probably faxed them over himself. You know?
Anyway, someone could make a fortune selling red litmus paper stickies entitled Global Test papers. Maybe they would catch on like cigarette papers.
In short, if he's elected, we're hosed.
LOL!
I don't think it would be a very useful debating point, but if you want to look at facts, France is no longer our ally. Moreover, it's doubtful whether France has ever been our ally.
For a brief while they dealt with us in the 1870s, because they wanted to poke a finger in England's eye. Otherwise, they have been nothing but trouble whenever we've gotten involved with them, from the French and Indian Wars to Charles de Gaulle.
I think it was AUSTRAILIA who has had our backs every time in the last 100 (?) years. France is so 16th century. It is countries like Austrailia that are relevent, perhaps Japan and even China if we can use them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.