Posted on 09/13/2004 10:32:13 PM PDT by MadIvan
Ha? Most honest pundits thought the convention was a bust. Most people walked away quoting Walter Mondale, "Where's the Beef?"
BTTT
Wasn't it President John F. Camelot Kennedy who first got us into the Vietnam War?
Prescient flash: Kerry is speaking at debate, mike cuts off and suddenly we hear the voice of Bill Clinton...
hanoi john flip flop kerry's sweating and foaming at the mouth will be a big visual turn off. He'll more than likely want a new botox treatement and that will effect his facial muscles making him look more stiff than normal. While GW will look warm and natural.
All due credit to Andrew Sullivan - he was absolutely correct in saying that Kerry was so boring that no one sane would dare listen to him. I doubt botox can inject a personality or geniality.
What President Bush needs to do is look the public square in the eye, speak plainly and with the genuine warmth he is capable of, and say exactly what he thinks. That will seal it.
Regards, Ivan
Wait until even more people see that darting snake's tongue every 5 seconds..ICK a turn off.
Actually, he's exceptionally bright. I had a class with him at Northeastern University, and he was articulate, energetic, enthusiastic, engaging, and interesting---not to mention very intelligent.
Sorry, but I think the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" line was used by R. Reagan against Walter Mondale.
Yes, I will give Dukakis that, definitely an honest guy.
I'm dead certain "Where's the beef" was used by Mondale against Gary Hart or vice versa.
Mondale starting ripping off the Wendy's ad campaign, using this phrase to berate Gary Hart. It promptly became his campaign slogan during the democrat primaries.
You all are absolutely correct. I should learn to Google before I let my fingers embarass me like that! Please accept my humble apologies.
I know Bush was up in the polls already at this point, but do you know when the election in 2000 was won? It was at that moment when Gore was invading his space and he just turned and nodded at him. What a perfect illustration of who the two men are. I expect a similar moment in the upcoming debates.
The comment "The most striking parallel is the way both candidates let their opponents define them in ways that are not politically helpful." is telling.
We know this happened to both Dukakis and Kerry but I wonder about how it happened. It's not through lack of effort on Kerry's part both to defend against the BC04 efforts to define him or their own efforts to define Bush negatively.
In the end I think who's successful depends on the personal characteristics of the candidates and to a lesser extent the discipline of the campaigns.
On the campaign trail, Kerry comes off strange and his campaign has jumped from message to message looking for something to get traction on. That's left Kerry's message confused and Kerry has made no progress portraying Bush in a way favorable to him
Bush on the other hand is more believable and personable so his message is more effective. He also stays with one central theme so everyone hears it more often; in the end his message wins among the voters.
Yeah, I saw Brit Hume's report on that. And the hypothetical was some version of "How will you handle Kim Jong Il," specifically what he would do in Dubya's place now that they've detonated this huge explosive. It's not as if the NYT asked how he'd handle an emergency on the starship Enterprise, they asked how he'd handle a situation he has to handle starting in January if he wins. The guy's a tool, and the debates are a perfect forum to show off just how much of a tool he is.
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.