Posted on 09/30/2004 5:57:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
Thread 1 - Pre-Debate discussion
Here's some of the comments from NRO:
Thursday, September 30, 2004
THE PEOPLE SPEAK! [Michael Graham]
I'm taking calls right now, live on WMAL in DC, and the consensus is that Kerry was good, but Bush was better. The recurring question is "Why didn't Bush take it to Kerry on..." North Korea, the bunker-buster, the $87 billion.
I think it's strategy (be the nice guy), but many of my callers think it's a mistake.
Posted at 11:28 PM
THE DEBATE [John Hood]
I'd recommend not falling into the trap of scoring this debate as if it were the culmination of a forensics tournament. For the viewers who tuned in for the first 45 minutes or so, I think Bush was a more effective communicator. He sounded authoritative, his message was clear, and his message makes some level of sense even if you aren't predisposed to agree with him or with a Republican president per se. Kerry did not come across well during the period. Later, Bush seemed to get a little tired and annoyed, and Kerry picked up a little steam. But Kerry's problem is that his message is inherently complicated and would be difficult to communicate effectively for anyone. The war was a mistake, but I'll fit to win it anyway, but it is a distraction, and I'll send more equipment, but we're spending too much on it, and I'll inspire other countries to join us, but the countries who are there aren't doing much worth commending, etc., etc. Bush doggedly responds: you won't win if you waver. We will prevail. I'm realistic -- it's a tough, hard slog. But I'm optimistic -- we will win and freedom in the Middle East will be transformational. You don't have to be a slick rhetorician to win this kind of exchange. Remember, also, the repetition is a good thing, not a bad thing. Let's face it: we are wonky weirdos. Most viewers probably came in and out of the room, they visited the little voters' room, they went to make a sandwich. You have to talk to the whole audience, including those who missed your key point the first couple of times you made it. Kerry had a little more riding on tonight than Bush did, and it just didn't happen for him. The debate as a whole was informed, substantive, and revealing -- but it did not change the dynamics of the race.
Posted at 11:19 PM
Kerry....still voted for a War In Iraq, and voted against spending money to support the war, and then had the audacity to say..that he would provide high tech armor for our troops. KERRY IS A BOLD FACE LIAR.
I am depressed, but I suppose I knew I would be... debating is not our guy's strength. I just wish he pointed out more of Kerry's errors in judgment. He let him off the hook way to often and easily. Also, I hate to say it, but he really did look small on TV. Hunching over didn't help. Uggh.
I think for all the fast talking slick "points" Kerry made that they won't stick in people's heads but the things Bush said will come back to them and resonate.
If it's mom's votes we're worried about, we just need to do our darn best to educate them. I'm a suburban mom, a conservative one, always!!!! I'm pretty sure that most mothers would not vote for the candidate that receives endorsements from porn sites, grants interviews to gay magazines, has supporters that propose exchanging sex for votes (votergasm.com), and whose constituancy puts together rallies called Vagina Votes! OH MY!!!! What is up with that!?! I read about it on Free Republic yesterday, couldn't believe it!
Also, another issue with moms, our children and the whole security thing. I was really bothered by Kerry's "global test passing' comment. I thought Bush's response was very good. I'd like to see this really hammered. This is a major security issue! I don't want to be playing suck up to the UN! I wonder what Kerry means by passing this so called test? What kind of test would this be, and what must one do to pass it? NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!!! NO WAY!!!!
Kerry supporters rejoice at the news of every American death, and they cry crocodile tears in front of the news cameras - but by their words and their deeds they are directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers.
The Islamists are feeding off the words of Kerry, Kennedy, Lockhart, Rather, Matthews, Sharpton, and they are feeding off the demonstrations of the so-called "peace protesters."
These bastards are coming to Arlington National Cemetery on Saturday, to mock American values, to degrade American soldiers, and to desecrate the sacred ground where 200+ years of American heroes are buried.
If you are anywhere near DC on Saturday, please consider coming to defend the honor of our country's war dead and defend our country's honor against the anti-American blood dancers.
The problem I have is that I'm not that smart, but I had five different comebacks to Kerry's accusations that would have made the Senator look like a fool.
I'm amazed that Bush never said that the entire world thought Hussein had WMDs. Hell, Bill Clinton and Kerry himself thought he had WMDs. That would have frozen Kerry's bullshit.
Warm soap and water. And Clorox.
Nobody going to comment on Kerry figiting back and forth like he had to pee, picking his ear, and fiddling with his hair.
JUST WIN BABY!
I think he said he would stop development of new types of nuclear weapons like the nuke bunker busters.
>I've been trying to submit my vote on CNN.com for the last 20 minutes it comes up with the "page not found error"<
With all the internet activity, the entire web is acting screwy. I have had a bear of a time posting here.
I think Bush had the critical, and perhaps determinative retort when he went after Kerry's "global test" for preemptive action.
Bush said he won't ever have a 'global test' to protect America.
This difference is the whole ball of wax.
Bush will act preemptively to protect, defend and preserve America. Kerry will require international approval. Kerry will, in the final analysis, NEVER act preemptively.
THE SECURITY MOMS HEARD THIS EXCHANGE AND WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY. OF THAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN.
I have not read through all of the posts tonight. I find them interesting, of course, but I just haven't had the time!
I just thought I'd share my humble opinion.
Bush started off very weak and gained momentum towards the middle of the debate. Kerry did much better than expected. I mean, really, with ALL of his many positions,who'd of thought he would have come off the least bit credible.
Having said all of that ... while, I was disappointed that Bush did not give Kerry the KO I'd have loved, we have to remember that we are already convinced. He doesn't NEED to make the sale to us. He needs to speak to the wishy washy undecideds, and we have to question whether or not he did that. I believe he did. He was consistent and redundant and plain spoken. As boring as it is to us, he needs to be redundant to the fence sitters. The points he relentlessly hammered where for a purpose. No doubt.
Yeah, I just heard some bimbo chanting the mantra about "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
I thought Dubya scored some points the first time he used it.
But somewhere around the 3rd or 4th time it came across as pretty lame, canned and overrehearsed. IMHO, he really shouldn't have relied so heavily upon it.
I think it would have been better had he jumped on the inconsistancy that I pointed out.
Franks is knocking the chit out of Kerry!
Excellent point.
God bless President Bush!
I only saw a few minutes of it but I thought Bush looked and sounded good. These things aren't "won" by playing by debate-club rules - supposedly Richard Nixon "won" the debates with JFK this way but it didn't work for him. It's who makes the better impression.
Kerry sounded like a gasbag with lots of factoids and little wisdom.
Unless there was a major collapse I didn't see, it looked like W was handling himself well.
Ok, here are some of Kerry's positions:
1) Give nuclear fuel to Iran.
2) Have bilateral talks in spite of the fact that we have tried those before and the only thing we achieved was lining the pockets of Kim Jong Il and giving him space and time to develop nukes.
3) Stop U.S. programs developing bunker busters and other tactical nukes. Where would we be is we cut all the military programs that Kerry has oppossed? We'd be screwed.
4) Put U.S. soldiers and diplomats in the hands of an international court system.
5) Sign onto the Kyoto treaty in spite of the fact that that treaty is larger designed to punish the U.S. for being economically powerful. Sign onto the Kyoto treaty in spite of the fact that the Senate (Democrats and Republicans) overwhelmingly voted to not ratify it.
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.