Posted on 09/30/2004 7:48:13 PM PDT by wagglebee
Better him than the fingerpointing supercilious frenchified dandy, John Kerry.
I noticed that too. Bush is not good at timing answers in a debate. He should know what he is going to say before he says it, and it seemed like he was barely keeping up. Almost as if he had waited till the last minute to prepare.
Kind of like if an organic chemistry student waits till the last week to study for an exam. A definite no-no. You make time to practice. Let Cheney/Rice handle affairs for awhile..they're good at it.
And this suprises you? The GOP is always walking around with giant "kick me" signs on their posteriors.
I totally agree. Kerry knew what was coming before Lehrer finished his questions. Also, how could any THINKING (let me highlight that word!) person read through those questions and not see how obviously slanted they are????
Of course, Bush looked tired. He had put in a full day of work as Our President, while Fruity Frenchy was out having his nails done.
Well, Huh? I may not be the best typist, but Kerry succeeded in fooling some of the people for mostly Nothing, this is A Senator from the pathetically sad State of Massachusetts.. we have mandated gay marriage, moved fire plugs and orange tans, afterall... you probably DON"T have a problem with that?
President Bush did ok. The debate that scared me the most was the first debate in 1984 where President Reagan came out flat. In the next debate he made his comment about not holding his opponent's youth and inexperience against him. After that remark, everyone forgot the first debate.
W was following the first rule for an effective speaker:
THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
He was not like Robo-man with his preprogrammed "insert-card-here" ramblings.
I can understand why you say that. But perhaps you and I had different goals in mind than the Bush campaign.
While we might have wanted Bush to "win" the debate point for point, Karl Rove might have had a different goal. Karl is focused on only one goal--getting 270 electoral college votes.
Karl Rove knows where we already have those votes and where we aren't going to get those votes and where this debate could contribute toward the goal of 270 votes. (bty, I've worked with Rove on several campaigns)
There probably was one or two messages targeted at one or two demographic groups that could make a difference in key states.
My guess is the Bush campaign wanted to leave an indelible image in the minds of "security moms" that we must win in Iraq if their children are to be safe, and that Kerry's anti-war position will put their children at risk.
Note that both candidates took a hard line on winning Iraq even tho the current official position of the Kerry campaign is "wrong war at wrong place at wrong time."
Bush snookered Kerry.
"Strange at home; Rejected abroad".
Poor answer. Reagan was over 70, put in a full day and still looked and sounded rested and ready in 84.
Bush is not Reagan, and this is not 1980.
This was not a real 'debate,' it was a journalistic interview.
That being said, knowing that it was lefty that was tossing the questions, Bush only had to come across as sharp and sincere to score points. There really is no 'winner' in this type of an interview. It's campaigning with a liberal moderator, of course Kerry is to be favored to win. From what I saw of it, though, I thought Bush did fine, and that Kerry didn't do what he needed to do stop the tremendous snowball that is his campaign charging downhill.
The Leftist commentators that are trying to spin this as a Kerry win have missed one critical point: Bush disproved their constant attacks on his intelligence. Anyone who was undecided because they had assumed Bush was stupid, will now be forced to consider him seriously.
Of course, Bush looked tired. He had put in a full day of work as Our President, while Fruity Frenchy was out having his nails done.
Poor answer. Reagan was over 70, put in a full day and still looked and sounded rested and ready in 84.
Yes, but Reagan wasn't fighting a war on terror.
Kerry has not changed one bit since he did his lying testismony on VietNam. The troops were rapists, murderers, torturers then, now they are out there playing a grand diversion in Iraq. I cannot believe that ANY veteran would support his man.
As to PBS and Lehrer, why should anyone expect anything impartial? They actually gave the DNC their subscriber list for a number of years.
The bias was obvious, but only to those who actually know how to listen and analyze. Unfortunately so many have been brainwashed by msm, public education, and tv programming.
He must have known something. I've heard him stumble thru simpleton questions on daytime talk shows.
The problem is, this was supposed to be about which man would be best to lead us in this terrorist world we live in, not just Iraq. Of course we should have had questions about Kerry's record as well, and there were none, NONE. Foreign policy is so important, and I certainly recall Bush being taken to the woodshed when he was running for not knowing enough about it. Why was Kerry given such a pass?
Again, Reagan was almost 20 years older, had been shot, put in a full days work and still was ready for the challenge in 84. No excuse for the President. The President looked more rested at the end of the day on 9/11 (probably the most difficult and trying day of his administration) than he did tonight.
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.