Posted on 09/30/2004 9:32:20 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Edited on 09/30/2004 9:53:00 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts?page=1,50
Please do not post full text or even excerpts from USA TODAY. Headline & link only.
yes, I noticed that too.
Even on Fox there were plenty of shots of Bush side by side with Kerry. In each, Bush was looking at Kerry with disdain and anger. I dont know if he was pissed at what Kerry was saying about him or whether Bush just couldnt believe that he had to debate someone so tototally unqualified for the Presidency. But hearing parts of the debate later on the radio, Bush actually made sense in some parts where he was flayling on TV.
I'm thinking if he was ticked off, it's because he had to restrain himself out of debate strategery. Let kerry attack, making him look like the mean one, and absorb the body blows.
Agreed. An incumbant is naturally defending his record. In fact, it 's the obligation of the challanger to do just that: Challange.
Kerry did the nation a service tonight and forced Bush to defend his decision to go into Iraq. Bush defended his decision with passion and conviction in his own non-eloquent fashion.
Overall a substantive debate.
It sure is interesting how differently so many of us saw W's performance. I only caught the last half, but thought he was nervous, slurring many words and choosing some very poor and weak responses. I would definitely not describe him as 'composed'.
However Kerry came across as an excellent and effective debater, but not a great potential president. It reminded me of watching an impressive performance of King Lear. You can appreciate the performance, but know all along that you are watching an actor, not the real King Lear.
W. made his points, and all and all, I don't think it was a disaster, and I do think W. will do better next time. Unfortunately the first debate is the one that usually gets the biggest audience.
Good point. Let's look at how North Korea scores on the "Global Test" that Kerry mentioned in tonight's presidential debate:
·Kerry has criticized Bush on the campaign and during tonight's debate for not giving the U.N. and multilateral diplomacy a chance in Iraq before committing to military action
·Kerry said during the debate that "nuclear proliferation" is the biggest threat to America and pointed to North Korea as the major malefactor in that threat
·Since it was discovered North Korea was attempting to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in October 2002, Bush has used a multilateral diplomatic coalition of at least five nations (USA, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia) to contain the potential North Korean nuclear threat
·During tonight's debate, Kerry told America that to end North Korea's nuclear proliferation, he would hold bilateral talks rather than using the leverage that China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia would bring to the negotiations
In other words, Kerry said that America should take a unilateral approach (REMEMBER: Taking a "bilateral" approach i.e. having the USA deal directly with threats, has been called "unilateral" by Kerry earlier this month when he said in a campaign speech that Bush "has chosen to move in a unilateral way" in the War on Terror) in dealing with North Korea. Kerry himself described North Korea and "the spread of nuclear weapons was the biggest threat facing the United States" in Thursday night's debate—so why is Kerry willing to squander the international goodwill created by the Bush Administration's diplomats between China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia and "go it alone" with North Korea?
Does this mean Kerry doesn't think North Korea's nuclear weapons program passes the "Global Test" to have multilateral talks or is this just another example of Kerry's typical political tactic of trying to have it both ways.
Bump for a very astute and eminently quotable remark.
And, talk about recycling old terminology. I haven't heard that phrase being trotted out for at least a decade.
Plus, how is the "security" crowd going to take Kerry's vow to stop our nuclear program? It was one thing to say that during the Cold War, but another thing entirely to think that way during an era when terrorists are developing these weapons. Does he think that they will be as slow to use they as when the USSR -- who didn't want to die -- faced off with us? Terrorists don't care if they kill us and them both. They just want us dead.
I'm watching the rerun of CNN .... They did a focus group???
Kingattax
I couldn't say it better.
When I heard that I thought exactly the same thing. All Bush needs to do is put that phrase in a campaign ad and this race is over. The Fat Lady is warming up.....
IMO, he's a dead man walking when voters really begin to understand what he said. End our nuclear research program? Give nuclear fuel to Iran just to see what they'll do with it? Pass a global test before defending our country? The man is evil.
That is his nature, you, him or I can't stop that. It is his signature, given to him by GOD.
I agree that most W supporters are emotionally attached, to borrow your term. Everyone wanted to witness a crushing triumph over Kerry. We all knew it probably wouldn't happen, and it didn't. At the time of the debate, I felt it was a draw or a slight Bush win. Now, looking back, I think W inflicted numerous pinprick wounds that can exsanguinate the Kerry campaign. Add that to the fact that he smashed several lines, such as the "Global Test." That's not to say there weren't missed opportunites, but I think W and Co. would prefer not to focus too much on rebuttal and attack--that smacks of desperation.
The more folks think about what happened, the more they will realize Kerry didn't say much of anything, and to the extent that he did it was slightly to the left of Mao Zedong (and as practical as well--Mao is probably the most incompetent leader in world history). Bush did appear irked a few times, but that is a natural reaction when being insulted. I think cool detachment would have been worse in the public eye. Also, Kerry nodding in seeming agreement with every point W made was, in my opinion, much more damaging. Anyway, I have great faith in the American people figuring this out for themselves--unlike the Dems, we believe in the wisdom and the self-reliance of the individual. Eternal optimism, people! Victory is never won by defeatism (just ask JK).
thank you.
And these are the things that will be hammered by the Bush campaign over the next 24-48 hours. What did Bush give the Kerry campaign to hammer? Not much... style points, maybe. But that may well come off as petty... probably because it is petty.
I agree.
Also, upon further reflection I don't think G.W. just won in substance. I think he trapped Kerry into stating several positions that are going to prove damaging. His statement about WMD over the border being one. Once people move beyond the image battles, Kerry is left vulnerable. There is a reason the media is trying to spin this as a draw and move off the subject quickly.
Not to mention that his new manicure will look good in the Oval Office.
In the end, Americans often end up voting for the guy they'd go out and have a beer with. I'm sure Kerry doesn't even drink beer -- and we know he doesn't eat at Wendy's. Too patrician -- and it showed in his voice. That's a turn off to me and I can't help but think it turns off others as well.
Looking at it from Kerry's perspective, Kerry didn't even convince a single viewer.
What???
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.