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.
Kerry wants the job because he is tired of sponging off his wife, and wants a house of his own.
I watched the debate with two other Republican friends. About a half hour into it I said, "Do the facial expressions President Bush is making remind you of Johnny Carson?" Both of my friends burst into laughter and said they had been thinking the exact same thing. One of my friends said, "Yes, and America loves Johnny Carson." Odd and subliminal, admittedly. But it was unmistakable.
What saddens me even more is the idea that we look upon these glorified press conferences as "debates." They have nothing to do with debates and one can define a win or a loss simply on the basis of who sweats the least. A real debate would give us more than sound bites and quick comebacks, but a windown into how the candidate thinks, what his core beliefs are, and where he is willing to compromise or not on a specific issue. A two hour debate on abortion would tell us more about these two men than any press conference or interview. I think in a debate like that Bush would win hands down.
Hard to say what he meant. He's so damn nuanced. Whether he's talking about Iraq or America, Kerry is vulnerable because of what he's said in the past about Iraq alone.
Ah, but Kerry was polished and smooth in his delivery; Bush spoke in simple sentences and repeated himself a LOT. And a lot of people look only at delivery and not substance. I think those people (I only hope that it is very few) will be persuaded by Kerry's smoothness to vote for him. W was having to be constantly on the defense; he's too much of a gentleman to put the truth about Kerry out there plainly. I pray that a majority of people watching will have the discerment to see that Bush is RIGHT in his defense and homeland security policies and that Kerry is just a naive, blowhard who WILL resort to lying; he knows W won't.
"Bush spoke in simple sentences and repeated himself a LOT"
Look back at the people who have debated bush and lost - see what they've said about his technique: Stays on topic, repeats same points over and over. Ma Richards has said this about him for years.
People make the mistake of projecting their habits onto others. Few people in the debate target audience are like freepers. They won't spend 90 minutes watching the debates. They may flip by and spend possible 5, 10 or 15 minutes there. THAT is why bush repeats the same things over and over again. He has a message he wants to get out, and he repeats it over and over again, because a lot of the audience won't be watching the next time he says it. They'll be watching the game or trading spaces or whatever else is on cable that night.
The campaigns asked the networks not to use reaction shots, the networks promptly told them to go take a flying leap and that they would shoot the debate as they saw fit.
Which is exactly the goal in a political debate: Stay on message! Scarborough put it best when he said tonight that experienced campaigners know that there's no such thing as repeating your message too many times.
Ask yourself what words people are likely to remember a week from now? Kerry's "global test," to Kerry's detriment, and Bush's central themes. A week from now, Bush is going to look pretty smart, I'd bet.
He is shoring up his base with "global test" , UN should have taken over when Baghdad fell, should have signed Global Warming Treaty and as Bush reminded him,Kerry voted for the international criminal court....but it will not pass the smell test with the majority of the voters..
His denigration of our allies does not lend confidence to "help is on the way"...His "we need more troops" statement does not line up with his expectations to bring troops home, he has called Bush a liar,despite his lapse of recalling it and the NY subway did not shut down during the convention..
He alluded that tired "no equipment" argument when he voted against the funding..I have yet to see his plan beyond what is already being done...He just touts his capacity to change France and Germany's mind...They say "no".
His statements about Iran and N Korea are downright scary and ignorant.
If one is against the war, believe we should just pull out and allow the UN to hold endless, meaningless debates about "the problem" that will be horrific if we do not stay the course..vote Kerry...
If one wants to trust Iran to "do the peaceful thing with enriched uranium",vote Kerry..If you trust NKorea to stick by an agreement with the US alone negotiating,vote Kerry...WE know what they did after Clinton paid blackmail to keep them from working on nuclear arms. They did it in secret...If one sthe good will of the UN and the diplomatic skills of a man who calls our allies window dressing, vote Kerry.
Maybe, but he's got a split base. He's got to pull some Southern Dems to win -- and I don't think that comment is going to fly far in Zell country.
I mean the dyed in the wool lefty liberals...,the pacifists and appeasers.He doesn't think he can win in the South and is counting on the big cities in his battleground states with promises of health care, education grants and "job creation"(hand outs) and vote buying.(over simplified)
Bush did the rabbit punching with Kerry. The red meat is going to be thrown with abandon in the Cheney/Edwards battle.
A former trial lawyer against a former SecDef, Congressman, current Vice President, and a guy who isn't afraid to bare knuckle with the best of them. After all he did tell Patrick Leahy to go fornicate with himself, didn't he? :-)
Edwards is a trial lawyer so he is accustomed to making"arguments"..I heard him sound really inarticulate and bumbling on a film clipp today so I don't think he can measure up to Cheney..certainly not on substance.
But the numbers don't add up. As Zell said, no Dem has ever won the WH without carrying some Southern states. And it's a sure bet Edwards is no help in getting WV for the Dems.
Kerry needed the big knockout in the first debate to change the perception among the public (not the Beltway media elite, but the regular people) that Bush is a steady hand. He didn't get that, though he scored points on rhetorical style.
Kerry may have solidified his base and those people already planning on voting for him, but he didn't get enough of a stumble (if any stumble at all) from Bush to generate any kind of long-lasting heat which he can put to good use on the campaign trail.
I can guarantee that by this next afternoon, the Bush folks will be out talking about Kerry's "global test", his support for the International Criminal Court and how his support for the Kyoto Protocols will cost real American jobs.
For Kerry's part, what did Bush really give him to hang his hat on? Not much that I could find, and I've read the debate text three times.
I don't think Edwards is even helping Kerry in Edwards' own home state (SC), is he?
Right now, Kerry doesn't have a single Southern state in his camp, it looks like.
That's a good one. I added to my favorites folder and will be using it tomorrow to counter some of my more liberal friends when they swoon in ecstasy about Kerry's so-called "win".
I love President Bush. My problem tonight was his missed opportunities - why didn't he point out that Kerry's Senate voting record has always been against strong national defense and intelligence? I think if President Bush would have hammered at that, maybe this election would indeed be over.Bush could have ended it right here and now. He didn't. Kerry lives to fight on. How sad.
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.