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.
Ever been to a debate after spending your days and nights running a country? He was tired and needs to consider getting some serious rest before next week.
What you've described is exactly how I view Kerry. With disdain and a poor excuse for a candidate with whom W has to waste his time.
Good point.
Kerry may have "won" style. However style doesn't cut it post 9/11.
Had 9/11 happened during the Clinton administration and Clinton reacted legally (as was his style) coupled with a weak military attack (missles up a camel's butt comes to mind) I tend to think a candidate like President Bush would have blown him out of the water.
Those who say Kerry won are those scoring the debate as if it was an Olympic Sporting event. They are judging style. But the everyday, workaday person wants to know what is going to be done to keep another 9/11 from happening in our own neighborhoods.
I tried to watch the debate with the mindset of an undecided, but to no avail. I am too committed to President Bush. I think an undecided may have come away with "but what is Kerry going to do?" He was negative and in an attack mode.
But the President has this under his belt and now has the best preparation possible for the next one.
No. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the President was not at the top of his game -- stylistically. At times he looked tired, nervous, and sometimes frustrated (understandibly, I might add). Substantively, he was great. The Gallup flash poll confirms that although people considered Kerry to have "won" the debate (just as Gore "won" two of three debates), Bush won on just about every other issue, including all the substantive issues such as who is better to handle Iraq and who would be the better commander in chief. And Kerry made lots of mistakes that Bush simply didn't make. In a few days the one thing people are going to remember from this debate is "global test."
Do you buy a car from every slick salesman ?
Of course the debating style of Senator Kerry does not win over the reliable substance of President Bush.
I agree 100%! The tv talkers were all about style over substance, they didn't catch any of the outright lies Kerry told. Those lies will be pointed out all over the internet and talk radio, shaping opinions in the coming days, and be reflected in the polls that matter on last night's debate.
Oh, absolutely. And on that particular issue, and just about every other substantive issue, Bush clobbered Kerry among debate watchers, at least according to Gallup's post-debate flash poll. Again, Kerry probably won on style (only because the President wasn't on top of his game last night), but Bush won much bigger on substance.
btw......welcome to FR, brand newbie.
Rudy Guiliani mentioned that Kerry said in the beginning that Hussein wasn't a danger to us and at the end he mentioned that Hussein WAS a danger. I missed that so I may not have quoted this correctly. It's the usual Kerry lingo.
The debate demonstrated that it's good to be on the offensive!
When Kerry said his #1 priority would be "Nuclear Proliferation", and then underscored that with a committment to CUT OUR bunker-busting bomb building program, Bush had a huge opportunity to cream Kerry with his own record of opposing key weapons programs over 20 years. Kerry's first example of nuclear proliferation was finding fault with the U.S., typical of leftist guilt-think. I hope the advisors pick this up and W is ready to cream him the next time. This could be a K.O. punch if landed correctly.
Kerry's "WIN" of the debate wasn't a win on the issues. It was a "win" as far as speaking his mind a bit more clearly, even though in the end he still came out as an indecisive candidate. Bush was still strong on the issues at hand, which is what really matters here, and kerry was not. THIS Is why Bush still remains ahead in the polls, the debate isn't about who spoke more smoothly, but about who proved themselves on their stance behind the issues!
I disagree, I think he should have had tons of lists, stats, analogies and phrases loaded into his head and he should have been rattling them off like a machine gun. He should have had Zell Miller be his head coach.
Agree 100%!! Kerry was smooth last night, but he also made much more major mistakes than Bush did. Other than not making a smooth delivery, Bush did fairly well. Like Dick Morris said last night, Kerry won on style but Bush won on substance.
After a couple of days of analyzing this debate experts will come to the conclusion that neither had a knockout punch. On the other hand I believe Kerry left himself open on two counts which will cause him further questioning in regards to the "global test" awnser and giving nuclear material to Iran. I was just shaking my head at these two statements. Where did he come up with this from? I thought we were trying to get rid of WMDS and yet he wants to give nuclear material to Iran for supposingly energy purposes. Are you kidding me Iran has all the energy sources they need right now with oil. Then the global test question of checking with the french and germans before taking care of U.S. citizens. Thanks John but no thanks I'm not interested in the President doing a global test before my security is taken care of. I believe these two statements will further erode Kerry's internals on handling terrorism and Iraq.
Doesn't Kerry look like he has make-up on in this photo!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041001/ids_photos_ts/r2030787593.jpg
Looks like a woman.
Kerry was amazingly articulate about the reasons we shouldn't vote for him:
1) a world test to defend the US
2) mixed and defeatist messages to the world and our troops is a good thing.
3) we should help the Iranians in their efforts to become a nuclear power - they'd like us more if we did that.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/index.htm#postid975
Kerry’s comment stating that President Bush “outsourced” the fighting in Tora Bora was a direct slap in the face of all Special Operations soldiers. The whole Afghan campaign is a classic “Unconventional Warfare” scenario. A UW mission is one where teams of Green Berets enter a denied area (Afghanistan) and train a rebel force to overthrow a rogue government. Our Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan accomplished in weeks, what Alexander the Great and the Soviet Union could not accomplish in years. John Kerry is an idiot.
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.
