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 sounded like he read from a script... He is the quintisential politician... will lie right to your face ... blah blah blah... and I'm John Kerry and you should just trust me blah blah blah... He is an empty suit...
George W Bush came off as Human and humble and decisive and REAL... So the question is do you want a president that is a leader and real or do you want a fake empty suit...
Precisely. This was Kerry's chance to clobber GW and he failed to connect.
Probably more frustrated than "flustered". He had to stand there & listen to lie after lie. I hated this forum. Give them a real debate where they actually go one on one.
Feeling sick to my stomach.
Relax. You've been absorbing too much hype. You'll feel better after a good night's sleep.
I agree, Bush did a better job. At one point Kerry even seemed confused, and I had a hard time following him early on. Bush was clear, concise and stayed on target.
W needs to stop with the facial movements and the crap he does with his lips...stop right now....
So does this mean that the debates didn't make one iota of difference? Tht's ok, I didn't watch it anyway. My mind was made up a LONG time ago, so it wasn't going to sway me either way.
Still saddens me people think Kerry "won."
LOL Kerry didn't win. What is winning anyway? To say we are wrong to free millions of people? To inadvertently say Sadam should still be in power and the World would be safer? To suggest that North Korea would be better dealing with the US directly? To verbally degrade our efforts in Iraq, if that is Winning then you can have that Winner. I'll stick with Bush he is my Winner!!
I agree. That's the sort of comment that needs a day or so to "gel" before it makes an impact on perceptions.
While John Kerry put the President on the defense tonight in debate #1 and while the President lacked a certain fire in the belly in many of his responses, the Senator did not specifically explain what his policy would be with regards to Iraq, if he became POTUS. Also, Kerry didn't adequately explain what his policy is on the overall WoT.
Attacking the President is fine, if you offer legitimate alternatives to his actual policy. In tonights debate, Kerry offered no substantive alternative. Except to say he would work to get the UN, France, Germany and Russia more involved in Iraq. I've got news for ya Senator. The UN, France, Germany and Russia weren't there when America needed them early on and there is no evidence they would get involved at this late date.
Exactly right! My point is that the ONLY thing he EVER says, about "bringing in our allies and the UN" is a non-starter, because they have all taken bribes from Saddam. Saddam is out of the picture now, but the fact that we were stabbed in the back by our "allies" still hasn't dawned on Kerry. Perhaps he is just too "nuanced".
the only thing he won on was attacking.
Fromthe live thread, most people were complaining that bush wasn't attacking.
They forget that attacks BY the candidate turn the swing voters off. attacks by proxy (commercials, spokesmen, other politicans) DO work. But having the candidate do attacks is VERY dangerous. Kerry had to take that risk because he's so far behind. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't win even if he succeeded on leveling numerous attacks. Because the voters will see HIM as the attacker.
For those that doubt this, recall lazio / hillary 2000.
The counter attack will be done over the next week by all parts of the RNC machinery. And bush's hands will be clean while the kerry campaign takes the brunt of the blows.
Too many people fret and panic over the little things and forget the big picture.
Bush won on substance and character
Hurrah and I'll second that!!!
Maybe Republicans are yet again self-flagellating, because the poll obviously shows that a majority believes that Bush lost, yet Kerry lost ground on the TOPIC of the debate!! Bush obviously won among some undecideds and that Republicans are beating up their candidate as usual. Odd.
I think the overall effect will be:
Kerry will have slightly reduced negatives and possibly slightly higher positives.
Bush's positives and negatives will not change.
Some of what Kerry said tonight will be used in GOP commercials, juxtaposed against prior statements, or put into context.
Nothing that Bush said will make it into DNC commercials.
Overall, I think Kerry was playing to win. Bush was playing to not lose. Kerry is the marginal winner of the debate in the short term. The long term effect is a wash or slight advantage to Kerry.
Post debate spin counts too. We need to remember that some of the mistakes that Kerry made are going to come out and that will seal his doom.(Nuclear fuel to Iran) Bush played it like an incumbent not trying to make a big mistake. It will all work out and I know Karl Rove is licking his chops to get out and finish this campaign in style.
"Kerry landed alot of punches on the president, but no KO."
Correction: Kerry THREW a lot of punches, not a lot of them landed. Bush played defense. Just like he was doing during summer where many freepers were in panic mode.
Maybe free republic needs to hand out valium during the debates, because some people need 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.