Posted on 09/30/2004 10:35:23 PM PDT by Pokey78
Bush looked and sounded tired. If the President is not tired by 9:00 P.M. he isn't working hard enough. I hope the general public keeps that in mind. The President has a day job, unlike Kerry, who has a no-show job.
Bush was also on the defensive a lot because he was going against 2 opponents, not one. Am I mis-remembering or did Lehrer actually ask Kerry to list Bush's lies as one of the questions? And then he asked Bush to list his mistakes.
Now there's an argument that wins elections in wartime -- not.
Can't wait until next week to hear Kerry's arguments on raising taxes. That should play well in Peoria, too. /s
Gotta remember...a lot of the sheeple think that the Democrats will raise taxes on everyone but them. They don't appreciate the simple fact that -- in the Democrats' eyes -- everyone making over 35K a year gross is "rich."
Gotta see this through the eyes of the non-political-wonk type. You and I can see right through Kerry's B.S., but there's a lot of Kool-Aid drinkers out there.
Three statements made by Kerry now need to be stressed: (1) "Global" support before using preemptive force; (2) Nuclear fuel for Iran; and (3) "unilateral disarmament". The President should focus on these three points, and ask: How do they, in the post 9/11 world, help in the fight on terrorism; how do they help keep America and her people safe?
I think a lot of us made the mistake of having heightened expectations for Bush, and lowered expectations for Kerry. Substantively, Kerry lost: his positions are logically untenable.
What mistake on the subway system??
For most Americans raising taxes is a vote killer.
No less the fact that Kerry would turn our foreign policy over to the UN.
Even alot of Democrats are rejecting that policy.
True, true...but the Democrats have (with the help of the Leftist media) painted Bush's tax cut as something that only helped the rich. So the sheeple don't see it as a "tax hike," but as a reversal of a cut that they've been told only affects "the rich."
No less the fact that Kerry would turn our foreign policy over to the UN. Even alot of Democrats are rejecting that policy.
I have yet to meet a single Democrat who doesn't think the U.N. isn't God's gift to World Peace or some silly notion like that. Who are these numerous Democrats to whom you refer? I ain't seen a one.
how about zell miller?
His verbal hesitations, repetitions and annoyed expressions were due to his physical tiredness, for which he has no-one but himself to blame. He and his staff should show some discipline for the next two debates.
dvwjr
Fair enough. That's one. So now we're at "alot - 1". Any others?
Won't even be mentioned. Look for the word Nixonian.
Kerry has talked the talk; however, Bush has walked the walk. End of debate.
I expected the President to be loaded for bear, armed with the finer points of comparison of these times to other times of war in U.S. history, such as when doves were crying over "not winning the peace" in Germany. I thought that maybe he would lash back at Kerry for his assertion that he could restore "credibility" to the Oval Office that would get Gulf War-era allies on board for Iraq when the fact is that Kerry voted against the Gulf War.
Armed with the newly discovered gift of the 1997 Kerry quote that 'France and Germany can't be counted on' to aid the U.S. in dealing with Saddam, I never figured he would keep that in his holster.
To use baseball lingo, when Kerry made his slanderous implication that oil profits and Halliburton's bottom line was a motivation for "the grand diversion" of Iraq, Bush stood and let it go by him like a 3-1 fastball down the middle.
It seemed to me that Kerry was ready for a response from Bush including the statement of fact that North Korea began their deal-breaking weapons-grade nuke experiments during the Clinton administration, and responded to a charge that Bush didn't make too strongly.
There were so many opportunities that could have been taken to set Kerry back on his heels. And Bush, seemingly out of respect for Kerry, didn't respond forcefully. Very strange for a guy whose enemies think he is combative and impulsive.
When Bush gave his acceptance speech at the RNC convention in 2000, I was shocked. For the past eight years, Al Gore's speaking stiffness was the stuff of legend, but Bush's podium manner was more rigid and tight than Presidential candidate I had ever witnessed (he edged out the monotonous Dukakis). Bush set the bar low for Gore, and after that awkward and embarrassing make-out session he and Tipper had on the platform, the then-VP gave the best speech of his life. Gore got a huge bounce out of it.
Bush got the post-election bounce this time around. And the first reports don't show that this debate has changed any of the numbers. But if Bush puts in another anemic performance on topics in which he is more vulnerable (not his strengths, national defense and homeland security), the results November 3rd could shock us all.
Many Democrats are going to vote for Bush.
Name for me please one modern national election where the great unwashed did not vote for style over substtance.
The author is right, Bush was flat-footed, repetitive, a little lost looking. Kerry was the opposite. That how it looked. That's how it will be portrayed. I'm disgusted because of what is at stake.
The KoolAid drinkers in this episode are the ones who can't see the damage.
Kerry made several gaffs. Did you notice the gaff about paying off the Europeans to get involved in Iraq?
_______________________
The time to hit those absurdities was last night, while the country was watching.
We'll see how much damage. I think you are right that Kerry came across better, but overall Bush was able to deliver his messages. No suprises in the debate means Bush should be declared winner. Kerry needed to defeat the Bush plan, not the other way around.
I believe this to be true. The average American is not interested in political savy and the winner of debates. They're interested in a leader. And a leader doesn't look for the Global-nod, or whatever Kerry said, to make its moves. In other words, we want a President who wont look to the UN first.
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.