OK ... ABOUT THE DEBATE (BOORTZ ON THE DEBATE)

I actually stayed up to watch the so-called "debate." It's now before 5:00 am and I drawing some notes together. No problem ... I can always take a nap this afternoon and, after all, it's not like my job requires any heavy lifting.

It looked like Bush was a bit slow getting started. The hesitations in his language stand out in contrast to the determined rhetoric of John Kerry. It's probably wiser to listen to the actual words being said rather than the hesitations. There's enough "ahs" and "uhs" during one of my shows to drive anyone nuts.

Kerry failed to make any convincing case that his "plan" for Iraq was any different than what George Bush is doing over there now.

The debates were basically boring and a bit stifled. Could this possibly be because that's exactly what the candidates wanted? They don't want an open confrontation with their opponents. We should demand it. Wouldn't it have been great just to see these two men sit on opposite sides of a table for ninety minutes and just go after each other? That way the voters really would have learned something.

Strong moment for Bush? There was one Kerry line that Bush used to good effect; Kerry's line that this was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." How, Bush asked, would Kerry ask European allies to send their troops to a battlefield for the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place?" And what kind of message are you sending our troops when you tell them you are fighting the wrong war, you're fighting it at the wrong place, and you're fighting it at the wrong time?

This, more than anything else from last night's debate, is the most revealing admission from The Poodle. He was asked by Lehrer about his position on the concept of preemptive war. What he let slip should give everybody a very good reason to not even dream about voting him into office.

Here is what he said: " But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Oh really? So basically what he is saying...is that the United States is not allowed to defend itself unless and until:

We pass the "global test." That means that if attacked, we shouldn't defend ourselves unless France think's it's okay. We prove to the world that we did it for "legitimate reasons." Really...so who decides whether or not our reasons were "legitimate?" Our leaders, or world leaders? What meets the standard of that legitimacy? Does the U.N. have final say? In all candor I have to say that John Kerry will be considered to be the winner, whatever that means, of last night's confrontation. He didn't win on policy, he won on smoothness. When I was practicing law there were many times when opposing counsel showed more style and class in presenting their case to a jury. Didn't matter. I had the facts on my side ... and my client came out on top. As for Bush and Kerry: It's what they said, not how they said it. I just hope we have an electorate that can figure this out.

What the hell was THAT all about? At one point in the debate last night George Bush referred to these bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists .. murderous bastards who shoot children in the back ... as "a group of folks." Group of folks? I saw a group of folks gobbling hamburgers at the airport yesterday. They weren't plotting ways to kill as many Americans as they possibly could. They weren't plotting their next assault on a school ... possibly practicing with some target practice on pictures of children. Group of folks? How about "These are bloodthirsty killers with the technology, the means and the intention to murder tens of thousands of Americans."

Despite a decent performance, you don't think The Soufflé made it all the way through a public debate without a few whoppers, do you? Of course not. There were some big ones...we'll hit the high spots.

Jim Lehrer asked sKerry about the times he has accused the president of lying about Iraq. The Poodle replied that "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." In other words, Kerry says he never directly accused President Bush of lying. Let's go to the tape.

In December 2003, Kerry told a New Hampshire editorial board that Bush had lied about his reasons for going to Iraq. In September of that same year, Kerry did the same thing saying "this administration has lied to us." So if he thinks Bush is lying about Iraq, then he is lying about not accusing the president of being a liar, which he clearly has done. John Kerry has a problem with the truth. He just makes it up as he goes along.

Another example was when The Poodle was talking about Bush protecting the homeland. Kerry said "That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there." The only problem with this?

Yep. ..you guessed it...the New York City subway did not close at all during the convention.

Well, isn't that nice. On the way to the debate yesterday John Kerry stopped to get a manicure. Now that's the way to identify with the common man in America .. .get a manicure. Nothing wrong with manicures ... but my guess is that less than one percent of the people who are likely to vote for Kerry have ever had one. He would have been better off going to sit in a middle class barbershop somewhere. Speaking of barbershops .... I wonder if The Poodle flew his groomer down to Miami for a bit of a touch-up before the debate.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS POST:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232070/posts?page=51#51

Bush built the container or the house to destroy Kerry.... Kerry is running water---- Bush let him run freely as he prepared the frames of the container to keep the aqueous behavior of Kerry... the house was successfully built...it is ugly and dirty work, that is why Bush worked so hard and let Kerry run.
The container was built on three key principles:
1. Kerry is a flip-flop politician
2. Kerry is a globalist proUN proWorld Court
3. Kerry is anti/weak on defense and poor for morale

Bush contained and framed these key "currents" of this liquid chameleon Kerry. Bush can now beat the hell out of Kerry within the house in which Bush framed. Kerry can't move. The only way for Kerry to escape is by exploding the frame, which will destroy his campaign... he'll have to embrace these "currents"....

Bush has won, he was winning the debates... not the debate.

And you won't hear this until that dark mousy curly haired Krauthammer speaks on Fox... then all the news hacks will pick it up.... and I don't get paid for this... those stupid losers in the beltway press get all the doe.

Oh, because I can't spell

51 posted on 09/30/2004 10:45:26 PM CDT by Porterville (Men have learned to shoot without missing ...and I have learned to fly without perching on a twig)

.
Global test?

They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.

Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.