Posted on 10/01/2004 11:59:47 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
Ping...MUD
I think most would agree that Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance - and which would you rather have?
BEFORE the debate - Brit Hume said: 78% of President Bush's current supporters want him to keep us in Iraq and if possible do more militarily to fight the war on terror.
plus
something like 28% of Kerry's supporters think we must do more militarily to defeat the terrorists! So President Bush with his much stronger stand and steadiness in this war WENT IN with a strong advantage and did nothing to hurt that advantage - increased it if anyone with eyes and ears was paying attention!
Absolutely correct.
Kerry has no plan.
If he had a 'plan' he'd impart tell people what his vision is.
His problem is he has double vision, he sees and says one thing one day, and capitulates the next.
He's like an ostrich - a big bird with his head in the sand. He gives a lot of flap, but he can't fly!
After reading all the negative comments about Bush I was afraid to watch but when I did I was pleasantly surprised.
Bush did GREAT! He was fresh and strong.
Wow, that's pretty good :)
You know, it's been said that the smartest of us are not easy to understand. I think that Bush team is pretty good.
So we will see, but we have to go and VOTE! It's not finished yet.
As expertly pointed out by El Rushbo today, isn't it telling that the DemonRATS' post-debate video relates entirely to a compilation of the faces, smirks, sighs etc. uttered or displayed by Dubyuh, while the GOP's post-debate spin centers on quoting Kerry verbatim, then offering evidence as to how what Hanoi John says is UNTRUE!!
The contrast is damning...MUD
Ping...MUD
Insight Magazine has insight, who would have guessed? Excellent points made.
Which means 72% of Kerry's supporters want US to do less or the same...if Kerry were to win the Presidency, does anybody really believe Kerry would alienate 3/4ths of his base by doing what is necessary to win the War on Terror?!
No, Kerry would waver, despite lying and saying he NEVER wavers...MUD
Hey Mud,
I had not read this yet. Good find!
I posted last night that once people started dissecting what was actually said last night that Kerry would be the loser. Great find!
"if you take out the part about the foreign nations, Senator Kerry doesn't really have a plan."
quite true; saying you "have a plan, a plan" "doesn't make it so . . ."
You cannot win the debate on style and not on substance. That is NOT "winning the debate"!
He was a "stylistic" bag of hot air. That is as much as I will concede.
You fundamentally cannot convince people that you are a better candidate to run this war, by merely POSITING that you would be. And for those judging the debate on "debating points" -- it is considered a failed argument if you hold up an argument only supported by ASSERTION. Kerry offered NO PROOF or CONVINCING LOGIC.
Bush DID attack this lack of support for Kerry's basic position, which boils down to "I would be better than President Bush BECAUSE I SAID SO." President Bush pointed out how his criticism of our allies undermine not only the alliance, but in effect, KERRY'S WHOLE PLAN which is posited upon alliances. This was a knock-out blow, logically cutting Kerry's plan into shreds.
Bush WAS convincing in this. I don't see why people are falling all over themselves to give Kerry a debate win on "style" or "debating points." You cannot WIN a debate on "style or debating points" if your assertions are unsupported and your logic is internally inconsistent. He should have been called "out" on debating points, and perhaps merely praised as a glib speaker for people who like that smarmy approach to discourse . . . .
IOW Bush won the debate. The Gallup poll overnight proved it: Kerry did not convince people! His arguments did not did not hold water and failed to convince people, so he LOST the DEBATE!
Guys, please do not succumb to this media-driven analysis of "winning the debate" by agreeing that you can win a debate by out-glib-tonguing the opponent. You have to win the ARGUMENT in order to win the debate, and Kerry did NOT. He Lost!
Should I go on? ;)
As noted above, if Kerry wasn't a "Senator Of Bafflement" (Limbaugh's way to call Hanoi John an "S.O.B." fer those non-dittoheads), he'd alienate either 28% or 72% of his Base. Therefore, he must continue to talk outta both sides of his mouth fer the next month or risk an even greater LANDSLIDE!!
FReegards...MUD
feel even better about the debates ping...
PING to Yoshida
Thank-you bttt
A person who is adept at debating can take any position and sound convincing.
In a presidentail election it is not who wins but the one you believe.
I trust and believe in Bush.
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.