Posted on 10/01/2004 3:09:50 PM PDT by Steven W.
Hugh on fire with the correct analysis on last night's debate.
We need a fast response 527 to pick up on that!
You have nailed it. Rush said the same time many times over today: The key to realizing that Kerry lost is looking at what Kerry said.
Note to Hugh: I think when Kerry said "WMD moving across the border" he meant "terrorists" as that's the talking point that there are more terrorists in Iraq now and they're streaming across the border. He either misspoke or really meant WMD in which case he needs to expand on this point.
No, this was just a prologue to the point that Kennedy invoked the sanctions FIRST, then informed the French (through Acheson) of his decision.
Saber said Bush won on style and substance. Kerry didn't know what he was doing last night. His job was to look the purple states and the security Moms in the eye and persuade them he could keep them safe. Instead he spent the entire debate looking deeply into the eyes of Jim Lehrer, trying to get a PBS anchor man to vote for him.
Hugh asked Saber for his reactions to Kerry's promise to stop the development of nuclear bunker busters and replayed the tape. Saber said it made no sense because the bunker busters were our only deterrent against hostile nukes deep under the earth.
Also, on North Korea, Saber pointed out that Kerry criticized Bush for taking unilateral action on Iraq when we had over 70 nations in the Coalition of the Willing, yet he wants us to go it alone with North Korea and brush aside the Group of Six.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Interestingly, viewers also thought Gore won the first Bush-Gore debate in 2000 -- when they were asked about it immediately afterward. When viewers were polled a couple of weeks later, Bush was identified as the clear "winner."
I don't know what kind of dynamic is at work that ends in that kind of result, but someone suggested on Don Imus' radio show earlier this week that this is often the case.
I think it's both. He said as much on Fox. He's wrong.
43 per cent undecideds said Kerry won...28 percent said Bush won and 29 per cent said that it was a tie. Another words 57 percent said that Kerry had one or had not made them change positions on their views. Not much advantage for Kerry...don't you think?
Agree .. I think that is what he meant
However, I'm wondering what Kerry was talking about Nuclear Facilities in Iraq not being guarded
I found that odd since the Dems claim Saddam didn't have those kinds of WMD
Those numbers will be fluid for some time because the undecideds take forever to to decide. Remember how the spin of the left changed peoples minds about Anita Hill after a year?
A conservative frienf who sat in the gallery for the Oliver North hearings in 1987 commented on this issue. He said that when you read the transcripts of the hearings, you walked away somewhat appalled at how dysfunctional the White House had gotten. When you heard North testifying, you were ready to shout "Amen!"
Or, as he summed it up: "True North is not Magnetic North."
Hugh: Saying Kerry won is like saying the Titanic beat the iceberg.
LOL
Someone posted this on another thread.
Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0504-11.htm
Here is kind of a different opinion.........I thought Bush won by a landslide last night..without a doubt..I am a middle-aged (UGH!) mother...so from a woman's point of view, Bush may have won the debate for more women...NEXT..Bush spent the day visiting hurricane victims...Kerry spent the day getting a MANICURE!!!...NOW in my plotting mind I came up with this.......What if ...The Republicans know Bush is way ahead on the terrorism issue, but on the economy & domestic issues not as high..SO..what if they had Bush tone it down so he & Kerry would tie..Bush would not lose much, if any points...BUT he would be considered the underdog in the next debate, therefore it would be easier for him to exceed expectations......I know ..I have to much time on my hands..but a thought..............By the way..Who is the moderator of the next debate in MO...Prediction: Cheney will mop the floor with Edwards!
Mr. Richard Cheney is one of the smartest men in Wash. Forget what the leftist media says about their guys, Cheney is tops. When Joe Lieberman got through with his debate with Cheney, he knew he had lost, no ifs ands or buts. Cheney will handle Mr. Edwards, like he would a fifth grader.
Bush had a task to make his message clear -- to communicate directly with the people and portray a contrast in simple terms. If he tried to systematically refute all of Kerry's false statements or pathetically naive assumptions, he would have wasted his time and failed at that task.
In fact, I would not be surprised if some of that stuff was dropped in as bait to try and get Bush to appear argumentative and petty.
Bush did very well, and frankly I was more concerned after Kerry's speech at the convention than after last night.
I had the feeling Bush wanted to say on numerous occasions that Kerry could not be taken seriously at all with what he was saying, and ridicule was certainly in order, but that would have rocked the boat in a manner imprudent for someone in his position. His opening 'that's ludicrous' was the closest he got.
It's sort of like the Clinton phenomenon. Some of the BS ends up sticking to the wall simply because it's being applied with a firehose.
I certainly hope he's wrong. I tend to respect his instincts, though, unfortunately. But everybody's wrong some of the time!
O'R is on.....I don't know if I can listen..
Thanks for the link .. and yes I remember reading many things back this about this issue (I bookmarked many of the articles :0)..)
But my point was .. the Dems claim Saddam was not a threat .. that he didn't have nuclear material (Joe Wilson) .. He didn't have any kind of WMD and he wasn't a threat
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.