Posted on 10/12/2004 7:20:19 AM PDT by jmstein7
He was offering involved and self-contradictory statements in debates in 1963. That's when I debated against his Liberal Party at Yale in the Political Union, and beat them. LOL.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "America Fails the 'Global Test' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Good for you. Similar point to what Rush was making yesterday on his show. Rush reeled off all of John Kerry's quotes including the word 'but'. That wasn't as impressive by itself until Rush reminded listeners just what the word 'but' means. If George Bush were to start off by reminding the audience of Kerry's tendency to preface all his statements and what the word 'but' actually infers, it would leave Kerry virtually speechless. The audience will spend the entire night listening for the word and not paying attention to what Kerry is actually saying (not that it should matter...).
In watching debate number 2 it was quite evident that Kerry did not like being called a Liberal. Calling him a liberal early and often causes Kerry to respond about 'labels' and gets him off stride.
I understand that Rush is also an advisor to the Bush campaign.
Man I really did like the notion of inserting the military poll, but somehow my instincts says don't quote polls.....
They drive ME crazy because they BECOME the story, and we now have so many fraudulent polls (of which I am now aware of because of my new association with this website! :) Not a good move IMHO........
Interesting.
I think the President did this in the last debate, just far more tactfully than you are suggesting. Unfortunately for Bush, the winner of these debates have been based upon who scores more in the "attack" aspect of the debate, then in the substance aspect of the debate.
Frankly, I think Rove and company were concerned that the President was leading too soon. They new they were going to get a strong performance from Kerry in the first debate.
A sitting President during a war, with a small lead, must move a little more cautiously. Kerry has nothing to lose...throw the "kitchen sink" and hope you hit something. Heading into the last few weeks, with Bush in commanding lead can't really attack John Kerry and expose his record for what it is. People might actually start feeling sorry for Kerry. In what appears to be a much closer races, its no-holds-barred, and Kerry has less ground to stand on.
Sorry.
I read another post you made on the same subject. That one was good too.
One thing's for sure. The bar is low for Bush in this debate and the Democrats are already talking about how Kerry will win. Bad strategy. Perhaps they don't realize Kerry lost on domestic issue questions during the last debate.
Billybob
It is excellent advice. He needs the knockout line as you said. "You can run but you can't hide" served its useful purpose, but he needs a better line in the 3rd debate. Something in response to the common Kerry refrain of "I have a plan". GWB should ask pointedly, "Is that plan, A,B, or C"?
No problem. I appreciate your being out there battling for the good guys.
I heard Rush talk about it too. My wife actually deserves the credit because she caught it during the first debate, before Rush or I did. Once I thought about it I watched for it during the second debate, and there it was.
As to Rush, I like listening to Rush but he's not always the first to notice something. < grin >
Billybob
Excellent point made about criticism being Kerrys only play. I have hoped that the President would talk to the American people about this in the debates myself.
He needs to communicate something to the effect of "This is an election and I understand that an election means my opponents will attack me and our successes. But, it is not just my success that we have had the last four years, it is all of Americas success and I will not allow somebody to cast a shadow on our countries success just because they want to be President. There are a great many accomplishments that Americans can be proud of and I will stand up for those accomplishments on behalf of all Americans"...... etc, etc.
Also, I think that they have missed an opportunity to point out how much more valuable it is to have Afghanistan and Iraq as allies in the WOT than France and Germany.
Everything sounds good but how do you get the mainstream media from spinning a victory for Bush if this works to a victory for skerry. What's the plan for the media? Even if sherry does sh!ty in the debate the media will find a way to make it smell like roses.
I'm tryin' :)
You're primary point, though, is good. Here's my take.
First of all, Bush shouldn't repeat Kerry's charge in his rebuttal. Repeating the charge, even in rebutting it, implants it deeper in the viewer's mind. Second, he needs to state clearly, "You have no plan other than criticizing my plan."
I like, "Is that your final answer?"
This is the prosecution of the president throughout. President Bush needs to give Americans a Civics lesson and explain what happens in Congress and the opportunities that John Kerry had during his time there and did nothing.
I really enjoyed reading your suggestions to Karl Rove and offer this with regard to Homeland Security - this point came from a really great op-ed the other day:
"He (John Kerry) said American ports are not secure. This is true. But in reality terrorists do not need to send their destructive terror through the ports. There are so many ways they could hit America and the rest of the civilized world that only their diabolic imagination sets the limit. We really can’t protect ourselves everywhere. If you try to secure the airports by checking the passengers, they could blow themselves up in the crowded lines while waiting to be checked. They could attack schools, subways, busses, hospitals, restaurants, water-reservoirs, shopping malls…, the list is end less. Can we really secure all these places? So the point is moot. Yes it would be nice to secure the ports but does that make America any safer? What if atomic bombs are delivered to various ports and detonated simultaneously while waiting inspection? What Sen. Kerry is proposing will only make Americans spend more money for a false sense of security."
Later in the same article, the author continues:
"Senator Kerry plans to fight terrorism defensively. The problem is that no amount of defensive measures can eliminate the risk of being hit again. President Bush favors preemptive war, or in other words he wants to fight this war in the backyard of those who started it, instead of fighting it in the cities of the United States. Whether he will succeed or not remains to be seen. But the fact is that no war has ever been won by fighting defensively. So, although there is no guarantee that the President’s plan will succeed, the failure of Sen. Kerry’s plan in fighting terrorism defensively is foregone."
It is truly a well thought out and considered article and it makes devastating blows to John Kerry's arguements. I truly suggest you read the entire piece.
It was on FR, but I don't know how to find it to give you that info other than to say it's called "Kerry for President? An Election Like No Other" and it was written by Ali Sina.
Here's the link to read it (leaves FR):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41007.htm
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.