Thanks!
Disarming skerrymouche with pointing out his propensity to use the qualifier "but" is brilliant! And so true.
A couple more things:
The President could say something like, "The senator shows you how little of a record he has to run on, when the only way he can answer a question is by talking about me, and criticising my record! He can armchair quarterback all he likes, that doesn't give him a record to stand on, or credibility either."
The President can also say something like, "I can prove to you that the liberal senator from Massachusetts is trying to hide from you. Did you all know that he hasn't signed a DD180, authorizing release of all his military records, like I have? What's he trying to hide from you all? Wouldn't you all like to know what you're being asked to vote for? In Texas, we don't believe in buying a pig in a poke!"
I didn't know you were so smart....now I'm gonna hafta listen to you. :>) (Just kidding!)
It is true that all Kerry can do is yap-yap-yap at the President's heels.
He's not created anything noteworthy in his entire life that he can draw attention to. All he can do, as you say, is complain, complain, complain.
Wonder if the Pres. could get a shot in using the word "complain?"
Excellent.
Here's some more ammunition for the debate:
So9
I agree with this editorial and I hope the Prez takes note of each point. I would also add to this that Bush can score big points and deflate a large Kerry balloon by sincerely admitting that he has made some mistakes, but has never lied. Bush should think ahead how he will answer the question "What mistakes have you made?", as the question has already been asked at both previous debates, and Bush sidestepped a direct response. He should NOT give Kerry red meat such as saying maybe we shouldn't have gone to Iraq or any other point the Dems would love to beat on, but rather some innocuous, forgivable mistakes or misjudgments that put Bush in the light of honesty and sincerity. Bush would get a huge bump out of a successful and well-considered answer to that question. And the question will come up again.
WRT #2, nearly every response President Bush makes to a Kerry criticism should include some form of, "If you really believe that, why haven't you introduced any legislation during the 20 years you've been in the Senate to do that?"
I especially enjoyed the "naive and dangerous" remarks. That really hit a homer for me. Nail the sucker with the "nuisance" remarks this coming debate, and we'll all be sold.
Great points..look the "ilk", though.
There were so many instances in both debates that that one word would have sufficed.
There were some excellent articles in the WSJ today on probable hot topics for this debate, healthcare and military procurement. They are really must reads for everyone who does not understand the President's plan for medical care reform (me) or the reasons behind the lag in supply of armament for the troops in Iraq.
Kerry will have an answer for his medical plan because it is simply recycled Hillarycare, but not a plan for how to pay for it. The military procurement is another story though. To present a plan to fix the military procurement, Kerry would have to admit that the cause was the over regulation imposed by congress following the $400 hammer scandal.
Bush's biggest challenge is going to be reducing the explanation of the personal medical accounts to the lowest common denominator so that the average person can understand them, and so that the explanation fits into the time limit.
TURN KERRY'S NEGATIVITY INTO A LIABILITY!
Bush needs a zinger right up front to tee it up in viewers' minds. After that, every time Kerry goes negative, we want viewers to THINK "There he goes again".
I don't have time right now to follow this whole thread, but I'll eagerly read it tonight.
KUDOS. You put this very well. I just hope they see it!
I liked Newt's suggestion just before the first debate; Bush: "I liked the Senator Kerry who said this three weeks ago." Kerry questions the war. Bush responds: "Well, Jim, I liked the John Kerry who said this...(fill in details) 1 year ago."
Whenever Kerry makes a statement that contradicts his previous positions, Bush could utilize this simple device without getting nuanced to the point of boring the listeners. It is an effective "one-liner" and would be the equivalent of "there you go again" (which, BTW, Reagan used against Carter, not Mondale).
You are right on the mark. In the first debate, the questions put the President on the defensive everytime, as did Kerry's answers. Since the president didn't ignore thre trap and turn the answer around, he looked defensive.
In the second debate, Kerry did just as you say--got defensive. The abiding peresonality characteristic of Kerry is his giant size ego. If he were to be President, he would make Madame Hillary look humble, and you all remember how haughty she was (and still is).
I hope the campaign takes this to heart or has some ideas along the same line. Doing as you suggest in a humorous way will belittle Kerry even more. I think his ego is much more fragile than Mondale's. The humor is what made Regan's remarks so effective.
Our son is a lawyer and very effective at going from A to C without meandering around B to get there. He chooses a direct line and selects the points that will propel him there.
Good luck.
vaudine
Agree, agree, agree. All Kerry can do is criticize, and he is absolutely ruthless at it.
Except I see the phrase as patronizeing the half-wit. Thats what he did and the phrase represents what a father would say to a child. Because the listener has done it themselves to their children in many ways and probably more than a few times. Thats why it worked.. A psuedo loving rebuke.. "There you go again"... but its the "other" words that complete this phrase that are the kicker.. "There you go again, you do that all the time" implying "STOP IT with the lying"..
Most parents (that are good parents) have done this and can complete the phrase in thier heads.. Faced with "Johnny" lieing his ass off another one parents use is, "You don't expect me to believe that do you ?".. there are many others you may have used a few yourself.. The one Bush needs to use is what he would say to his own children.(and no doubt he has). so it comes off with the proper demeanor and spirit.. Reagan, I believe, did exactely that.. thats why it worked.. No bile but a psuedo loving response.. It reached to the depths of the listeners soul.. and made the lie an obvious excersize in sematics..
Me personally would turn over the lecturn and go for the lyin traitors throat and beat it out of im' but thats just me.. but I didn't treat my kids that way.. "You don't expect me to believe that (with a laugh) was my response depending on the situation.. Bush is the daddy, Kerry is the petulant kid.. which he is.. A little truth couched in lies should be treated the same way.. destroying the well rehearsed BS the lyer has manufactered.. ignoring it.. Lyers hate being ignored.. Liberals and Kerry particularly are children out of control..
THEY NEED A DADDY, any real daddy to see through the tangled web of bull shit they have woven.. Make a liberal happy today ignore him and /or laugh at him.. restore his faith that everybody in the world is not stupid.. because being liberal he already knows he and everybody he knows and trusts are idiots..
Make his day.. Patronize him...
No, we shouldn't.
This is a weak point in a very good article.
How about this. Bush saying to the audience: "I ask you not to judge either one of us by his words, but by his deeds." And then he hammers Kerry on his empty record.