Posted on 09/30/2004 3:50:58 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
Edited on 09/30/2004 6:27:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
There have been several "live threads" posted today regarding the debate starting early this morning. Let's make this the official thread.
FR Live Thread: Bush Kerry - First Debate - Thread 2 - Here we go!
If viewers REALLY got that impression, then they
are following the spin meisters and did not watch
the debate.
The one thing that really bothered me was when Bush praised Kerry's 20 year service in the Senate in his closing remarks. LOL Other than that, I personally thought it was a blowout.
He praised his 20 years of service in the senate,
but remarked that he couldn't praise his voting record.
I loved it.
I agree I was talking to my father afterwards said exactly the same thing the Town Hall setting will suit Bush best. What we have to remember is that in peoples mind the last debate will be the one they remember. So lets us hope he does very well in the Q and A and then that boosts him for the final debate.
BTTT!!!!!!!
Well, Happy, I think Dubya did just fine myself.
He countered Kerry's arguments just dandy, imho .....
It's true. Bush's expressions of anger and frustration reminded me of Carter during the Reagan debate.
I remember it as plain as day.
I suppose Kerry reminded you of Reagan, too.
No way. But he did look more Presidential in the end.
He needs to learn not to studder and hemhaw around so much when he gives an answer. Even Brit Hume on Fox news was laughing about it night before last when Bill o'reilly asked him about border control during a preview of his interview with Bush.
______________________
Absolutely!
Here it is again (thanks, Phil Dragoo) in case folks haven't seen it yet:
___________________
holding my placeBump
I hope you are right.
My first impression was that Bush didn't do well. Throughout the debate I was mentally answering Kerry's charges and finding that Bush was mostly letting them go by with a slap rather than the knockout punch I thought he could have delivered. Kerry held himself well, spoke well, and held his own in terms of style.
Of course, every one of us knows the reality behind every thing he said, and would not fall for any of it. I worry, though, about the "undecideds" who are only now rousing themselves from their torpor to focus for a fleeting moment on election issues. For them what they see on the screen is all there is. For them, I think picking a winner is instinctive, and a Bush who is tired from the rigor of running a war and touring disaster sites doesn't come off well against a guy who has lived his whole life waiting for this moment.
I was annoyed by the after-debate coverage, even on Fox, so I soon flipped to a channel that was replaying the debate, and I was surprised to see that on a second viewing my impression on who was doing well completely reversed. What I saw the first time as a small Bush I saw the second time as very powerful. What looked the first time like a polished Kerry looked the second time to be just the usual Kerry. So your remark that people's impression of the debate may change after a couple of days may be true.
Nonetheless, I worry about the upcoming debate on domestic issues. You can never out-promise a Democrat. If you promise to spend a hundred dollars picking up litter, he'll demand to know why you didn't spend two hundred. If you try to beat them program for program you've already lost.
So very true, unspun!
On the arguments themselves, obviously I agree with you, that Kerry is an empty cup.
One key disagreement was North Korea. Kerry tried to make it seem that NK developed the bomb based on Bush's missteps, when it was quite the reverse. They began violating the agreement they had with Carter and Clinton from the first moment. The cameras the IAEA set up didn't mean anything, since NK merely moved their weapons work to another location. They took our money, took our free fuel oil, we set about to build them a nuclear power plant for free, while they continued working on weapons research.
Bush caught them, and ended the charade. We know that, but Bush failed to say any of that last night.
The second point is that NK is essentially a Chinese protectorate. There is no point in arguing with a sock puppet. Obviously, Bush can't say that, and he didn't. He did say that you have to include China in the talks, and he did repeat it several times, but I don't know if the "undecideds" will grasp why.
Kerry brought up Iran, and again Bush failed to really deal with the question. Of course, there is little he can say publicly. Kerry talked about French and German diplomacy, but that diplomacy is reminiscent of the situation in Iraq before the war, where diplomacy provided cover for business as usual. France and Germany have positioned themselves as Iran's ally against the US. They are not going to apply much pressure against Iran's nuclear program.
And if a military strike is needed to close it down, obviously they will not be on board for that.
And just as obviously, Bush can't say any of that. He could have talked more about the present struggle against the ayatollahs there, he could have talked about Iran's sheltering of terrorists, and the chess game that has placed us on three sides of Iran, but he didn't and maybe he couldn't. So it looked like Kerry carried the day on that argument if you don't know anything about what is happening there.
He did take Kerry to task for insulting our allies, but Kerry continues to get away with implying that we don't have any. The fact is there are 30 or 40 countries there with us, almost everyone is there. The only one who isn't there is France. So when Kerry claims that there is no alliance, all he really means is that France isn't on board. His answer is to buy their approval by returning to them their prewar oil concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly accused Bush of fighting a war for oil, but it is Kerry who wants to parcel out Iraqi oil. Bush has very carefully avoided committing Iraqi oil revenues and oil concessions in any way. Kerry's position, then, on Iraq's oil is supremely hypocritical, but was left unchallenged.
And, finally, Kerry and the Democrat's claim that WMD's were the reason for the war, the claims that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, these claims continue to go unanswered. They get covered by the general pronouncement that the world is better off without Saddam, but the specifics go unchallenged. We have traced the connections here but the president's proxies continue to avoid the subject, and that leaves the president very vulnerable in any debate on Iraq.
You are correct to point that out, but then I believe this wasn't clear enough for the general audience. He should have stated, North Korea had functional nuclear weapons before I took office. It would be truthful and alleviate the need for the audience to extrapolate meaning from his comments.
I agree. There were moments when the right response would have burried Kerry, but the pregnant pause was unfulfilled IMO.
Kerry's dumb comment about moms and dads having to purchase body armour for their troops was one such moment.
Instead of Bush making an elemental comment, "Why did you vote against that body armour Mr. Kerry?", he would later make a technically correct comment, but leave some weasle room for kerry. Saying that Kerry voted against the $87 billion dollar appropriations bill doesn't bark out at the viewer as much as directly mentioning the 'body armour' it would have funded.
This would have been the optimal answer.
Mr. Kerry, as you ought to know, I sent our troops into battle with the level of preparedness left over from the administration before mine. When it came to my attention that our troops were not outfitted properly, I send an appropriations bill to the Senate. You voted against that bill, after you voted for it. Remember?
Our troops got the body armour anyway, but no thanks to you.
Attacking me me on that point is a sad reflection on you.
I have been posting my outrage about Kerry for months now and have always supported Bush's policies.
That is why I'm so bothered that Bush failed to confront Kerry on the BS he was spouting last night, and worse than that Bush appeared shaken by Kerry and lacking in confidence.
Bush's positions are far superior to Kerry's, but if he cannot articulate or defend them in a debate he's not going to convince voters.
That's what happened last night for much of the debate and why polls show Kerry won the debate hands down.
Well it looks like I was right.
All the polls today show Kerry won the debate by a large margin.
They also show that far more undecide voters said the debate gave them a better impression of Kerry than Bush.
Unbelievable, Kerry the flip-flopping liar actually got away with BS'n his way through the debate and came out on top while Bush made himself look bad. That wasn't supposed to happen.
Do you really make decisions on just this? If so, how sad.
My decision was made long ago. But believe it or not many voters have been making their decisions based on debates for decades now, and this one is not good for Bush.
Are you kidding or what?
The reason I am so disgusted is BECAUSE I am totally for Bush and totally against Kerry and believe Bush should have won the debate on Iraq BIG TIME.
Bush came into this debate with a vastly superior position and should have had vastly superior arguments to match. Especially against a flip-flopping fraud like Kerry.
The amount of material Kerry has provided that could have been used to exposes the phoniness of his statements last night is just HUGE.
I can't believe Bush wasn't prepared or thought it would look nicer to not challenge most of Kerry's lies.
Worse yet Bush looked like he was frustrated and lacking in confidence, which made Kerry look more sure of his BS by comparison. Incredible.
Bush had a great opportunity to put Kerry away in this debate and instead he probably has helped Kerry.
Now they have pictures of Bush looking angry and frustrated and just plain unPresidential..and guess what?
Nobody can complain because Bush gave them those pictures.
Oh and don't tell me that appearances in a debate don't matter. Especially after Republicans constantly belittling Gore appearance and mannerisms in 2000 debates and talking about how bad he came off. It does matter.
Funny people on FR weren't saying this when it came to Gore's stiff appearance in the 2000 debates, or his make-up, or his aggressive behavior getting in Bush's face like a dork.
And it seems Kerry is better at lying than Bush is at expressing the truth and genuine conviction.
And the polls all agree that Kerry won the debate....proving style does matter.
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.