Posted on 09/30/2004 5:57:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
Thread 1 - Pre-Debate discussion
Exactly right. I guess that's why I don't feel esp. "good" or "bad" about how things went tonight. IOW, I think Bush came across as most people kind of expected -- some hemming and hawing, but lots of heart. I certainly don't think it was the catastrophe some people are making it out to be. Kerry was glib and smooth and he'll probably (finally) see a bit of a bounce after tonight, but I don't think it will be substantial enough or last long enough to win the election.
exactly
kerry proved himself to be
the "GLOBAL TEST" candidate.
permission from france is required with kerry.
THAT is the message kerry got out.
Bush got out his message.
"what the hell your talkin bout boy? international court, france, germany? WE can't wait for them to let us defend ourselves you nut!"
The fact that he LOOKS and sounds "rough, repetitive and redundant" in his "freedom is hard work" statements... goes to make the point. W is STILL a plainspoken texan, not a DC minded politician. Simple. Direct. Repetitive.
America needs reasurance that things are stable.
And mr "nuanced-to-the-point-of-abject-confusion" kerry, just doesn't do that. I couldn't figure out still, whether he completely supported the war effort or completely opposed the collosal failure?
still don't.
but elections will be held in Iraq. Why? Bush said so. It'l be so. That's what I got.
AMERICANS know that Iraq will have them, without france's permission and despite the 'collosal failure' in judgement that kerry swears is the state of things, or was, or would not have been... Still who knows what the hell does he think?
bet you can't figure the forty two sided pile of 'nuance' either. American's see snobby slick and think, who needs a fancy talker to talk stuff to death? Give us a simple straight person of few words, that mean something specific we can understand... and ACTION that is consistent with what has been said.
and that is what our allies want too.
Thank you!
That is the message from tonight.
I don't care stylistically how a candidate does. It is the message that is important and Kerry lost that round.
"And please, give the American public an iota of credit to be able to recognize BS when they see it"
---They didn't see it in 1992 so what makes you think they'll see through it anymore clearly today?
"I just saw Bill Schneider (sp?) on CNN with interesting Gallup results. They showed that most respondents thought Kerry won, but Bush still held a clear advantage on being a decisive leader and on who will do a better job on Iraq. It suggests that even if people thought Kerry won the debate, that does not translate into them thinking Kerry will do a better job in foreign policy."
It would be interesting to see what a poll would say about this debate one week from today?
I just heard an NPR sound bite and the best they could do was play where Bush said that what Kerry suggested about Iraq was already being done. Bush just made it plain that Kerry is bringing bupkiss to the table so you may as well keep the known in office rather than this strange Kerry. He gave the rabid dog media tissue paper to chew on.
Bush didn't give the media anything to grasp and he came across as much nicer, more pleasant and down-to-earth than Kerry. Kerry was very grating and way too righteous for undecideds. Political diehards may dismiss nice but that may be the what makes or breaks this election
Thoughts on the Debate?
LoL
We've a way to go on this matter, but I think the pres is who he is.
Kerry shocked some by redefining himself tonight, but Kerry is not one of us. He has no loyalty to the country.
If they break the rules and use clips from the debate, I guess this opens the door for US to use THIS:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1232137/posts
AMEN,Ronnie! :-)
I usedta live near Hampton. Does that count?
You just don't understand what Kerry did to fellow Viet Nam vets.
Since you said you served I Thank You
However unless YOU were a target of Kerry's out and out lies when he came back you just can't understand my passion.
And know Hanoi Jane has come out supporting him!
Exactly. Even Bill Schneider if anything, underscored the fact Kerry did NOT dent Bush's advantage in appearing to be a decisive leader. And that counts for more than you can imagine in deciding who will best keep us safe for the rest of the decade.
I also think Bush successfully lowered expectations enough that he'll "win" the next 2 debates.
This is my analysis... Found at
http://www.neoperspectives.com/1st_debate.htm
The 1st Debate
Bush vs Kerry
9/30/04
I was a bit disappointed in the first debate. I am a strong supporter of President Bush, but felt that Kerry got the upper hand. Not because Kerry was right in any of what he said, but that President Bush didn't refute him in the most effective way. I constantly found myself mad because Bush just let things slide and didn't correct the many distortions that Kerry made. It seemed his advisors just focused on "don't screw up".
Bush seemed a bit nervous and uncertain and Kerry seemed smooth, knowledgeable, and articulate. I found Jim Lehrer to be very nonpartisan and fair. I was also surprised that the PBS panel that analyzed the debate afterwards seemed to tilt in favor of President Bush. I have never seen this happen before. Perhaps in the larger, more undecided, mainstream audience, Bush's presentation went over better than with a partisan like myself.
I was not surprised at what Kerry did or said, but I was surprised that Bush didn't refute him. These are a list of things I would have liked Bush to have said.
Bush: "Well Senator, I am surprised you are saying you want to build more alliances because we have (list 10 biggest nations) all contributing in Iraq. These nations understand the power of Freedom and understand Saddam was a threat."
Bush: "I'd like to correct something my opponent just said. He said Saddam was not connected to terrorists. This is not true. Saddam sheltered and harbored Abu Nidal, whose group killed the American diplomat in Jordan. He sheltered Abu Abbas, a terrorist who hijacked an American cruise liner and shot and threw overboard a man in a wheelchair because he was Jewish. Saddam also paid $20,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel."
Bush: "Senator, you say we haven't found weapons of mass destruction, well we have. For your information we just recently flew 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium out of Iraq. Our troops have found bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin. We've found deadly bacteria in an Iraqi scientists home and buried nuclear material."
Bush: "Well, we are working to get our troops the best equipment available at all times. I find it surprising that this issue of body armor and armor for vehicles is being brought up. I mean, you voted against the 87 billion dollars to fund these very things. If this was a big issue for you then why vote against it? Funding our troops is not a complicated decision to make."
Bush: "I'd also like to respond to you saying that our troops surrounded the oil buildings. We sent troops to surround many buildings and put a special priority on suspected weapons sites. This war had nothing to do with oil. Actually, I find it amazing that you would make that charge, would make our troops out there fighting this war believe that the war is for oil. This was a war to rid America of a growing threat and to protect the United States of America.
Bush: "I thought we were going to save economics for another night. But since you brought it up, I'll tell you one thing I am sure of: raising taxes never grew an economy. The rich didn't just get taxes, everyone got taxes. Despite a recession and the attacks of September 11th, our economy is rebounding and the reason it is doing so is because of the tax relief that this administration passed."
Bush: "Let me give you a little history of what happened in North Korea. It is important for the American people to understand this. In 1994 the Clinton Administration reached an agreement with Kim Jung Ill, by the way this is a man who builds gulags and starves his people. But the Clinton administration reached an agreement to give him oil and food so he wouldn't build a nuclear weapon. The Korean dictator never honored his agreement. He built a nuclear weapon right under our noses. So in my Administration, when we found this out we weren't going to keep giving them food and oil. Then we decided to pull in all parties in the area to try diplomacy in a group of 6 nations. My opponent wants to go back to the failed policies of the past. Kim Jung Ill already lied to us once, there is no reason to trust him again."
Bush: "See, I don't see America as a threat to the world. The reason we are building these bunker buster bombs and our missile defense system is so we can confront rouge states and terrorists. What happens if diplomacy and sanctions fail in one of these rogue states? What if terrorists or rouge states build underground structures to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction? A strong America is a secure America. If I may remind people, my opponent voted against the weapons of the cold war, which helped us win that war and the first gulf war, which he voted against. These new weapons will play just as great a role in securing the peace. Ronald Reagan once said, "history shows war begins when nations believe the price of aggression is cheap". This will not be the case under my administration.
Bush: "I believe a leader needs to be consistent and firm. The war on terror is not something you can play politics with, or only follow public opinion, or do only what makes us popular in the world. With all due respect to my opponent, we've been here for almost 90 minutes tonight and I still don't know whether he thinks the war in Iraq was worth it or, if he even thinks or thought Saddam was a threat, or what he would do in Iraq, or whether he regrets not voting to fund our troops. All I can gather is that he was in someway opposed to the war, but not completely, and in some way against it now, but not completely. That's no way to lead. Especially in war, the commander in chief needs to mean what he says and we owe at least that much to our troops."
I think Bush was far too timid and hope he has a better showing next round.
I agree. I think President Bush did fine. Kerry is the one who had to hit it out of the park, and he didn't. And I think he used the same blush that AlGore did for his debates.
Bush speaks like he's real, not a lecturer. Two minutes seemed like a really, really long time when Kerry was speaking. My son believed he was getting extra time.
Right ON!
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.