Posted on 09/30/2004 10:40:34 PM PDT by A Navy Vet
Without reading the other aricles/posts, I believe President Bush got his head handed to him in the debate tonight. I can't believe how inarticulate he was and with such a smug look on his face while looking for his answerrs.
More importantly, I was disappointed that with Kerry's babblings about coalitions that Bush did not speak of sovereignty until his closing remarks. I was also disappointed that Bush did not tell Kerry there is no way of knowing the intricacies of the innner circle's state policies.
And why did it take Bush in his closing comments to finally make the point of keeping terrorism offshore? He eluded to that frequently in his remarks about being on the "offensesive", but didn't make it clear to the average American about taking the fight to them.
Also, I kept hearing "talking points" from Bush, which is usually the demcRATs M.O.
He just lost 5 points in his lead; there's a big difference between a leader and an articluate speaker without sustance...e.g. clinton. That said, JoeSixPak and Soccor Mom believe what sounds good. They have no concept of a leader who may not be schmoozer from a competenant manager who doens't talk well, but does the walk.
(Excerpt) Read more at vetscor.org ...
So, according to the new forum "vanity" cops, no one gets to say anything of value or contrary against the cheering sections? Okay. Got it.
Neither does being a "naysayer," particularly when some of his premises are demonstrably false. Opinions are great, but they should be supportable and based on conclusions which square with current facts and trackable history. That's not too much to ask, is it?
Even so, if sound bites sell, Bush had them. Kerry's answers were long and involved and will not be easily repeatable or memorable -- except maybe the "global test" thing that Bush nailed him on. Bush was "on message." He'll be remembered and repeated.
Why do you think Joe Lockhart called it a draw? Just curious...
JFnKERRY lost it when he used "invaders", "occupiers".
He "got his head handed to him" in 2000 against Gore. Then the next few news cycles were about all the lies Gore told during the debate. Fear not. Not only will this be a Bush win (or maybe a draw) by next Wednesday, but this has to be kept in perspective: Only a blowout win by Kerry was enough to turn this race around. Sure, Dubya could have cold-cocked him with a perfect performance or a major Kerry gaffe and made the rest of the race academic, but the fact that he didn't just delays the inevitable a bit.
no nv... we just can't post our opinions as breaking news.
I am not suppsed to post recipes in the religion category either unless it's a religious related item.
We have a section for opinions and vanities.
And your opinion thread was interesting to me and others.
I still find it interesting and think you should post more.
It's just not breaking news.
Which he did poorly and repeatedly with inane sound bites.
Look, I'm just discussing his performance in this debate, not his performance as a leader. I'm having trouble understanding why he was not more forceful defending his positions and decisions. He need not be that articulate, but tonal qualities and physical mannerisms have much impact on those millions who don't understand the nuances of the material. Again, style of communication can make or break a presentation. It happens every day in the business world...not that I want a big talker like clinton, with no substance.
Rich Lowry has put out a challenge (backed by cash, IIRC) that someone explain Kerry's Iraq position in a sentence with less than five clauses. No takers yet...
I am not a thread cop.
you can ask the moderator how many vanities were pulled tonight, but there were a lot of them and yours was not. just probably moved from breaking news.
I think your opinion is sincere and WRONG. Bush kicked his butt in substance... not the style you may respect or be enamored with but he got Kerry to say a lot of self immolating stuff.
"I will put an end to that weapon program... global testing... wrong war, wrong place, wrong time... et al." were all brought out in force. these painted kerry as an anti war kook who wants to ask FRANCE for permission to defend Americans.
slam dunk.
And bush made OUR points repeatedly. repeatedly. repeatedly.
'democracy, freedom, liberty, free, hard work, elections in Iraq, allies, coalition of the willing."
did bush look and sound smooth like you wanted? no?
tough banannas.
he's plain, repetitive, reassuring, redundant and stammers the same basic facts over and over and over again... and THAT makes americans LOVE the guy.
nobody is gonna go for slickness for a few years hence.
we already 'gave' at the office and don't want any more slick talkers and nuanced wobbledy debators defending our nation's security.
Bush won tonight.
just not the way YOU thought he should.
get over it.
this IS his style... and it's genuine Americun 100 percent.
not exactly a great "wow" in debate parlance, but in election impact... Bush kicked kerry's sorry ass.
I thought he was handing Kerry the death nail of Kerry's campaign, especially when he gave a great short oratory on how Kerry had shamed the members of our coalition dying with us. He had some slam dunks. I could see he got tired. He didn't want to be there anymore. He got out of his zone about 2/3 through. But the good news is...guess when Americans stopped watching!!!
I really think that he could use some substance, perhaps marijuana, to focus him in these debates. Or even cocaine. I'm not kidding. I watch him and he is thinking to himself "What was I going to say besides, um, what was that I was going to say besides, I'M PRESIDENT AND ARREST THIS INCOMPETENT"? Well maybe thats a totally worthless aside. But about 2/3 of the way through, the guy could at least have used a cup of coffee!!!
Which he did poorly and repeatedly with inane sound bites.
ok - maybe no drugs - that was a vomit of fingers on the keyboard - but you get my drift - I just think the guy went away. He solidly one the first 50 minutes. THen he had 10 minutes of simply repeating over and over that Kerry can't keep a consistent position. Then he lost all interest and wanted to go home. And I felt for him. Because Kerry sucks and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him.
Even, for the sake of argument, I agreed with what you said -- no problem. Some viewers -- probably a lot -- only watched the first 30 minutes or so. Bush was solid there. Secondly, his finish was solid -- great closing statement. If you open and close strong, you don't have to be great in the middle. Most performers and speakers know that's how it works in the real world.
Did it ever occured to you,troll,that you haven't a clue? :-)
I feel rather disheartened by the performance tonight. I wanted My President to speak to me. It is what he has always been talented at doing, quite simply because he is an honest man with nothing to hide.
I feel he had an extremely difficult day, and had greater worries on his mind than dealing with a lying piss-ant like Kerry. But nonetheless, WE needed to be rallied, WE need to promote some positive points about our President that should have been highlighted in this debate, and WE needed to see that determination he always shows without effort.
Besides speaking to ME, he also needed to speak to the world. He needed to show the world he is in control, can stave off attacks by faulting his opponent's weaknesses and holding him accountable for the lies that were made against him. I thinkit could have benefited Bush greatly to explain the way his day in Florida was spent versus sKerry's day.
I am praying, and hard, that GOD will help us all in the outcome of the election. We can all see what is so obviously right in keeping this POTUS in office for another term. Let's just hope that lies will be revealed, that right overcomes wrong, and that peace and liberty will continue to be the path we stay on.
A newbie, but an oldie
Take a day off man...
That's the great thing about opinions is that they don't require substantiation; they are subjective. "Nice weather" is not always quantifiable nor universal.
So if someone thinks that Bush didn't do well, debate why or why not, don't just throw rotten tomatoes and dismiss the notion because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
FR has its flip side to the clinton kool aid drinkers, those that worship Bush just as some worshipped clinton. They don't see that they exhibit the exact same qualities that they despised in other people.
Fair and balanced? This is NOT Fox News. Nor is it supposed to be.
I agree! There's an advantage to not pointing out all your opponent's mistakes: you quietly let him continue making those mistakes until he digs a big hole and buries himself. Kerry got snookered last night. It was classic Texas Hold-em strategery.
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.