Posted on 10/02/2004 9:39:47 PM PDT by JonDavid
The vast majority of Americans overlook the President's lack of professional speaking skills. In fact, to many it’s refreshing. It’s like having an ordinary Joe in the White House. The whole key is that the President is sincere. To give you an example of how sincere and genuine the President is; Rush Limbaugh had a caller from Florida on his show last Friday in tears praising President Bush for going to his hurricane hit town Thursday before the debate and feeling their pain and loss. What a leader we have. We don’t deserve him.
We're lucky to have him.
Welcome to FR.
Probably we don't, but thank the grace of God that we do.
We don't deserve President Bush, and we don't deserve eternal life. But because we have a loving and forgiving God who died for us, we get both!
You got that right.
He is a gift to the nation.
Saying = Saving
You are right, we don't deserve him, at least most of us don't. Thank God we had him on 911 and since, and it is so vital that he remain our President.
Check this out! It's what you have been looking for.
Welcome to FR newbie. You needed a whole article to make this arguable point that Bush lacks 'debating skills'.... what I saw was Kerry make a number of gaffes ("global test", "nuclear proflieration our #1 issue" - where is the war on terror?) and President Bush made none.
Kerry made some factual errors, like the false and phony claims about Tora Bora, like the false claim that subway service stopped at the GOP convention, etc.
Kerry is fundamentally and 100% WRONG ABOUT IRAQ. Kerry is WRONG to say Saddam, a terrorist master, had nothing to do with terrorism; and WRONG to say that Saddam was not a WMD threat. HE WAS INDEED. We dug out nuclear weapons program materials from a baghdad garden. Those plans, and the 500 scientists he had in his program, and the dual use plants, and the biotoxins found by the ISG was not chopped liver. IT WAS A LATENT THREAT. Not finding stockpiles is not the same as not finding a threat.
Kerry has that pathetic liberal attitude that the weapons not the weilder of the weapons is the problem. Hence he thinks that because other less dangerous nations (eg India, the worlds largest democracy) have a weapons program, that is 'dangerous'. But India will not threaten us in the way Al Qaeda does already.
Bush was more geniune. I wish he had nailed Kerry on every single point, but kerry was and is a slippery eel in debate.
Short term maybe Kerry's overwhite teeth impressed, but long-term, on the substance, we want a president to defend US, not berate us for having a missile defense or daring to *act on threats* ... so
I think BUSH WON.
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.