A day after,voters say they were unswayed by Thursday's debate(“I think I’m in love”..)

KEENE, Jan. 24 -- In diners, taverns and student centers across the state yesterday, few minds were changed by Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Manchester . Some voters were still undecided, and those who weren’t only felt more certain about their candidate. Many who watched were skeptical about the debate’s format, and a few were disinclined to participate at all in Tuesday’s primary.

“Very blah,” said Ted Tivnan of Manchester . “The substance wasn’t there.”

While Sen. Joe Lieberman was making his pitch to a health care forum next door at the Palace Theatre, Tivnan, 55, sat inside the Stage Door Café watching poll results on a television overhead. He said he wanted to see less pre-selected questions and more spontaneous give and take between the candidates.

“Nobody wanted to step on anybody’s toes,” said Tivnan. “When they were biting at each other, it was damn better.”

Robert Allsopp, also of Manchester , agreed that the format needed a change. And he was disappointed with the constant criticism of the Bush administration by the candidates.

“I don’t want to hear how bad things are now. Tell me where you’re going to take us,” said Allsopp, 56. “Give me a plan to get out of Iraq .”

Finishing lunch a few blocks away at the Merrimack Restaurant, Jim Connelly and John Durkin didn’t like the format either.

“It sounded more like seven interviews,” said Connelly, 62, of Bedford . “I’ve been looking for the candidates to engage each other.”

With a minute and 30 seconds allotted for each answer, Connelly figured each candidate gets only 11 minutes to speak through the whole debate. “I don’t think you can gain a lot of knowledge from that,” he said.

Durkin agreed, and he wasn’t shy about his opinion of the debate’s moderators.

“I thought Al Sharpton won it,” said Durkin, 62, of Manchester . “Someone had to cut through the insufferable Brit Hume. He makes a strong case for term limits for reporters.”

Durkin felt that Hume, Peter Jennings, and past moderators like Ted Koppell were too wrapped up in self-importance and didn’t ask the questions New Hampshire voters want to hear.

“They get the idea that people came to hear them and not the candidates,” said Durkin, who spent Thursday night switching between the debate and the Bruins game. “The local anchors did a much better job.”

Over at Keene State College, several students were unaware of the debate or watched only peripherally while doing something else. A few said they were either too busy with their studies or too disenchanted with the process to pay attention to the Primary race. Those who are voting on Tuesday said they made their minds up long ago and the debate did nothing to make them rethink their choices.

“I’m supporting Dean,” said Elizabeth Blouin, 23, of Keene . “I’ve known for quite a while now.”

Ryan Zamore, 23, watched the debate while working at Fritz Belgian Fries in Keene . He had plenty to say about the debate itself, but remains skeptical enough of the primary system to question even voting on Tuesday.

“Kucinich had the most cogent arguments,” said Zamore, who describes himself as a Libertarian. “Kerry got asked some really easy questions, and the questions for Dean were just a character assassination.”

Zamore cited voter fraud as his reason to opt out of voting at all, and he was convinced that President Bush will win the general election regardless of the Democratic nominee.

Dean Spiliotes, an author and visiting scholar at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester , was at Thursday night’s debate. He said that debates indeed often only reinforce previous beliefs about a candidate.

“They can change people’s perceptions, but not always,” said Spiliotes. “My sense is that with so much interest and so many high expectations after Iowa, it would have been hard to live up to the hype.”

Spiliotes said he believed former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont “stopped his plummeting” after his third place Iowa finish, but retired Gen. Wesley Clark looked “a little inconsistent” during the debate.

At Jackie’s Diner in Nashua , however, the General made a slightly better impression.

“I think I’m in love,” said Nashua ’s Jeanette McCalvey, 77, of Clark . “He seems like such a nice man.”

“He’s good looking for his age,” said Stone, 79, adding, “Edwards ain’t too bad either.”

THE UNITED NATIONS WILL NOT SAVE US.

My fellow Americans,

I write this to those whose votes will help to select the next leaders of the free
world. Your vote in this most serious of times can make a large difference and
should be carefully cast. There are those among us who fail to recognize that the
conflict in Iraq is merely a battle in a much larger and wider war.

Those opposed to the battle in Iraq are not all members of the “not so vast
left-wing suppository”. Some truly believe with all of their hearts that there is
another way to fight the war on terror. A way without preemptive strikes, violence,
and the destruction and death of our enemies. It is an ideal that is to be respected
and not ignored. An ideal however, that sadly, is not the reality of the world we live
in today.

The moment that allied coalition forces began to march into Iraq, terrorists
and their allies from around the world tried to get there to fight our troops. Our
fully trained, equipped, and armed volunteer forces. This is important to
remember. Our enemies at that time were not trying to get to Boston, Baltimore, or
Baton Rouge, they were heading for Baghdad. Before casting your vote, ask
yourself if the candidates you are voting for are willing to fight our enemy on their
ground or on ours. I ask that, for a moment, you think with your head in a logical
and unemotional manner instead of with your heart.

Is this candidate someone who will help to destroy those regimes that support
those who would do us harm? Can this person summon the will to kill those who
would blow themselves up in our malls, schools, movie theaters, and restaurants?
Do you want to fight this war on our streets, in our stadiums, supermarkets, or in
our office buildings? Do you want our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers,
children and grandparents to fight the terrorists and their allies right here at home?

There are many among our political class and their supporters that are ready
to bow at the altar of the United Nations as though it were a savior of freedom and
democracy. Some of them may believe in the nice idea of countries coming together
to solve world problems and avoid wars. Others may innocently believe in the
concept of a world body that governs the planet in a just and peaceful way. Most, I
fear, have confused the United Nations with the United Federation of Planets. They
have either watched too many episodes of Star Trek or have willingly closed their
eyes to the danger that confronts us. This war or “Jihad” was declared on us long
ago and some may hope they can wish it away. Some are blinded by ignorance,
indifference, or are simply truth intolerant.

Never has the United Nations or League of Nations successfully defended or
saved those trapped in the bondage of oppression and tyranny. The history book of
this august world body is soaked in the blood of those waiting to be freed by an
institution of high minded elitist ideals and meaningless words. The lack of action to
defend freedom is the only true mainstay to this illustrious debating society fraught
with corruption and illusions of grander. Those who would use the rhetoric of our
enemies to divide us for their own political gain by demanding that the United
States must have the blessing of a world body awash with those who seek to destroy
our way of life, are not worthy of our vote.

The Enemies of freedom will not submit to United Nations resolutions. They
do not adhere to nor care about the Hague. They do not fight by the rules laid out
in the Geneva Convention. Our enemies want to convert us; or kill us. It is that
simple. They want all nations to be ruled by radical Islamic law. The enemies of
democracy are actively seeking nuclear materials in order to launch atomic attacks
on our cities. They are seeking biological and chemical weapons to use against
innocent and unarmed citizens. Those who complain about the Patriot Act and
their left-wing supporters are demanding change in our policy in the war. Would
they prefer martial law after a successful attack on our soil?

Think of it. Debates about health care, social security, welfare, and
education would become irrelevant. The environment, housing, jobs, and
everything else that voters in this nation are demanding we address would be
irrelevant if we lose this war. Civil rights would be out of the question under our
radical Islamic rulers. To those who would hope for a peaceful solution you must
consider the way that our enemies have chosen to fight us. There will be no
negotiations, no peace conference. There will be no discussion or round table
meetings. Instead there will be radical Islamic law or death. There will be no jury,
no judges, no appeals. We won’t have protest marches or sit ins, no letters to the
editor, and no recourse.

Those who would lead us need to be asked some of these important questions.
Keep in mind that the outcome of this long and difficult struggle will indeed decide
the fate of all of the other issues we face in America and perhaps the rest of the free
world. Should we fight this war with all of our might to protect our nation, or must
we have the permission of a world body with a proven record of miserable failure in
its feeble attempts to gain and retain freedom for people around the globe? Would
it not be better to have the fight with our enemies on their soil, in their streets, in
their caves, backyards, and in their neighborhoods? Would it not be more
intelligent to have those who have trained to defend and fight for our freedom face
our enemies there instead of our unarmed civilians facing them here? I believe we
must use any method necessary to defend our freedoms and democracy because the
price of indifference and a lack of clear vision will be far to costly.

Only nations built on the solid foundations of freedom, liberty, and the rule
of law, can lift the dark shadows of evil and terror from those who yearn to be free
and those who wish to remain free. A willing alliance of free nations that have the
memory of dictatorships, death camps, mass graves, and unimaginable human
suffering on a grand scale fresh in their minds, are now fighting these shadows.
Over a hundred years ago, a young officer at West Point wrote a paper extolling the
virtues of the trap as an effective military tactic during the waging of a war. Iraq
has become a veritable terrorist roach motel. The terrorists and their axis of evil
allies come in...but they do not come out. The officer at West Point who wrote that
brilliant paper was none other than one Robert E. Lee. So impressed with that
paper many years ago, his tactics are still used to this day. Please keep all of this in
mind as you head out to the polls to exercise your right to vote. A right given to us
by our founders and those who have spilled their blood while standing vigilant
watch over our precious freedoms. The United Nations did not give you the right to
vote.

In closing I will leave you with a question to ponder as you decide on your
selections for those who will lead us. Who are the candidates best equipped to keep
us safe? Which leaders will keep us safe to argue freely with boldness and
conviction about taxes, education, and health care? Which leaders are strong
enough to keep us safe from oppression and the tyranny that would squash our hard
earned freedoms and liberty? I only ask that you chose carefully and wisely.

Thank you for reading. May God bless you and yours and may God bless
the United States of America.

Best regards,

JediForce
]

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.