Posted on 09/30/2004 8:23:01 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
I agree. I think election results will show this election as having less influence from "undecided voters" than any in recent memory.
Furthermore -- if there ARE actually people who haven't made up their minds yet .... I don't think those folks will bother going to the polls on Election Day anyway.
Re the debates: Kerry presented better in terms of smoothness, but he is so full of it. "Global Test" indeed. Multilteral for Iraq; bilateral for NK going back to 1952. What is hard for me to tell is how the people who are undecided and just waking up today perceive it, because they don't know what a shfity liar JFnK is.
I think Bush had the critical, and perhaps determinative retort when he went after Kerry's "global test" for preemptive action.
Bush said he won't ever have a 'global test' to protect America.
This difference is the whole ball of wax.
Bush will act preemptively to protect, defend and preserve America. Kerry will require international approval. Kerry will, in the final analysis, NEVER act preemptively.
THE SECURITY MOMS HEARD THIS EXCHANGE AND WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY. OF THAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN.
You gotta let them pig tire themselves out by running around the pen before the grillin' and beer. The pig is in the pig pen and sleeping in its own waste..... time for the meat house.... time for the chef.
Kerry Lied.. *shock*
Say it aint so!
Water is wet
Sky is Blue
Earth is Round
News at 11
Morris is saying GWB won on substance but Kerry on style and he never saw GWB so unfocused, so inarticulate and so tired and distracted as he appeared tonight. Said he wasn't nearly as strong as he was in 2000 against McCain and Algore. Some of the same negative assessment I heard earlier tonight which prompted me to go over to CNN. Kicker was to listen to a spokesman for CNN who pointed out six major policy lies that Kerry told and even Wolf was backing up some of the claims. When Franks came on to dispute others, I was hoping many of the undecideds were watching CNN and not foxnews.
Kerry flip flopped and lied all over the place and I imagine it was frustrating for Bush. There is only so much time in a debate.I honestly think Bush won this one.
Plus, Bush should have really brought up the point about the $87B when Kerry told the story of families buying body armor for their soldiers as birthday presents because they didn't have them.
Did I hear him say we need to reach out to the Muslim community? Funny, I've been waiting for them to reach out to us. I wonder how many Americans feel the need to reach out to the supposedly outraged Muslims. Yeah that will work Kerry.
Kerry continues to suggest we need to get a coalition to join the US in Iraq, yet when President Bush developed a coalition with China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to address North Korea Kerry says we must address them bilaterally. Just the US and North Korea. He is so inconsistent. BLAH ....
It's part of the "I hate America" syndrome that burns deep inside Kerry. "It's all America's fault."
Who attacked whom?
And how many times?
Is he blind to the aid we are providing to Muslims in the Middle East? Removing a bloody and ruthless dictator, as well as his two sons who would torture Olympic athletes who failed to meet their standard? Who would select women off the street, rape and kill these women?
We're rebuilding schools, hospitals, infrastructure, but does Kerry recognize this?
Is it possible -- and I'm only suggesting this, NOT accusing my man Dubya! -- is it possible the GWB "threw" the debate?
We all know he could have been more aggressive and assertive. He didn't do anything wrong in the debate, he just didn't do it as forcefully as he could....
Back to my original question: could he have thrown the debate? We know that GWB is virtually unassailable (among his base) on foreign policy and the war on terror. We also know that a sizable minority of Kerry's base feels the same way as GWB on the war on terror. So -- as long as W stayed on message (even if he wasn't dominating), he couldn't really lose anything in the foreign policy debate.
And (so my conjecture continues), W throws the debate (at least slightly), setting up Kerry, to give him false confidence, and demolish him in the town-hall-style debate, which is Dubya's forte.
I'm sure there's something I've missed which would completely eradicate my theory... Would be glad to read any feedback. Peace all.
There's something postmodern and amusing about him getting caught lying about lying about lying.
marker bump
Did anyone else notice this Kerry contradiction? Bush should have jumped on this; first Kerry says it's not about money, and in the next sentence he's talking about the tax cut. Well? If it's not about money then the tax cut is irrelevant!
I don't think W came across as tired and unfocussed. I think he looked angry. Kerry was lying, and 90 seconds wasn't enough to prove it.
I don't think this debate changed anyone's mind. I saw the lies, but my Liberal friends saw Kerry as being calm.
Early today, a pollster said to wait two days before a clear evaluation can be made as to who won. Once Kerry's lies are highlighted, I'm hoping the choice will be clear.
Agreed, and to see some of the threads on FR tonight regarding the network "focus groups" leaning Kerry, you've got to wonder how clueless these "undecideds" are.
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.