Posted on 09/30/2004 11:40:45 PM PDT by ambrose
Posted on Fri, Oct. 01, 2004
Some undecided voters remain up in the air following debate
By DAVID GOLDSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry appeared to gain some support from undecided voters in key battleground states Thursday night after the first of three debates.
But other undecided voters said that the 90-minute exchange over foreign policy left them exactly where they were when it began.
"They were bickering back and forth, promising this and promising that," said Richard Dodd, 56, a disabled former welder from Fairmont, W.Va. "It may be down to the wire before I decide."
The voters contacted were part of a survey of battleground states done several weeks ago by the Mason Dixon polling firm.
Marie Miller of Milford, Mich., said the war in Iraq, which dominated the discussion, sealed her vote.
"I was leaning toward Kerry, but now I'm leaning toward Bush," said the 66-year-old Miller. "We can't have a president who's wishy-washy, and Kerry feels one way and then two months later, he says something else."
The war was also a factor for Amy Sullivan, a 41-year-old mother of three boys from Blue Springs, Mo., who said she was leaning toward the president, but still could change her mind.
"I think maybe at this point in time, with the war in Iraq, changing presidents now might not be a great thing," Sullivan said. "I'm still a little unsure."
Sullivan, an elementary school teacher, said the economy, not the war, was her biggest concern.
Kerry did get a vote of confidence from undecided voter Elise Winterderger, 21, a student at Penn State University. She said the Democratic candidate appeared to put on a stronger showing.
"Just on the speaking aspect, I thought that Kerry seemed that he knew a lot more than Bush did," said Winterderger, of Langhorne, Pa. "Bush was very repetitive. And I don't really think he was quite as prepared as Kerry was or knew as much information as Kerry did."
Mark Conrad of Stow, Ohio, also seemed to be swayed by Kerry. The senator's "confidence" impressed him the most. "Kerry talked about how he would have done things differently in Iraq," he said. "I just wish he was more clear on how he would proceed."
However, James Scalzo, 61, of Sterling Heights, Mich., was unimpressed with either candidate.
"The last election I voted for Bush because I disliked (former Vice President Al) Gore more," he said. "I feel the same way this year. I dislike Kerry more. I didn't learn anything new tonight. They're rehashing the same old stuff. I haven't learned anything tonight. ... I'm leaning toward Bush. Bush looked pretty nervous and kind of upset. Kerry looked more at ease, but that's about all I liked about him."
I think that GW and his team set up Kerry by deciding to let Kerry just go for it during the first 2/3's of debate #1. They figured that Kerry had seen the questions and was ready to ramble at full speed. So they had GW stand back and let Kerry do his normal thing, unchecked with the help of the liberal moderator.
The Republicans have fact checkers vetting every lie, every Rathering, every answer, every response and utterance that Kerry made tonight in the first debate.
We will see many of those answers, responses, and utternances in hard hitting ads for our side.
This will set the stage for debates 2 and 3. If Kerry repeats himself re bad answers, responses and utterances in debate #2, he will have defeated himself with his own mouth. Kerry's responses will become great ads for GW.
They set Kerry up in Debate #1 by having GW set back, listen and allowing Kerry to Rather to America.
These statements prove to you that when you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. Style and packaging mean nothing.
Bush set back on purpose...yeah, that's the ticket.
I really despise undecided voters...
I'm watching it now. The president is doing a decent job.
People on here wanted Bush to stick a 180 Form in Kerry's face and demand that he sign it, for pete sake.
That isn't gonna win votes among swing voters.
I listened to the debate on the radio. Then I read the transcript. GW didn't lose, he just let Kerry lead with his mouth.
Before the week is over, the new and old lies of Kerry will be talked about here and on talk radio, and Fox News will show them.
In a week, new commercials will show case the lies uttered by Kerry tonight.
People who are undecided at this point amaze me. What are they waiting for? A phoney debate with one guy all glitzed-up and rested for it, the other working hard and barely able to fit time in for it? One man packaging lies and sounding "informed" while the other has actually lived the job, the information and the decisions? I really don't have a lot of respect for anyone who bases a vote on these silly "debates". Esp. this one, truly a set-up if anything ever was. SO obvious.
Would like to get some input on this--WHY exactly was Bush tense and grim? I noticed it pretty early on in the debate, and he stayed that way for the most part. What did he have to be upset about--he's leading in the polls. From the way he appeared and came across, anyone who knew nothing about his election would of thought he was the one that was trailing.
W started strong, then kerry cought his breath and stomped on W for about 45 minutes, then W finished strong. Kerry won the debate hands down. His lies will come back to haunt him, however, as will his comments about 'global tests'.
He spent much of the day touring hurricane damage and there was the slaughter of the Iraqi children.
He looked like a wartime president. You should see some 1864 pics of Lincoln.
He looked confused and angry. He stumbled and stuttered. He's just not very good in this venue.
That being said, Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth with his 'global test' statement.
The Bush team knew that Kerry had the questions before the debate started. So that would make him even more of liar and attacker. So they let him do his thing for the first 2/3's of the debate.
Watch how those Skerry's words will come back as commercials and in GW's speeches to haunt ole Skerry in the Haunting month.
Watch this unfold this weekend and next week with the commercials re Kerry's responses.
I can understand that, plus all the other pressures he faces in office during these turbulent times. But why so "soft"? You can be restrained yet forceful and confident at the same time. Tonight, the president just came across to me as a man wearied by it all, which is understandable, but doesn't "play" well.
I'm gonna love every minute of it.
Mmm...
I said early on Kerry-style, Bush-substance.
People seem to be coming around to that view after reflection.
I'm going to add another viewpoint that hasn't been widely picked up yet.
G.W. led Kerry into a trap. Don't believe me? Go back and read that transcript. While so many were focused on image, G.W. just nailed Kerry to the wall by having him voice outrageous statements and slip ups.
I don't think it's a new found sense of fair play that has the media labeling this a draw. They know the vulnerabilities kerry just opened himself up to!
Everyone needs to shift off debate about image and focus on the substance. kerry is a sitting duck.
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.