Posted on 10/04/2004 9:52:54 AM PDT by pookie18
When I watched the first Presidential Debate, it was very obvious to me that President Bush had easily bested Senator Kerry. I didn't think Kerry performed poorly, in fact I said that I felt he had done the best he possibly could have under the circumstances that his previous statements on the issue of Iraq had created for him. As for the President, I thought he was unspectacular, but strong and made most of the points he needed to make, while being just hard enough on Kerry to make it clear that his opponent has no business being Commander in Chief but without making himself vulnerable to being see as too "mean."
The post-debate polls clearly show that the majority of Americans disagree with my assessment. So, why did this happen? Well, since I essentially predicted exactly this outcome before the debate I think I have some insight into this phenomenon.
One of the many reasons that O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges despite being undoubtedly guilty was that there was TOO MUCH evidence against him. Because of all the massive proof of his guilt the prosecutors had far too much evidence to defend and the case became too complex to explain to dimwitted jurors who desperately wanted O.J. to be innocent.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Somebody needs to tell Terry McAwfull that the next time he sends his digital brownshirts to tout the great win of the senator, they may want to wait for the debate to start first.
I like John Ziegler, but I am still mad at KFI for pushing Coast 2 Coast AM to 1 am for his slot.
For those who cannot see why a debate is about image and very little about substance, try watching a debate from a foreign country, preferably in a language you understand but where you know NOTHING about the major issues being debated. I did this once, and found myself liking one candidate more than the others (three were snake-oil smooth speakers, one was a pro pol but not a good orator) simply based on behavior, facial expression, manner of speaking. The level of ignorance required to judge a debate based on these criteria is consistent with many american voter's grasp of the issues. These are people that believe it when a candidate says he has a 'plan' to do something.
In the end, the majority of the ignorant voters prefer to buy snake oil from a smooth talker.
Good one...sent it around!
Something is amiss. The debate focused on Iraq and the War on Terror. After the debate, poll internals by double digits show Bush as the stronger leader, that he would do better on Iraq and on the War on Terror. So how come Kerry got a bump? Was it Kerry's charm? His speaking style? These weekend snap polls make no sense.
If George W. Bush had made the gaffe that John F. Kerry did, by saying that KGB HQS was on Treblinka Square, the press would STILL be pillorying the president; "what a dunce! "He's the consummate oaf!" That's like Kerry saying, "When I was in London, I went through the Louvre Museum."
Very much appreciate it! Only has a shelf life of 30 days until the election. Spread the word!
Perhaps they do make sense, especially if your analysis is correct. The "snap" judgment may well be related to the style and charm, but in the long run the substance is more important. That's why snake oil salesmen always want to close the deal quickly, before you have a chance to think about it.
Will put it in my comments of "Today's Toons 10/5/04" thread.
Why did Kerry Win??? Because GWB did not pounce on the following:
1. Nuclear materials to Iran
2. End our Bunker Buster bombs
3. Global Test
"There you go again John, siding with the enemy and against our national security"
IMHO, this is the October surprise, because that's all they have.
Who is hoping and praying that Kerry wins the debate and the election? The liberal media.
I don't know about you all but for me and my home we don't care what the liberal media thinks.
Because Kerry is a master debator? ;^)
Interestingly enough, I saw William Weld before the debate and he said that his biggest mistake was concentrating solely on the points he wanted to make and pretty much ignoring Kerry's liberal garbage. Weld said that he assumed people would see the standard liberal nonsense for what it was, but they didn't.
I also think Dubya could have counterpunched better. He did a very good job with the "Global Test" line; that approach could have been used in the examples you cite as well.
Another example was North Korea. Kerry wants to start bilateral talks (exactly what KJI wants) and still maintain six-party talks (which would of course be dropped by North Korea once we started bilateral talks). North Korea wants to isolate us and avoid dealing with China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Kerry thinks Kim Jong-Il is right and Dubya wrong. Fool!
TO JOHN KERRY:
"WHERE'S YOUR PLAN!!!!"
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.