Skip to comments.BUSH VS.KERRY -- IT'S A DEBATE KNOCK OUT
Posted on 10/16/2004 6:19:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
October 15, 2004
Bush vs. Kerry -- It's a Debate Knock Out George C. Landrith
In 1946, then-heavyweight champion Joe Louis was asked how he would do against the lighter and faster challenger, Bill Conn. Lewis said, He can run, but he cant hide. Lewis was right. In the eighth round Lewis knocked out the more nimble Conn, leaving him sprawled on the canvas.
President George W. Bush has been saying John Kerry can run from his 20-year liberal Senate record, but he cannot hide. In the final debate, Bush bore down on his verbally nimble challenger and knocked Kerry out. It wasnt close. Had the debate been a boxing match, it would have been stopped in the early rounds. From the beginning Bush hit Kerry frequently and hard.
On Iraq, Kerry looked ridiculous as he continued to claim that Bush pushed alliances away even though it is now clear the United Nations, France and others were bribed by Saddam Hussein. There was no diplomacy that could have won their support. They were bought and paid for. Bush responded by explaining his comprehensive strategy not only to chase down Al Qaeda, wherever it exists but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account. Bush went on to describe the annihilation of the Taliban and the historic free elections just held in Afghanistan. Bush described the destruction of Saddam Husseins regime and the upcoming elections in Iraq. Bush pummeled Kerry in this exchange.
In the second debate, Kerry claimed that he had a plan for virtually every issue. He used the word plan 30 times. In the third debate, Kerry continued to assert he had a plan for every problem, but rarely offered specifics. When he did, his facts were wrong. For example, on healthcare, Kerry claimed his plan covers all Americans. But it doesnt even according to Kerrys own campaign literature. Bush landed a powerful blow, I want to remind people that a plan is not a litany of complaints. Another round won decisively by Bush.
Kerry disingenuously invoked the name of Ronald Reagan saying he would follow Reagans example. Yet Senator Kerry opposed Reagan on national security at every step. Kerry called Reagans presidency one of moral darkness and bragged he was proud to have stood against Ronald Reagan, not with him. Kerry threw punches wildly, but didnt land any.
On homosexual marriage, Kerry and Edwards revealed shocking cynicism and their lack of basic decency by gratuitously making the sexual preference of Vice President Richard Cheneys daughter the focus of their remarks. That both Kerry and Edwards led by discussing the private life of Cheneys daughter shows it was planned and purposeful strategy. It was grotesquely shameful. There is no reason to bring an opposing candidates children into the debate.
The Vice Presidents wife, Lynne Cheney, condemned Kerrys attack, This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick. Kerry and Edwards revealed something very ugly about themselves, their values and their character. Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards revealed shes no better than her husband when she attacked Mrs. Cheney, She's overreacted . I think it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter .
The behavior of Kerry and Edwards was carefully calculated and completely outrageous. Mrs. Cheney was right; they are not good men. Their debate tactics were the equivalent of purposefully punching below the belt. Mike Tyson, who bit off a piece of his opponents ear during a bout, is a cleaner fighter than Kerry and Edwards.
On the issue of protecting America, Kerry repeated his laughable mantra that hes been clear and consistent on Iraq and that he would aggressively defend America. Bushs response was a crushing blow, In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community said this is the right thing to do. But when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, John Kerry voted no.
For the record, even Syria, a state-sponsor of terrorism, supported ousting Saddam. The Gulf War did not pass John Kerrys global test, but it passed Syrias test. Evidently, known terrorist states are tougher on terrorism than John Kerry is. Bush knocked Kerry to the canvas.
On taxes, Kerry complained that Bushs tax cuts were not fair. But Bush responded easily and irrefutably, Twenty percent of the upper-income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.
On Kerrys liberal Senate record and his votes to increase taxes and bust budgets, Kerry defensively complained, Anybody can play with these votes. Bush delivered a crushing counter punch, There's a mainstream in American politics and you sit on the far left bank. Your record is such that Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts. Kerry was again knocked to the mat.
On leadership, Kerry touted his experience without citing specifics. Bush delivered a devastating blow stating that during 20 years in the Senate, Kerry had passed only 5 bills. Kerry tried to inflate his numbers claiming to have passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written. This was false. Bush was correct 5 bills in 20 years.
On abortion, Kerry unconvincingly said, What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. We are left to believe that John Kerry is pro-life in his personal views, but that he votes pro-choice so as not to impose his views on the rest of us. This doesnt pass the laugh test. Kerry voted six times to support partial birth abortion. Why is abortion the only belief Kerry doesnt want to impose on us? I, for one, wish that Kerry would not impose on America his belief in higher taxes. I also wish he wouldnt impose his belief in budget busting government-run healthcare plans or his faith in higher energy costs.
On jobs, Kerry continued to falsely claim America has lost 1.6 million jobs. Bush responded matter-of-factly, This economy is growing. Weve added 1.9 million new jobs over the last 13 months. Bushs numbers were accurate. Kerrys were false. Another round won by Bush.
Kerry twice inexplicably left his chin wide open when he dropped the name of Senator John McCain who is popular with independents. Bushs response was direct, My opponent keeps mentioning John McCain and I'm glad he did. John McCain [supports me] because he understands I have the right view for winning the war on terror and that my plan will succeed in Iraq. [John Kerry] has a plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq.
Bush knocked Kerry to the mat for the last time. It was a knock out.
Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.
I don't feel like reading this. Can someone summarize it for me?
Sorry we don't do Cliff Notes on FR
True, it was a KNOCKOUT
GW kicked hamsterboy's @ss
Bush wins debate
I sure hope no one does this for you.
Bush good; Kerry bad
...I don't feel like reading this. Can someone summarize it for me?...
What the hell is wrong with you and what the hell are you doing here?
Let me summarize this thread so far:
1. A well written article about Bush's winning the third debate by knockout.
2. A post by a whiney liberal who would rather get his information from some talking head than do a little reading himself.
It's actually a very good read for us Freepers that didn't pour over the board the next day...or week. ;^)
Bush's campaign committee should list the five bills that Kerry authored in 20 years in the Senate and ask why a leader as good as he is hasn't done more.
Just saying he has only authored five bills is too abstract. Identify the bills to make them real, something to ponder. Chances are they are meaningless.
BUSH cleaned KERRY'S clock, and what's more, made him like it.
BUSH tore Kerry a new pie hole, and fed him blueberry pie.
BUSH won the dabate handily.
KERRY lost the debate unhandily.
BUSH had tacks for dinner, and KERRY had limp spaghetti.
This guy's take on the debate is closer to mine than anything else I've read.
But my question is... what is the impact of the debate on the election - on those mysterious fabled and legendary "Undecideds" whom it is intended to sway? Most of them are such idiots that it's the intangibles - such as, as someone pointed out on another thread, the color of someone's tie - that make up their (almost nonexistent) minds for them.
I'd really like to see someone - a psychologist perhaps? (if we can find one that's not a leftist... sort of like trying to find a virgin in Berkeley or Cambridge?) do an analysis of this sort from the perspective of these idiot with IQs lower than their shoe sizes who were watching the debate, and try to assess what the impact was on *them*...
It says if you don't send $10,000 to me immediately bad things will happen to you and your loved ones. You can email me for wire instructions.
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.