Skip to comments.(vanity) One response I wish Bush would have given to kerry last night (the knock out punch)
Posted on 10/01/2004 2:09:25 PM PDT by tame
I humbly submit that the following response ALONE (or some similar response even in third person) by President Bush would have been the knock out punch to John Kerry, and it would have been the soundbite to be remembered from this debate forever after.
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
BUSH [in his down home Texas style]: "I'll tell you which is worse, and I'll tell you straight up! It's worse to say that going into Iraq is the right thing to do, and to then refuse to fund our troops, and THEN to try to excuse that refusal by the lame statement that "i made a mistake in how i talk about the war", and to THEN accuse me of making a mistake for invading Iraq, when you already agreed it was the right thing to do! You need to up your mind, slick, and quit making excuses for refusing to fund our troops!
Oh, and by the way, we shouldn't be surprised that you can't make up your mind about this war, since you were clearly confused when you refused to support my dad's use of force during the first gulf war."
That would have been the end of the Kerry campaign.
oh no, more dead kittens...
W is a nice guy.... and he didn't need to directly engage Kerry. Keep the high ground and Bush wins regardless.
But God doesn't kill them (which, although i love humor, i think is too much on the sacriligious side).
He could have done it third person, but that response IS the high ground. Kerry should have been B*tch slapped for the lies he told. The sheeple are not as good at connecting the dots as Limbaugh seemed to imply today.
It was as if Bush left his offense home. The race is too young just to try to run out the clock. A halfway decent offense last night would have put Kerry in the morgue.
And what you're suggesting is exactly what Bush is doing - on the stump today. But it's a day too late. A lost opportunity.
Monday morning arm chair quaterbacking ping.
Exactly. But i still think Bush will win.
Can you imagine? Voting for a guy who has a "brain fart" over $87 billion.... YIKES!
not hardly. i was said that line to myself right after kerry spewed his crap, and there's no reason Dubya should not have done the same thing.
The confusing Political Situation
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq --bad
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq -- bad
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq -- bad
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator---bad
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy --good
Bush bombs terrorist camps -- bad
Clinton commits felonies while in office --good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit --bad
No mass graves found in Serbia --good
No WMD found Iraq -- bad
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton -- good
Economy on upswing under Bush -- bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden --good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush -- bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes -- good
Bush says Saddam has nukes -- bad
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq -- good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq -- bad
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton--good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan --bad
Milosevic not yet convicted --good
Saddam turned over for trial -- bad
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991.
It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men-----
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces.
Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Good come back. Don't worry, Bush is getting in his licks today in PA!
We need to put the 'dead kitten' warning at the top of the post page. Maybe then people will THINK before they post.....
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Since I last stood...
Thank you very much.
Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller family has been born: four great-grandchildren. Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions. And I know that's how you feel about your family, also.
Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face. Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.
And like you, I ask: Which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?
The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future, and that man's name is George W. Bush.
In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy man across the ocean who would kill us if they could.
President Roosevelt, in a speech that summer, told America, "All private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."
In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.
He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.
And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.
Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.
Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?
Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter.
But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.
And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.
They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.
And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.
But Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down
Gadhafi's Libyan MiGs over the Gulf of Sidra.
The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War.
The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on -- against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile, against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric.
Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?
For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.
George W. Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
John Kerry wants to refight yesterday's war. President Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.
George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
I first got to know George W. Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace" -- "was blind, but now I see." And I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.
He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter. And where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel, the man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.
The only question is: How? The answer lies with each of us. And like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do. Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
In this hour of danger, our president has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
God bless this great country. And God bless George W. Bush.
blah blah blah, shoulda coulda woulda.
Fact is GW Bush is not the debator either Jeb or his Father were.
GHW Bush was one of the meanest debators ive ever seen in 1984 and 1988.
Somedays I wish Jeb had won FLA in 1994, so he'd be President today
My reply would have been...
"Senator, as a student of history, I can tell you that nations that only went to war as a "Last Result" most often lost that war. The choice of war should be made when it is the "Best Available Option" and not waiting until the situation deteriorates to the point of desperation and war becomes the only resort remaining. That is how I have dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is how any responsible president should deal with any future threats to our security.
|TV Ads and Videos|
Never Forget -- September 30, 2004
Friends -- September 21, 2004
Dazed and Confused -- September 17, 2004
Medals -- August 31, 2004
Gunner -- August 26, 2004
Sellout -- August 20, 2004
Any Questions? -- August 4, 2004
C-SPAN Streaming Videos (all RealPlayer)
If you READ the transcript from last night you can see Bush did knock out hamster boy!
When Jim Lerhrer asked Kerry which position he would take on the Nukes in North Korea ....and Kerry responded "BOTH"!!!-
G.W. Bush should have said...."America, that is my opponent in a nut-shell....When tasked with a difficult decision he just responded he wanted to have it BOTH ways. Well, my fellow Americans, 99% of the time when it comes to making difficult decisions a leader can't have it both ways. He has to make a decision that he thinks is right and then have the courage of his convictions to stick by that decision".
That would have won the debate and this election.
Fantastic answer!! The Bush people really let him down. He seemed very ill-prepared for what should have been very easily expected questions.
That would make a great campaign ad.
I would have replied that all available evidence point to the conclusion that he's dead!
Scary reminds me of some vampire Halloween mask. This guy is Klinton all over again.
What's done is done. Seems like Kerry won the debate but GWB will still win because he has earned it and he deserves it.
OHHH....I got ya. LOL!
I agree. I listened to the entire debate last night while driving, start to finish, and I was awestruck at how easily Bush could have decimated Kerry with a few firm, polite, and direct attacks. It was a completely missed opportunity.
Kerry was in top gear (i.e. kept one of his two faces well hidden, less than five references to Vietnam, etc), and made points that I know resonated with many liberals and moderates. Bush only found his footing a few times, when he spoke passionately and fluidly.
Want to hear a drinking game that will kill you? Every time President Bush says 'Um' during a formal debate, drink. You'll be lucky to make it to Kerry's first response before your liver conks out. I was hitting my steering wheel every time the President responded to Kerry's laughable weasel-speak with inarticulate, ineffective stock answers.
Bush is a scrapper, sincere in his beliefs, and a witty guy. If he had just been himself, the George W Bush we all know and love, this election would be over.
Anyway, as disappointed as I am, the debate was still basically a draw. Neither side really gained or lost any significant yardage. I'm sure Bush will still win handily in November, but the opportunity for a early coupe de grace was missed last night.
IMHO the man did not win. All he did was continue the vicious attacks on Bush, did not shed a speck of light on his own ideas and lied the entire debate. Guess the empahsis was on how good of a job he did at lying. People like that.
He wouldn't. And the media wouldnt ask it. The Dan Rather's of the world have been given too much power and its gone to their head. They can report things even after they are proven to be not true.
I agree. Bush is now preaching to the choir. These are not the people he needs to win over.
Last night he missed several big opportunities to nail Kerry.
I think this was a BIG mistake.
i like it :o)
exactly. i'm still fuming over that debate (especially after seeing the recent Newsweek poll). no matter what the spin, this was easily preventable, irresponsible, sheer stupidity.
it was Bush's best shot since it was the debate that dealt with foreign policy.
i don' care what the topic of the next two debates is--Bush needs to make up for this by saying in the next debate what he failed to say in the first debate, WHETHER OR NOT, the topic is foreign policy.
i know Bush is getting his licks in, but he's put himself under a lot more pressure for the next debate.
GREAT stuff :o)
Not Bush's style.
i pray you'e right, Saundra. i pray you're right.
Sure it is. He does it on the stump all the time.
You'll not see him do this in a debate.
I think Bush got Kerry a couple of times but one good zinger wouldn't have hurt. All the Dems got out of Bush was facial expressions. Kerry gave the Republicans a ton of ammo.
but that's the whole thing...he didn't HAVE to be quick on his feet... He just needed to stand up on them! i mean Kerry is SUCH an EASY target.
i know this will sound like i've got the tin foil hat out, but i honestly don't see how Bush could have done that bad unless it was on purpose. For the life of me i don't know why he would do this UNLESS it's to lower expectations for the next two debates (whereupon Bush will proceed to POUNCE on Kerry).
i say again, it is his style to make an obvious rebuttal that he makes everywhere else. There sure the heck was no good reason not to do it against Kerry. i just hope he did not lose the big mo for good. he screwed up big time. this election should have been over the other night. now we have to hear a bunch of crock about the Kerry momentum.