Posted on 10/14/2004 5:32:41 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
I think he is saying that he won because he was aiming for the 'dumb-masses', and to them his lies and distortions seem to work.
bump
I am not surprised. Boortz is not a very knowledgable person.
I doubt it. He says that the person who says Gov't will cure all your troubles wins. IF that is what wins the debate, he was right. But only with that criteria.
Look closely at the criteria Boortz uses to declare Kerry winning:
"Kerry did a magnificent job of appealing to people who believe that government is the answer to every problem they face in their lives, whether that problem relates to their job, their health care, or just paying their bills. I believe that the majority of Americans, a slim majority perhaps, but a majority, look to the government for either help or a solution every time."
Kerry's appeal to those who want a nanny state that Boortz focuses. He is saying that most of the people in this country want the government to do everything for them, and Kerry promised that. Thus Boortz is saying that there are fewer people who don't want to be serfs of the government than those who prefer the safety of slavery than to the chanes of freedom.
Abortion-on-demand (Kerry) is NOT a winning issue. I believe President Bush claimed two areas of far wider appeal, namely his deep religious faith and his devotion to women and family. With those, he walks away with the gold medal.
I have the clear impression that Kerry had a look at the questions directed to him before the debate. Don't know how you would get at the facts or prove that.
Clear mistake by Jim Baker to let liberal media representatives who clearly favor Kerry to be the moderator of all of the debates and frame (or pick and approve in Gibson's case) all of the questions. Tremendous advantage for Kerry. If Kerry wins the election which it appears to me he may well do, bad work by Jim Baker in negotiating the debate terms turns out to be the reason.
This is a surprisingly ignorant analysis. Why on earth would you even have a debate in the first place if by conducting a simple poll on any given issue, you can determine the winner before the debate even starts. Well we know that the majority of Americans trust the president's foreign policy over Kerry's "plan".
So by Neal's logic, no matter what happened in that first debate Bush won because he argued the majority position? Forgive me but this is just stupid. Kerry clearly won the first debate and unfortunately he was so much more effective than the president, he actually CHANGED peoples' minds. We all saw the swing in the polls.
the president, by contrast, really killed Kerry last night. Who cares what people thought going into last night, I think his performance changed some minds and I think we'll see that reflected in the polls in the next few days (so long as the Republicans can get their act together and really start pulling together an effective post-debate spin... something they don't have now). You can't just say that someone wins a debate based on pre-debate polls. That's just plain stupid.
Before we all get a knickers in a twist over this, I think you should know the following:
Boortz will be voting for President Bush because of the War On Terror. He believes--like most of us--that John Kerry is too incompetent to run an effect WOT.
Boortz has been talking about this very thing on his radio show for years. The person that "gives you more for doing less" will always win with the average American whose needy. John Kerry promises everything under the sun. No Republican can compete with that. And it would be shameful if that Republican tried.
Boortz has been railing against the Democrats almost everyday. If you can, tune in.
I don't think anyone questions Boortz's commitment to conservatism, but I definitely question his analysis. I think it was pretty weak.
That's "pro-life" to you, Neal.
Nope. What you are seeing here is pure sarcasm. Neal is a pro at it and Kerry is skewered like a fish on a pike, cooking over a fire.
A 'room full of Catholics' faithful to the Pope's position on abortion, knowing the euphemism 'anti-choice' will do exactly the opposite and vote against Mr. Abortion on November 2.
Kerry lost the respect of many people when he made the cheap shot about Cheney's daughter. Just like his ambulance-chasing running mate Breck Boy did. And Mary Beth Cahill showed the world what kind of person she is when she declared Cheney's daugher "Fair Game".
john
Abortion is a sacrament to Libertarians.
In a side note, Dick Morris, a big Bush supporter said that Kerry won the debate also, but that was because it played into the Democrats traditional strong point. Morris also stated that Bush did better than anyone could have thought and that he was by far the better choice. I think that there might be a theory out there that because the instant tracking poll says Kerry won, thanks DU, that it makes us look like partisan when we claim that Bush won.
Did you read rest of Neal's Nuze? THat would have been nice if someone had posted it as well. Go read it.
Oh.
I guess shoving a pair of surgical scissors into the base of somebody's skull isn't an "initiation of force."
The Degenerat master debaters have no business bringing a private individual into the debates. Regardless of their views, Chaney's daughter has a right to privacy which the Dems do not respect. She is not a public figure, her father is - no excuse & BOORISH or is that BOORTZISH now?
If he didn't know most of the questions before they were asked, he's a damned fool.
I knew most of the questions before they were asked -- and I don't know anyone in the media, either. Almost every question in these debates has been so predictable that any candidate who showed up unprepared to answer them shouldn't even be running for mayor of his hometown.
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.