Posted on 10/04/2004 7:24:13 AM PDT by blogblogginaway
In Nascar, the term ‘sandbag’ is used to describe a maneuver in which a driver who has a really fast car doesn’t utilize the full potential of the car’s strength during that race. The idea is to intentionally make the other drivers; who aren’t expecting this to happen, think they may have the fastest cars so they make fewer adjustments to their cars...to make them even faster...and they show everyone else what they have during the race.
Once the race is close to the finish, the driver who has been ‘sandbagging’ knows what adjustments the other race teams have made, knows who he has to contend with and what kind of racing performance the top cars potentially have. So he moves to the front of the race and in the last few laps fights for or cruises to the win at the finish.
It is my contention that President Bush ‘sandbagged’ Kerry during their debate and I’ll explain why, but I also want to point out that this is only speculation on my part. If indeed this was a planned tactic by the Bush team, they already gleaned the information they needed... and set Kerry up in the process...to finish the race with strong momentum and the Kerry people can now do little to ‘adjust’ their game plan to compensate for the setback this brilliant maneuver has created.
Okay, so let’s start with the elite media. They were chomping at the bit before the debate about how this would be the defining moment for John Kerry. That this debate would turn around his faltering campaign, because he would overwhelm the President with his extensive debating prowess and his stellar intellectual superiority, giving the American electorate no choice but to flock to Kerry in awe and wonderment.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinioneditorials.com ...
Consequently, I have wondered if the "anger" wasn't, in fact, rehearsed and focus-grouped, and that Rove and Bush don't know something we don't. Was it designed to make Kerry overconfident? I doubt it---I think, if it was deliberate---that there is something MUCH more important at work . . . but danged if I know what it is.
I just don't see any evidence in his previous campaigns of him not being disciplined in this way.
Sandbagger bump...
Debates rarely effect the outcome of a Presidential election. Only real supporters generally watch them.
Face it: Bush had a bad debate.
It has crossed my mind that Bush was purposely held back and kept hammering just a few salient points. I don't believe that he would have spent so much time and physical/mental energy going around the damaged areas of Florida earlier in the day if he was supposed to be fresh and prepared for an important battle. To date, I have no reason to believe Bush or his campaign crew are stupid enough to make a mistake that (apparently) big. I think Cheney and Edwards will be used to set the stage for the next debate and the big guns will be come out for the last debate.
I think some Republicans are so blinded that they think whatever Bush does, is all part of some grand master plan.
Perhaps Jim Lehrer wasn't the best choice for a moderater because he threw softballs at Kerry. Perhaps Tim Russert would have done a fairer job.
"Consequently, I have wondered if the "anger" wasn't, in fact, rehearsed and focus-grouped...."
This parallels some of my thinking on the matter. GW is no fool. He does not make the kind of mistakes he appeared to be making during the first debate. I'm not clever enough to figure out what the game plan is, but I have no doubt whatever that there is one and that this was part of it.
Sure, why not? I'll drink that KoolAid. I got nothing else right now. All I can say is thank God for the Astros and the wildcard. Keeps my mind off everything else. Go Rodger!!!! Kick some Braves ass on Wednesday.
Sort of like a rope-a-dope.
Hmmm.
Well, I don't know but what I find hard to believe is the polls. I've read the internals, and Bush is still strong on foreigh policy. That's all that was discussed in the debate.
So how do numbers swing that much when the very topic the debate was about still proves to be Bush's strong point in the poll numbers, and he beats Kerry hands down when poll takers are asked about foreign policy.
Something is weird about the polls, IMHO.
It was a sandbag job. Expect Bush to point out at the next debate that Kerry is one of the most liberal senators ever, and that he was having a maniucre and a hair cut prior to the debate, while he was meeting with hurricane victims.
Outstanding article and I agree totally with it! It was obvious that the President was giving Kerry some rope and it worked. Soundbites the Republicans have are priceless. RATs had to depend on the facial features of the President for their ads.
Great strategy! Don't Mess with President Bush who comes from the Don't Mess with Texas State. Starting with Ma Richards, the RATs underestimated him and it continues today. Could also add some Freepers to that list as well! :)
Amen.
Bush is fairly thin-skinned. It was clear that one of Kerry's strategies was to say something in the last 30 seconds of his statements that would bait Bush into responding. Sometimes Bush had to respond, other times he should have let it go, but he always got off message by trying to respond.
Bush's reputation for discipline in debates is due to his ability to repeat the same few things again and again. He did that last Thursday; his problem really wasn't his own performance, it's that Kerry was more disciplined that usual.
Believing that Bush's strategy was to sandbag Kerry is a bit in tin foil land. Why take a dive when you could instead have gone for the knockout? I think if anything the problem was that they assumed Kerry was going to be the plodding droning Kerry of old. But this was desperation time for Kerry, and he did his damndest to stay focused.
Well, Pres Bush knows he is strong on foreign policy issues. Now, if he is sandbagging, then maybe he has some excellent material planned for the debate where he is perceived as weak, domestic/economy debate.
I've been pondering the same theory.
Yup. It's usually the Rats and libs who refuse to let reality affect their worldview. With respect to the debate, though, it's us. Bush did not do well in a debate that could have ended Kerry's campaign. No way in the world that was intentional.
I'd say it was 50 50. Kerry on Style, Bush on substance. And if he was tired it was because the debate was the same questions over and over again.
Welcome to FR!
My opinion is that nothing was put to chance at the first debate. President Bush is not someone who shoots from the hip. He is prepared, he is disciplined, and he takes his job as President much more seriously than many folks understand.
I have no idea what their strategy is, but I believe the best one is to let John Kerry slip on his own rug. The Kerry people make it so darn easy.
Inexcusable perfomance....but would you please type "President" before his name.
Show some respect, please.
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.