Reply With Quote
both of you need to step away from the pipe and get some fresh air
This guy saw the debate I did.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/9806488.htm
1st round goes to W.
Kerry needed a knockout, and he didn't get it
John Baer
Philadelphia Daily News
HILLARY won.
Or one of the Johns. You know, McCain or Edwards.
Or anybody else seriously looking to run in '08 after George W. Bush serves out his second term.
That's because John Kerry, who had to score a knockout last night, landed some punches but didn't take the le.
Yeah, he looked a little tougher than when he's windsurfing off Nantucket in spandex.
And, OK, he had a good line about how it's one thing to always be "certain" but one can, after all, be certain and wrong.
And he even seemed somewhat directed and focused.
But this debate, critical if not determinative to the outcome of the election, did not take Kerry where he needs to be.
Instead, the champ at staying on message is still the undisputed George W. Bush.
How so?
Because of one moment that defined the debate and the race.
When debate moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush if there are "character issues" that maybe should keep Kerry from being president, Bush showed he's a consummate politician.
He first did some aw-shucks plain-speak. "Whew, that's a loaded question."
See, he's just folks.
Then he graciously praised Kerry's service to country and family, calling him "a great dad," and even praised his service in the Senate.
It was Bush being the nice guy, the guy people like. Brilliant.
Then he hit Kerry with the message of the night, indeed the campaign:
"He changes positions."
It was the pat on the back before slipping in the shiv.
It fit perfectly with his performance throughout the 90-minute encounter.
Bush over and over tagged Kerry for changing his position on Iraq and said several times one can't lead if you say, as Kerry has, it's "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Ah repe ion. The mother's milk of campaign victories.
Plus Bush looked the part: aggressive, firm, strong.
From the moment he stalked across the stage (first one out of the wings) to Kerry's podium to shake his hand, to his tight-lipped PO'd look caught on camera as Kerry sniped at him, as opposed to Kerry's smiling and nodding as Bush swiped at him.
(Don't you think they should have traded ties? Kerry wore red, Bush blue, but their states are just the opposite colors.)
When Kerry got to answer the "character" question, he floated off on something about stem-cell research and global warming (the debate topic was foreign policy and homeland security).
And the fact Kerry spoke to Lehrer and not to me and not to voters and seemed more intent on showing how much he knows rather than how much he cares? I just think that's a killer.
Bush worked the camera and Lehrer with a nice mix of eye contact and practiced talking points.
He used his occasional 30-second extensions, a debate rule allowing for continued discussion of a single question, to answer every charge Kerry made.
Kerry, at least once, tried to do the same and couldn't even get Lehrer's attention.
Mostly Bush very much stayed the course.
The war is hard work, which he said, I don't know, a dozen times, but we're going to win. Saddam was a threat. America's safer.
"We're going to win this war in Iraq."
Kerry, when he finally looked into the camera for his closing remarks, said, "I believe America's best days are ahead of us."
For me, stuff like "whew, that's a loaded question" works much better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send e-mail to [email protected]
both of you need to step away from the pipe and get some fresh air
Plenty of fresh air here.
What a load of garbage. He didn't look any of those things...the guy couldn't go two words without stumbling all over himself.
its called "repeating the same talking points over and over until they are believed to be true" Duff
So basically you two are ignorant of the issues but think Kerry won because he spoke well. Not surprising.
Bush looked like a freaking child at the beginning of the debate, although he started to do better as it went along.
They fail to differentiate between style and substance.So basically you two are ignorant of the issues but think Kerry won because he spoke well. Not surprising.
kerry won because he had a better message, a better delivery, raised damning questions that got Bush flustered, he won in every category. Bush doesnt look so good when Cheney and Rove arent there to hold his hand
Exhibit "A"
Again, what issues? Be specific. You obviously have a modem. The transcript of the debate is within your reach so you can provide the quotes.
Until then, shut up already.
why dont you go to the graveyard and get yourself a brain..it will do you some good
I fail to see how anyone who listened to what was actually said during the debate could come away thinking it was a clear victory for either candidate. I expect more people would give the edge to Kerry based on his speaking skills, but it was empty showmanship.
Again, you provide nothing. You are incapable of discussing any of the major issues covered in last night's debate.
pick one
I'll make it easier for you. Take your pick:
Iraq
Preemptive war
North Korea
Russia
Sudan
i asked you to pick one, not provide a list
Methinks you needed it. Start from the top if you like.
ok, iraq is fine...fire away
Go ahead. You made the claim that Kerry bested Bush on the "issues." Back it up.
what part of the iraq debate is in question? that Bush kept implying a false sadaam/al qaida/9-11 link over and over again? that iraq didnt present an imminent threat to the US like we were told? that the american public was sold on the war for iraqs weapons of mass destruction, not in the name of removing a dictator from power? anything else?
No he did not. Where is your quote?what part of the iraq debate is in question? that Bush kept implying a false sadaam/al qaida/9-11 link over and over again?
Bush never said "imminent."that iraq didnt present an imminent threat to the US like we were told?
Sure. Every major intelligence agency in the world agreed with that assessment as had the Clinton administration prior to 2001. Even John Kerry did at the time he voted for it before he was against it.that the american public was sold on the war for iraqs weapons of mass destruction,
Um that was certainly part of the equation.not in the name of removing a dictator from power?
Yes, please provide some substantiation for your claims. You should be able to find the transcript of the debate online.anything else?
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-01-2004 at 02:10 PM.
Subtance versus style? Before the debates we talked extensively about what was important in past debates, and it wasn't substance. So Marcus can argue till he's blue in the face that W. won last nights debate because he repeated the same old Bushivek lies on Iraq over and over again, but when it came down to real answers without the rhetoric it was Kerry, Kerry, Kerry.
I never spoke with you about what I considered important in the debates.
For those of us who aren't conspiracy believing nutjobs Bush clearly won the discussion. The only thing Kerry had going for him is that he "spoke well" while explaining that he would give nuclear material to the Iranians and subject the decision of this nation to deal with threats to its national security to a "global test". In addition Kerry indicated that he would dis the South Koreans. Japanese, and Chinese and engage in bilateral talks with the North Koreans. Not only is that dumb because it elevates North Korea in stature but it also goes against his primary claim against the Bush administration that it is far too unilateral in its diplomacy.
Kerry offers nothing different from what Mondale offered in 1984 and McGovern in 1972.
But...but...he spoke so well.
I don't think Bush changed too many minds. If you thought he was (lying/right) on Iraq before, you would still believe he was (lying/right). I think Kerry was more credible than the rhetoric from the Bush campaign, which the media has done little more than repeat. I don't Bush was more credible than Kerry, especially after Bush started repeating himself. I rate the debate a tie, but the Bush campaign has worked hard to paint Kerry as much less worthy than Bush, and the debate works against that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
