Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/4/2004 6:12:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 11:28:44 AM EST by AClay47]

Cal Thomas writes about debate

Kerry may have exhibited better style during Thursday night's Presidential debate, but columnist Cal Thomas writes that Bush won on substance. Kerry made several gaffes, such as:

(1) His position that he would abandon multinational talks with North Korea's lunatic dictator, Kim Yung Il, and resume bilateral talks as had the Clinton administration (which N Korea violated). Kerry asserted that N Korea's neighbors have no place at the talks, and that the US should negotiate an end to all matters remaining from the1953 UN armistice agreement.

(2) His position that the United States must gather a global consensus before defending itself through preemptive action.

(3) That he would secure Iraq's borders from foreigners, something which the United States can't do satisfactorily!

(4) Kerry ridiculed America's allies, while asserting he would build international alliances to help America's efforts in Iraq, which he called the wrong war, at the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:14:12 AM EST
I agree he won on substance… but in this case perception is reality.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:29:41 AM EST
Unfortunately.....anyone still on the fence in this election is probably dumb enough to be swayed by presentation....rather than facts
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:33:36 AM EST
Point #5:

(5) It's hard work.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:39:43 AM EST
He's correct.

Bush is no orator. But he's genuine, and a realist when it comes to tough foreign policy decisions. And he's not self-impressed to the point of distraction with 'nuance' and other inane liberal 'virutes.'

Remember also, that during the 2000 Republican primary debates, Alan Keyes walked away with all of them, yet failed to win the nomination. Winning votes is about what a candidate stands for, and the backing behind that - more than performances like this.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:44:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 6:45:26 AM EST by garandman]

Originally Posted By the:
He's correct.

Bush is no orator. But he's genuine, and a realist when it comes to tough foreign policy decisions. And he's not self-impressed to the point of distraction with 'nuance' and other inane liberal 'virutes.'





Exactly.

And Joe SixPack and Jane SecurityMom, who live in flyover country and are NEVER polled, WILL respond to Bush's genuineness at the polls this Nov.

Bush was KNOCKING HIMSELF OUT the day of and before the debate visiting hurricane victims in Florida, whilst sKerry was preening in the mirror.

Bush may have "lost" the debate, but he locked up Florida.

Florida = 27 electoral votes.



Link Posted: 10/4/2004 8:21:10 AM EST
What substance was he on???

I thought he's been clean and sober for decades???



THis is a joke. Don't go flipping out.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 9:10:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By darwindog:
What substance was he on???

I thought he's been clean and sober for decades???


THis is a joke. Don't go flipping out.



Are you STILL beating your wife???

THis is a joke. Don't go flipping out.





Link Posted: 10/4/2004 11:25:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 11:27:39 AM EST by AClay47]
I won't say Kerry won the debate. Cal Thomas and others may think so. Newsweek's Michael Isekoff said on the radio today that Kerry won, because he demonstrated "leadership." Firstly, it was Newsweek which published the phony poll showing Kerry had the lead over Bush after the debate, although the poll was heavily weighted with Democrats and registered, but not likely voters. The media can tell me day after day that Kerry won, but the fact remains that the positions Kerry had to take in the debate will resonate against him until the last vote is cast.

Let me say, I have seen far better lawyers than John F Kerry. The presentations he made would have been sliced and diced by the average practicioner. President Bush obviously is not a lawyer, nor a skilled debater. Still, he communicates rather well. Besides, are we electing a President, or a debater?

Me? I'm voting for the man whose leadership is evident by what he has done, rather than the Senator whose leadership undermined our Country during the Vietnam War, the cold war (pershing missile and weapons systems), and despite 20 years in the Senate has yet to author significant legislation.

I judge the debate's winner by what he said, not how others felt he said it.
Top Top