Bush's Lost Opportunity

[Rokkitsci]

I am still saddened over the poor performance of president Bush in the Thursday debate. I wanted Bush to bury him so deeply that he would never be able to climb out of the hole. It appears that Bush was either extremely tired, or he had made a strategic decision to just play "defense" in order to avoid making any sort of gaffe, or appear "offensive."

I think that was bad strategy, if that is what he chose to do.

And I don't think being tired is a valid excuse. Sure - he had spent the day visiting hurricane victims. That too was a strategic decision. Was he thinking that it didn't matter how he appeared in the debate? That he could expend a lot of physical energy and still be effective in a debate late that night?

The debates are all about the "undecided" voters - who by definition are not too bright. Anyone who is undecided at this point is really too dumb to vote anyway, but sadly they have the power to decide the election.

You cannot rely on these "undecided" idiots to see past the stagecraft involved. They are going to believe whoever "appears" to be in command of the issues. Whether that person is blowing smoke are dealing in verifiable facts is lost on this group of intellectual hermits.

So, you have to put something out there that can sway them. Either you have to "look" so good that they just sit in admiration of the "Oprah" moment, or you have to make a case that even a simpleton can understand.

I would not have cared if Bush "looked" tired, if only he had made the following points that I am confident would have destroyed Kerry - whether said with Oxford English or Texas Twang - to any audience with a brain.

Points that Bush should have raised - even if NOT asked by Leaher:
(btw - Leaher did not seem interested in asking probing questions of Kerry - but we all knew that was not going to happen, so it is not an excuse - Bush should have been prepared to bring up these topics at some point):

1) Kerry's vote on the first Gulf War -

This was the killer issue for Kerry as far as I am concerned and it was never mentioned. Not even Kerry could have made a convincing arguement over that vote - without revealing himself as a radical peace-nik.

In that instance:
- the USA had the full backing of the UN.
- we had all the nations who are now claimed to be critical to any coalition (France, Germany, Russia, etc) as leading members of the coalition
- we had all the Arab nations in the region on our team
- we had a case of naked agression by Saddam Hussein against another nation
- we had human rights violations and political murder on a massive scale
- we had a promise from Israel to stay out of the conflict, regardless of the destruction rained on them by Saddam.
- we had the demonstrated resolve of Saddam Hussein to continue his invasion into Saudi Arabia which would indeed have put Saddam into a much more powerful tryranny (here is where comparisons to Hitler in the early 30's are valid - this was the precise moment in history to make sure Saddam never acquired the status Hitler obtained after the appeasement of Chamberlain)

In short, we had the most overwhelming cause - we had the most unanamous coalition - we had the unqualified support of the entire world - and still Kerry opposed it. We had every single thing that Kerry now derides Bush for NOT having, and still he opposed it.

WHY ???? How would Kerry respond to that? We will never know.

It is shameful that Leaher did not ask this direct question to Kerry. It is unforgiveable that Bush was not prepared to ask that question, knowing that Leaher would not want to expose his darling to the harshness of having to defend the undefensible.

I expected Bush to demand accountablily from Kerry early in the debate on this topic. When it didn't occur in the first ten minutes, my heart sank.

2) Kerry's record on military spending, especially SDI.

To the extent that Kerry has a record of any kind to show for his 20 years in the Senate - that record includes opposition to every military system that has come forward, especially his opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Kerry has never been asked to defend, or explain, his anti-military record in that regard. When the question ever comes up, he or his surrogates always just say something like = "That is the way the senate works. Sometimes you have to vote against a bill because of some amendment or rider or clause that you want to demonstrate opposition to. All senators do it."

Nobody has ever followed up that answer with something like:

"OK - we know that senators sometimes have to do this.
BUT,

- Isn't there SOMETIMEs that the senator can make a vote FOR a military expenditure?
- Is it your contention that EVERY military bill is laden down with "protest" measures??
- Is the PROTEST value of your vote more IMPORTANT than the meat of the bill??
- Have you ever SPONSORED a bill of your OWN - without the things you protest - to provide new military equipment??
- Has there EVER been a time you WISH you could have voted for a bill that provided new military equipement to our armed forces??
- If so, did you bring that issue forward in your Senate speeches on the matter? - If so, what did you say?"

and

"OK - you oppose SDI - why?"

3) Kerry's support of the Clinton "get Saddam" plans and his opposition to the Bush "get Saddam" plans.

This was the opportunity to show Kerry as a political partisan - to show that his "position" on any topic is dominated by prospects of political advantage, rather than the seriousness of the issue.

We can tolearate a modicum of that tendency on domestic issues - and yes both sides do it to varying degrees - but when it comes to issues of war and peace, issues of national survival, it is time to put politics aside and work with however has the responsibility to do the best job possible for the American people.

We can tolerate the domestic propoganda, but we cannot afford internal mendacity when it comes to defending our nation. The GOP has a good record of supporting the national defense regardless of who is president and how badly they opposed their domestic agenda - FDR - HST- JFK - LBJ. I don't know if Clinton or Carter ever asked for military spending, but I am confident that the GOP did not deny it just because they were democrats.

This question would go to the heart of the man - is he foremost a political partisan?? or is he a qualified statesman??

Again - it is shameful that Learher didn't ask it - and unforgiveable that Bush didn't raise it.

This is long enough - I have numerous other points that should rightfully have been made and were glaringly absent from the debate.

However, the above three are enough in my mind to have buried Kerry beyond rehabilitation. That Kerry is still above ground is Bush's fault. If Bush loses the election, I will look back on this sorry performance as the reason.

Bush can recover, and I am sure he will - but he could have coasted in had he taken care of business Thursday.

Now he has some more "hard work" to do.

 

[jennyanydots]

Bush looked like he was irritated with having to be there. he rolled his eyes, he smirked, he was more than just "tired". it speaks volumes about his character. remember in 1960, those who saw the debate on television came away with a very differnet view of Nixon than those who listened on the radiio. no wonder the President didn't want the networks to show split screen images of him listening to Senator Kerry.

but more important, while both candiddates had a tendency to repeat their points, Bush sounded redundant and repetitive, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. there was no substance there.

"undecided idiots", as you put it, saw a President who refuses to acknowleges his mistakes, and who presented no real plan for the future.

I think the "undecided idiots" will examine both the presentation and the underlying substance of what was said.

 

[denisenh]

I am not a Bush supporter, or undecided. I decided 4 years ago that I was probably not voting for Bush (I voted Gore, like most other Americans) So I had 4 years of this President to look forward to.
I have of late, been attempting to understand why folks think he is so great. I really hadn't tried before. I thought that I must be not trying hard enough to like him, thats all that there is to it.
Well, I still don't see why he has as much support as he does.

I appreciate your frustration though, I really do. If I were a Bush supporter, I would have been completely devestated watching the debate. I know it.
I have respect for him, I think he seems like a nice enough person, and to be honest, I know more Bush supporters than Kerry supprters, and I like all of those people,so he can't be totally bad.

There are 2 more debates, so he will have the chance to do better.

Smile.... I was starting to think that the President was going to faint or something, he looked so stunned to me, so it could have been worse. I felt bad for him too. (But I am still voting kerry and was/am 100% sure that he would win even before the debate)

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
..... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. there was no substance there........

Actually, it was Kerry who presented no "substance." His was a message of empty rhetoric - talking about alliances he would form and summits he would hold.

If you think he can form alliances after his denigration of the coalition that already exists, then more power to you. To me it speaks to the fact that you are not really trying to understand issues - that you are just another robot.

As for a "summit" - with whom? and to what end?

Does Kerry think that his "debate" skills can convince France to depart from their corrupt sponsorship of cash cows like the "oil for food" scandal?? Do you think that Kerry can "talk" his way into acheiving some grand alliance??

You need to wake up to the realization that the "rest of the world" wants Kerry as president BECAUSE they know that Kerry doesn't have the cajones to oppose them. They want a "yes-man" as the US president. THEY want an ally to THEIR view of the world. They have no intention of becoming OUR ally in OUR view of the world.

So - if you thought any of Kerry's rhetoric amounted to "substance" then I feel sorry for your powers of comprehension.

I still think Bush failed to make his points effective, and I still point out that the only people that Kerry "convinced" are the really really really ignorant.

 

[MinnieM21]

Just because someone is undecided doesn't mean they're an idiot, not too bright and are too dumb to vote. That's incredibly rude and really uncalled for. You don't know why people are undecided so please don't make assumptions and call people idiots.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by MinnieM21
Just because someone is undecided doesn't mean they're an idiot, not too bright and are too dumb to vote. That's incredibly rude and really uncalled for. You don't know why people are undecided so please don't make assumptions and call people idiots.

I thought it interesting that he called them idiots, and then went on at length in a not so subtle atttempt to convince these "idiots".

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by denisenh

I have of late, been attempting to understand why folks think he is so great.

I think Bush is great because he has become a leader. I was not a fan of his when he became president. I voted for him primarily because he was "not Gore" - the same reason you are voting for Kerry because he is "not Bush."

Bush has actually done the things he promised to do = the economy was going downhill and he enacted his plan to rescue it and it worked.

That alone would have made me willing to support him this time rather than just vote "against" the "other guy."

However, in case you missed it - we were attacked on September 11, 2001 in the most unmistakably way - it was in all the newspapers - you must have heard about it.

On that day - the world changed - and leaders stood forth.

On that day, the character of people became the issue.

On that day, the "sunshine patriots" had to make a decision.

On that day, some people decided to declare war on terrorism and pledge not give up until it was defeated - regardless of the cost - the tragedies - the popularity - the polls - the election. Some people decided that the security of our nation and its way of life were more important than any personal advantage.

On that day, some saw a political banquet ahead
- they recognized that in war serious things happen
- they know that mistakes are made on a daily basis
- they know that nothing goes as planned
- they know that people will die
- they know that lives will be uprooted
- they know that disasters will happen.

In short, they know that they will be able to "second guess" any matter on a daily basis without being proved "wrong."

They know they can employ hindsight and agree with everything that goes good (showing their support for the effort) and at the same time criticize everything that goes bad (showing how much better they would have done.)

However, they are not the ones who have to make the decisions before the results are known, so they don't have to endure the criticisms of why THEIR decisions led to similar, or even greater, mistakes, defeats, uprooting of lives, deaths, etc.

In other words, they have an open field ahead of them if they are so dishonorable as to take advantage of it. Watch it happening.

There is no requirement to "agree" with everything that a president does. I certainly don't - but I DO think it is dishonorable to attack the president's MOTIVEs for making decisions. That is where I draw the line.

AND - I think it is dishonorable to use EVERY misfortune of war as a hammer to beat the president with. UNLESS - one was on record BEFORE the event saying = "if you do that, this will happen." If a person has done that, then they are obligated to point out that they WOULD have done things differently because they had PROPOSED it before hand.

But AFTER an event has happened it is DISHONORABLE to then construct a "plan" that would have avoided THAT event.

So - I support Bush because he has made tough decisions - he has weathered the storm of political mendacity that has been thrown at him - he has maintained his character and integrity - he has done the job admirably.

I think all this and still believe that he missed a golded opportunity to destroy his opponent in the debate.

 

[DisMN]

Speaking as a previously undecided (but it WOULDN'T have been for Bush in ANY circumstance....) intellectual hermit who's also obviously an idiot and ignorant....I just want to say, don't underestimate the voting POWER of us idiots.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by denisenh
(I voted Gore, like most other Americans)

A minor point but Al Gore received 48.38% of the vote. So that means that 51.62% of the people, or most of them, didn't vote for Al Gore.

Richard

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
A minor point but Al Gore received 48.38% of the vote. So that means that 51.62% of the people, or most of them, didn't vote for Al Gore.

Richard

Nah, your numbers are wrong.

Gore had 48.38
Bush had 47.87


rest of the %'s were for BROWN
BROWNE
BUCHANAN
DODGE
HAGELIN
HARRIS

Most of America did vote for Gore.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
I think all this and still believe that he missed a golded opportunity to destroy his opponent in the debate.

I agree, but the answer sessions were 120 seconds long, and he had the choice of either counter-attacking or defending each time. In defending his own positions he was actually getting his POVs out there and correcting some misinformation, which is good too. This is not the battle of Normandy.

 

[shortbun]

Sorry Rokkitsci, if Bush was tired, I am even more so.
Tired of him. Time for a change and I think George W
will be glad when the voting's over and he can take
a long rest in Texas. As to Kerry's presidency, it will take
the first four years to undo all the damage W has done
to this country, it's people and the world in general.
And-to your quest for Kerry to explain his stance on war
and the military in general...if you don't understand by now,
give it up and write a novel. You have the desire to write
long fictional pieces, you could live quite nicely in your retirement on the best seller you might write. Of course, I won't "buy" that either.

On to the next debate and claiming more of those "idiots" you
so readily hand over. Thanks!

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
- the same reason you are voting for Kerry because he is "not Bush."

Not a true statement.

 

[Tuffcookie]

Rokkitsci wrote:

"However, in case you missed it - we were attacked on September 11, 2001 in the most unmistakably way - it was in all the newspapers - you must have heard about it.

On that day - the world changed - and leaders stood forth.

On that day, the character of people became the issue.

On that day, the "sunshine patriots" had to make a decision.

On that day, some people decided to declare war on terrorism and pledge not give up until it was defeated - regardless of the cost - the tragedies - the popularity - the polls - the election. Some people decided that the security of our nation and its way of life were more important than any personal advantage."

Thank you, Rokkitsci, it seems like a lot of people either missed it or have forgotten about it.

TC

 

[chadfromdallas]

Thank you, Rokkitsci, it seems like a lot of people either missed it or have forgotten about it.

You forgot to add this:

Start an unnecessary war against a country that had no involvment in terrorism against us and wasn't a threat to us at all.

Can't forget that.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by MinnieM21
Just because someone is undecided doesn't mean they're an idiot, not too bright and are too dumb to vote. That's incredibly rude and really uncalled for. You don't know why people are undecided so please don't make assumptions and call people idiots.

Yes, I am undecided.....but far from being an idiot or stupid. I'm undecided because I really don't think either man will be good for the country. We all know what Bush can/can't do. The unknown of Kerry scares me. He says he will do the war better....he wants 40 thousand more active duty troops, he wants to double the special ops...all good, but where will he get these extra bodies from? Everyone complains about our troops being over in Iraq, yet he wants to have more....will he institute the draft to get these extra bodies. Will he raise taxes to pay for all this beefing up national security, will he raise taxes to help the budget gap? I can't afford to pay anymore in taxes then I already do.

Some people talk about Kerry like he the second coming of Christ...they think once he is in office all the problems we now face will be over. Kerry is just a man...he can only do so much.

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Actually, it was Kerry who presented no "substance." His was a message of empty rhetoric - talking about alliances he would form and summits he would hold.

If you think he can form alliances after his denigration of the coalition that already exists, then more power to you. To me it speaks to the fact that you are not really trying to understand issues - that you are just another robot.

As for a "summit" - with whom? and to what end?

Does Kerry think that his "debate" skills can convince France to depart from their corrupt sponsorship of cash cows like the "oil for food" scandal?? Do you think that Kerry can "talk" his way into acheiving some grand alliance??

You need to wake up to the realization that the "rest of the world" wants Kerry as president BECAUSE they know that Kerry doesn't have the cajones to oppose them. They want a "yes-man" as the US president. THEY want an ally to THEIR view of the world. They have no intention of becoming OUR ally in OUR view of the world.

So - if you thought any of Kerry's rhetoric amounted to "substance" then I feel sorry for your powers of comprehension.

I still think Bush failed to make his points effective, and I still point out that the only people that Kerry "convinced" are the really really really ignorant.

I really don't think that Kerry is a "yes man". He has the ability to think about more than himself and realizes that we have to live on this planet with people that don't think the same as us.
We will never kill or capture all the "america(n) haters" or terrorists no matter how many billions of everyones hard earned tax dollars go into it. Behind every captured or killed terrorist is another one.

Who cares if the rest of the world wants Kerry as President, or wants Bush for that matter? I don't.

I think that if the debate "convinced" some folks to vote for Kerry then they must believe that he is the better man for the job.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Nah, your numbers are wrong.

Gore had 48.38
Bush had 47.87


rest of the %'s were for BROWN
BROWNE
BUCHANAN
DODGE
HAGELIN
HARRIS

Most of America did vote for Gore.

I think my numbers are right and your statement is wrong. More Americans voted for Al Gore than voted for George Bush. But most of America did not vote for Al Gore. 51.62% did not vote for Al Gore. That would be most.

I wasn't comparing candidates. I was comparing those who voted for Al Gore against those that didn't vote for Al Gore. The statements;

Originally posted by denisenh
(I voted Gore, like most other Americans)

and

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Most of America did vote for Gore.

are incorrect.

Richard

 

[septbride2002]

The debates are all about the "undecided" voters - who by definition are not too bright. Anyone who is undecided at this point is really too dumb to vote anyway, but sadly they have the power to decide the election.

To the original poster - HOW DARE YOU! How dare you question anyone intelligence. How dare you say that just because someone is undecided they should not have the right to vote. Where do you get the nerve? There are some people who do not want to make a decision based on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or the mud slinging commercials that either party puts out there during the election year. Some of us wait and actually see what the candidates have to say during the debates because at least then we MIGHT actually see some of the truth. The debates are very telling and as you said YES Bush lost a good oppurtunity but there are still 2 more debates to go. I am not an idiot, I am not to dumb to cast my vote, I am not someone to be cast aside. How Dare You!

I hope the bad karma you spewed today comes back to bite you in the A$$ tomorrow!

Augh!

 

[faithinkarma]

Thank you, Rokkitsci, it seems like a lot of people either missed it or have forgotten about it.

As another poster said yesterday, I too am sick and tired of Bush supporters spreading this absolutely wicked LIE that only they remember 9/11. Seriously folks, do you honestly believe you feel things deeper or take them more seriously just because you support Bush? And if you do, you need to do some soul searching and figure out why you are willing to look down your nose and assume a mantle of moral superiority over half your fellow Americans. What led you to think that way? Just because people see the problem differently that you do, you assume the right to say they do not remember 9/11. DO NOT REMEMBER 9/11???? Are you listening to yourselves. What could be more ridiculous that to accuse anyone of not remembering 9/11/ Shame on you !!!!!!!! Shame on you for every time you try to use this ridiculous argument against anyone who disagrees with you.