SwiftVets.com

[joeshero]

It's time to stay away from apologetic attitude. In a reality-TV world, substance is secondary to style. I am really worried about the second debate if we—the Bush’s camp and us—continue to focus on “winning on the substance” attitude. About 62 million people watched the first debate. That’s a huge number, and I do think that most of them were likely voters. Can’t afford another not-so-good performance on style. And can’t afford to have a very tight race, either. (Deleted by Admin)
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[closer]

KERRY CHEATED .... AGAIN .. THIS TIME DURING DEBATE

We all know that honesty has never been a Kerry trait ... so why should a Presidential debate be any different?

All of this media frenzie about Kerry winning the debate --- how he was able to stay on topic, kept Bush on defense, and appeared so very intelligent and "Presidential" as he brought up everything he needed to cover with such skill and ease.

Well, looks like Kerry was able to accomplish this by cheating. If you check CSPAN, Kerry is shown taking his "notes" out of his breast pocket as he stepped behind his podium. I went back and checked some of his recent campaign appearances, and it appears he brings out these "notes" or "talking points" quite frequently at the beginning of his appearances and uses them to stay on topic, etc. (His new campaign mentors have obviously gotten him to do this in the past few weeks in order to try and stop his downward spiral.)

ANY notes being brought in were CLEARLY a violation of the debate "Rules of Engagement" (also listed on the CPAN site) .. and accordingly; the moderator should have stepped in and enforced this rule violation. CSPAN's debate video shows Kerry pulling the notes out, so how could the moderator miss it?

I kept wondering what Kerry kept writing down on his "note paper". He kept looking down and "writing" during most of the debate. More than likely, he was just pretending to write, and was actually reviewing the "notes" he snuck into the debates so he'd be prepared for his next talking point.

FYI : The "Rules of Engagement" for the Debate stated that neither candidate was allowed to bring in ANY props, NOTES, charts, diagrams or other writings. The Rules also stated that the each candidate was to choose the type of blank paper and writing instrument they wanted to use "to write notes DURING the debate".. and that the COMMISSION was designated to place each candidate's choice of blank paper and writing instrument on the podium or table in advance of the candidates coming out.

No wonder he looked so much better ... per the liberal Press. Did anyone else notice this clear violation of the Rules? Looks like President Bush played by the rules ... but did Kerry????

[sleeplessinseattle]

[sleeplessinseattle]

re: this Washington Post article by David Broder I wrote the following reply. His basic argument was that Kerry sounded some believable themes in the debate and put himself (back) "in the game." I took extreme issue with his word choice..

-----Original Message-----
From: Sleepless in Seattle
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:10 PM
To: davidbroder@washpost.com
Subject: You sir, are wrong to use the word "insurgent" or "insurgency"
for child murderers.


"as the insurgency in Iraq gathers momentum...On a day when the headlines carried news of more than 40 deaths -- most of them children -- from insurgent attacks...the reality of the growing resistance...Bush's real opponent in this campaign is not John Kerry but the Iraqi insurgency..."

You sir, are wrong to use the word "insurgent" or "insurgency" for child murderers. What in the world does this mean? "Insurgency" "Resistance" - sounds like Ghandi - is that what you mean? Idiocy - please make some distinction - English is a very powerful and exact language. I know that you can do it - this is how you make a living, correct?! Just because a bunch of butchers are killing children and women in Bagdhad to try to upend the US and Iraqi elections does not mean this can blithely, stupidly be considered "gathering momentum" for an "insurgency." Try, heinous sick extremists attempt yet again to strongarm the world through cowardly acts...those of us who are truly courageous, most of all our incredible armed forces, will not allow this to happen. By calling the terrorists and murderers of children in Iraq an insurgency you do a diservice to reality and to the Iraqi/Coalition/American bravery and resolve. What sort of brazen motivation might you have to do such a thing a day after children were mass murdered? Inconceivable...

Why don't you try grabbing a thesaurus and using a word akin to "murderer" or "terrorist?"
Terrorist - radical, fanatic, extremist - would be a good start.
Child Murderer - slayer, slaughterer, executioner...

"Bush's real opponent in this campaign is not John Kerry but the Iraqi insurgency..." Nope - his real opponent and ours are heinous, cowardly, child killing, head sawing off with kitchen knives terrorists...call a spade a spade sir...

"no viable exit strategy" - what do you consider our exit strategy from 9/11? I know what the exit strategy was for dozens and dozens in those buildings murdered by the child killing murderers...they had to jump out of them...most others were incinerated in moments of utter horror almost too gruesome to contemplate...and where does that leave us? To take the fight to the front and back yards of the terrorists themselves - that's where...and that's EXACTLY WHAT President Bush and our brave troops are doing and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rebuilding teams continue to provide goods and services whereever and whenever the murderers, extremists and terrorists are put down. That is our exit strategy sir - we are not dealing with an enemy who will fight us to our face - we are dealing with cowards who will shoot children in the back and blow them up as they reach for candy - heinous sick monsters when you think about it.

[arkadyfolkner]

[joeshero]

[sevry]

[kmudd]

[WebTalk]

closer

You're absolutly right!
I just went to CSpan and watched it and rewatched it.
It's perfectly clear to see him reach into his right breast pocket and put the paper on his podium.
That's incredible. He had to CHEAT to win.
_________________
America voted for solid LEADERSHIP and gave "W" a mandate to carry on.
God Blessed America! Again!

[Doc Jerry]

This debate had no impact with the exception of the post debate autopsy which is showing Kerry lied, lied, lied. It will be a long lost memory after the pundits talk about it this weekend and put it to rest. The signficant poll numbers did not move. Kerry had no impact at all.


Medics, we're there when you need us.

[jataylor11]

[Jerry M]

Bush was clearly not prepared for what he should have known was going to be an all out offensive against him packed with falsehoods and innuendo. It was also no secret what the Kerry/Democrat talking points were going to be. A well prepared, good debater could have easily rebutted and taken Kerry apart on much of what he said.

One reason Bush was constantly on the defensive was the moronic decision by his campaign to agree to one moderator who had the power to compose and ask all the questions. And who was that moderator, the liberal Jim Lehrer from PBS who focused entirely on questions designed to make Bush look bad on Iraq and asked nothing about Kerry's Senate record, his vote against the first Persian Gulf War, border security issues, his anti-war/enemy sympathizing activities and on and on. Clinton aids, who are running the Kerry campaign, used to refer to Lehrer as "our moderator". I am beginning to seriously wonder if Bush does not need a campaign staff shake up. Knowing his reputation for loyalty, that will probably never happen.

Lehrer was the real reason Bush found himself constantly on the defensive. He, after all, had the sole power to determine where the questioning was going to go and Bush was not sharp enough open other avenues.

[Tacan70UDN]

Here's an interesting article from the SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/02/EDG8E92FVG1.DTL

(Sorry, admin, haven't figured out how to shrink this.)

Basically, he says Bush wins on substance, Kerry wins on style. Some good takes here.

[depotoo]

why don't we boycott news outlets that are liberally biased? from now to the election - if we pass this around, i really think it would help. only purchase those and listen to those that put out the truth - when o'reilly boycotted france it really hurt them so this could hurt the media as well. if you feel it would have an impact pass this along to everyone you know. i for one know our letter writing does not seem to work. hit them where it hurts!
_________________
May God Bless us all and let truth reign.

[Fort Campbell]