joanne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:16 PM
Original message |
Didnt Chimpy demand the first debate be about Iraq and national security? |
|
Supposedly his "strong points".
I'm sure Rove and his spinners thought * would win this first debate decisively. They needed to think that because * cant talk about the economy, jobs, health care and other matters important to Americans.
My point is... if he did so dismally in the area that is considered his "strongest" how much lower can he go? :) :)
|
complain jane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I can hardly wait to see! |
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message |
2. the bush monkey's strong lyin' points.. |
|
cause the people can't check up as easily.. like on what the economy is doin' to them.
Except for the poor soldiers who haven't drunk the KoolAid..they know what's goin' on in Iraq.
|
yardwork
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:24 PM
Response to Original message |
3. chimpy will work religion more into the next two debates |
|
it seems like a lot of the fundamentalist-freepers were upset that chimpy didn't talk about invading Iraq as a step toward the Rapture, etc. chimpy was only able to touch on that briefly in his closing statement - the stuff about the city on the hill blah blah.
shrimpy-chimpy will probably get some mileage out of bringing more overt religion into the next two debates. I don't know if this will help with undecideds - kind of doubt it actually.
|
ClintonTyree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:32 PM
Original message |
By doing that.............. |
|
he preaches to his choir of Fundies, but I think it'll turn off many voters who are fence sitting. Many people aren't that comfortable with a religowhacko with his finger on the button. It would be a big mistake on Bush's part IMO.
|
beaconess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-01-04 11:28 PM by beaconess
It seems like Kerry's team gave Bush a lot what he wanted, letting the Bush team think they'd gotten something but knowing full well that it wouldn't make any difference - that the Commander could take him down under any circumstances.
So much for the "Vernon Jordan is a wimp" crap. Looks like ole' Vernon, as usual, knew exactly what he was doing.
|
krkaufman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Yes, I believe they did. And ... |
|
... I expect they did this thinking:
(1) More people would watch the first debate, than the followups.
(2) A win in the first debate could have been a knockout punch to Kerry.
Bummer for Bushie.
|
Leilani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:32 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Be Careful What You Wish For.... |
Eric J in MN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:34 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Bush on the campaign trail says the unemployment rate |
|
now is lower than in the 1990s, averaging in his father's recession to bring down Clinton's good record.
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-01-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I concur with your diagnosis completely |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-01-04 11:42 PM by rocknation
I've read a couple of stories which said that the Bush camp wanted to talk foreign policy first. I believe they did so because that's where they percieved Kerry as being most vulnerable. What they didn't factor in is that foreign policy is also where Bush is least credible. All Kerry had to do was call him on it, and the debate turned into a cakewalk for him.
:headbang: rocknation
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:22 AM
Response to Original message |