Quote: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."
Kerry reached in his breast pocket and pulled out some notes. He was reading them the entire time GW was talking!!
bush blew it because he failed to make the "minimum", which is all that is required to keep you from losing points in public opinion.
I'm not saying kerry was stellar, by any means.he (kerry)was not exeptional in any way,but he did meet the "minimum".that is all you need for the debate to not actually "hurt" you.
this is what happened to bush.he was "hurt", in polls and public opinion.
and I'm not saying it did anything to change my opinion, I already thought bush was a stellar example of mediocrity.
he stuttered.and quipped with standard "buzzwords" and "catchphrases", that are used over and over again on the standard republican echochambers.
he was corrected on stage, and allowed his words to be used as a foil to official facts. like when he was corrected as to who had attacked us on 9-11,osama: and who we attacked,saddam.for him to be forced to say," I,..I know who,..I know it was osama bin laden...... you think I don't know that.....
that was a burn.
but what do you guys think , saying all this stuff about the debate,
only to have don rumsfeld( speaking before the council of foreign relations in new york) say that he never saw any good or convincing intelligence that showed any connection whatso ever between saddam and osama/al queada,yesterday.
maybe they don't let you guys hear that on your right wing venues?
and that only has to do with the debate because not only did kerry "out" bush,on the mistaken connection bush seems to have on whether this war in iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, that was /is still happening in afghanistan.but don rumsfeld unequivocably said yesterday that he,the secretary of defense ,has never seen any evidence of saddam being tied to al-queada.
that thing about bush"outsourcing" the job of catching osama at torah borah, was pretty good on kerry's part too.that really did show the commands(bush's by default),negligence on catching the guy everybody wants more than saddam, in this country anyway.
in the court of mass consumption, kerry won, bush lost.....rightly or wrongly...... that is how history is gonna see it...
Yea!! but ironicly with all the hype on how Kerry has done during his debate his poll numbers are not so glourious.
Secondly, the whole 9/11 and Saddam link that liberals are still harping on has never, never, never been a platform for Bush. You guys need to know how to draw a distinction between the war on terror and 9/11, please turn the page once in a while. 9/11 was the catalyst.
God I just had a terrible thought, if Kerry wins the election, what are we going to talk about. I guess James will try to be me, bootlen will mimic remember,and rob10 will motorboy. an interesting 4 years are coming down the pike.
Originally posted by acmanko God I just had a terrible thought, if Kerry wins the election, what are we going to talk about. I guess James will try to be me, bootlen will mimic remember,and rob10 will motorboy. an interesting 4 years are coming down the pike.