CE 7

[chrisfan]

DED said:

Bush is now saying he didn't do well in the first debate becuase he was "overprepared"...holy shit. "Overprepared"? I can't believe anyone would buy that. It's just like this fucker, if he has to admit a mistake it's that he's done something TOO WELL.

Not that I think you do, but if you really want to understand the comment, and understand Bush, read Karen Hughe's book. She goes into quite a bit of detail explaining debate prep, and the problems that can arise from overpreparing. It doesn't happen to everyone, but for some people, such as Bush, if you prepare too much, you have too many "Don't forget to do _______" going through your head, and you worry about those more than focusing on being yourslef and just answering questions.

You certainly can interpret that answer as claiming that he did something too well. But then agian, if a marathon runner loses a marathon because he started out of the gates in a sprint and lost his energy too fast, did he run too well, or did he not do a good job running the race?

[melon1]

But then agian, if a marathon runner loses a marathon because he started out of the gates in a sprint and lost his energy too fast, did he run too well, or did he not do a good job running the race?

Good analogy, Chris. For some reason it just comes natural for Kerry say the right thing at the right time in a debate. Actually he does it a little too much, saying what everyone wants to hear. Bush is scared shitless of messing up, especially when all the accusations fly. Between Bush and Kerry there is alot more reason for Bush to be on the offensive than Kerry even though he's been the Prez for 4 years. The best line I've heard in either debate was when Dick Cheney said that a little tough talk in a debate can't overshadow a twenty year voting record in the Senate. That and the evidence that Kerry is constantly changing his position due to political pressure. That trumps all the BS about unemployment and taxcuts for the rich, blah blah blah. Unemployment has been going down for 14 straight months, if I'm not mistaken. I believe it's at 5.4% while it was over 8% when Clinton was running for re-election in '96. Home ownership is at an all time high among minorities as well as over all. Household income is at an alltime high. There is more insourcing than outsourcing of jobs. Outsourcing is at 1.4% if I'm not mistaken. Also Bush has done more domestic spending than any other President in the nation's history. He has the tools to win the next debate, IMO. The question is,"Does he know how to use them?"

[alexiscarrington]

Personally I think the guy probably did have a lot of pressure on him. As much as I don't like him I have to admit it must be sort of hard when a lot of people make fun of how bad a public speaker you are and his team was probably on him to do an excellent job and he probably forgot a lot of stuff, either that or he didn't have much to begin with because he relied HEAVILY on catch phrases and two very key words "hard work".

However, I don't think there is any real amount of preparation that can do him any good. Point blank the guy is a poor speaker. People either like him because he sounds like a regular guy, or they hate him because he comes off as stupid and confused. He also has very odd facial expressions that he doesn't seem able to control. The split screen kills him on that. Watching him while others are talking, he goes through an array of facial expressions.

I personally think that debating just isn't George W Bush's forte. John Kerry is just better at it. He could use a little charisma himself but he's got the other things down pretty well and GWB needs some serious work if he's going to come off better next time IMO or John Kerry would have to just suck big time.

[shin]

Here's a thought: Bush just doesn't know what's really going on in the world and can only communicate in talking points. It's just as plausible as him being overprepared. Plus there's a lot more evidence to that than just a Karen Hughes book.



via http://www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: smoke screen
Function: noun
1 : a screen of smoke to hinder enemy observation of a military force, area, or activity
2 : something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead
3 : factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

[Proud]

thanks to this board i now realize that the majority of democrats endorse terrorism and the destruction of our great republic. my eyes are opened.

[alexiscarrington]

LOL since we were talking bout Debate practice, thought this was kind of funny :-)

[alexiscarrington]

And this one is a gem too bwahahaha!

[strat-0]

Bush actually said, "mexed missages" at one point. But that could happen to anybody...

[Nepenthe]

strat-0 said:

Bush actually said, "mexed missages" at one point. But that could happen to anybody...

HAH kind of like Edwards last night. He said momerica. Maybe this is the second of his 2 Americas he speaks of. LOL

[Nepenthe]

American and Momerica. lmao

[ModernDeathTrend]

Momerica- The land that used to be known as Canada. The ideal place for Edwards' fantasyland.

[Nepenthe]

hahaha oh man they just showed Bush talking to a group of people, I don't know where he was but this was funny.

He said that John kerry said there were terrorists pouring over the border into Iraq, then he turned around and said that fighting [the terrorists] in Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror. He said, when Kerry says something like this, then you can understand why someone might make a face. Then they showed the face Bush made, it was priceless. Honest to God I think he was using some sort of strategy. I had that same thought right after I saw the debate, then I noticed Chrisfan beat me to it.

[alexiscarrington]

Did John Edwards really say Momerica? I wish I'd seen that, lmao. Poor guy! Good looks only go so far!!! :-(

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

NymphoFantasia said:

He said that John kerry said there were terrorists pouring over the border into Iraq, then he turned around and said that fighting [the terrorists] in Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror. He said, when Kerry says something like this, then you can understand why someone might make a face.

Luckily, anyone with an IQ over 25 would see the flaw in this spin.

The point is that the war in Iraq WAS a diversion from terror, which is actually what Kery said. Of course there's terrorists amd terrorism on a major scale there now. That's a direct consequence of the war. Kerry went on to say that though it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, having broken something you stick around and fix it. The main point being he believes he can 'fix' it better than Dubya can.

Now there's absolutely no inconsistencies here whatsoever, and it seems an eminently sensible position. Of course, whether or not you believe he can really do a better job than Bush is another matter, and that's where your decision on who has the better foreign policy as regards Iraq should lie.

But the clumsy spin put on Kerry's position by the Republicans is a part of politics you should be able to see through, if you possess any critical acumen whatsoever.

Btw, although I also believe the war on Iraq was a diversion from the "war on terror", I think there was a decent case for regime change on the grounds of human rights abuses. I know that wasn't the reason given for war, but I'd still like to hear Kerry address this point.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Any news channels in the US shown the F-16 fighter footage of the slaying of Iraqi civillians yet? The footage has been run in the UK over the last couple of days, and shows the F-16 firing a missile into a crowd of about 30 people running down a street. No effort is made to ascertain who they are, but the pilots toast the massacre with approving shouts of "Oh dude!".

At no point during the exchange between the pilot and mission control is any question asked about whether these Iraqis are adult, armed, or posing a threat. Rather worrying evidence of war crimes?

+++++++++++++++++++

How's Rumsfeld's clumsily retracted admission of no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda playing over there? It's been big news over here.