Bush Needs A Coach
Parabeagle
3,085 Posts
I was really disappointed in Pres. Bush's performance last night. I was fully expecting him to drive the nail all the way home and convince me I made the right decision in voting for him. However, I don't think he articulated his positions nearly as well as John Kerry.
I think Bush needs to be aware of the fact that even though he's not answering a question, the camera is still on him. In some cases, his expressions made him look like he had just sucked on a lemon. Any high school debate coach will tell you that the visual impression you make is as important as substance in winning a debate.
I hope Bush's handlers polish him up a little bit before the next debate.
I think Bush needs to be aware of the fact that even though he's not answering a question, the camera is still on him. In some cases, his expressions made him look like he had just sucked on a lemon. Any high school debate coach will tell you that the visual impression you make is as important as substance in winning a debate.
I hope Bush's handlers polish him up a little bit before the next debate.
Comments
But, can anyone actually claim that they are watching debates to decide for whom they will vote? The 50% of the electorate who will bother to vote already know who they will vote for. Watching a debate only makes you, for the moment, feel worse or better about the candidate you are already going to vote for.
You said it. th-up
Exactly, like the resolution he voted yes on for the war? All of a sudden he is struck with a case of "crs" whenever the topic comes up? I have to wonder when it became more about clothes, hair, demeanor, spouses wealth etc. than it is about integrity, honesty and the best person to lead our nation for the next 4 years.
I watched the debate, doubt I will watch the next one. Kerry reminds me too much of Clinton for comfort. I doubt he believes in "anyone" greater than himself. It puzzles me that people have a problem with Bush's outspoken beliefs regarding his faith. Last time I checked U.S. currency still said "In God We Trust", yet, a president that stands up and supports that premise is criticized for doing so. Too sad.
scorpio
Had Kerry come out and been long-winded and Senartorial...Bush would have been OK. But he didn't and Bush really struggled.
Kerry performed much better than expected and I think gave some clear distinction to not only his positions but what separates him from Bush.
It will be up to the voters to decide....
One of the rules was that TV could not show the candidate who was not speaking. Last night showed the reasons why Bush wanted it and the networks ignored it.
Anyone can 'Monday morning quarterback' tough decisions made by people who have the intestinal fortitude to make them when they need to be made. Where have you been Mr Kerry when there have been decisions to be made, even in your Senate committee assignments? Absent? I guess then you don't have any decisions to defend. Makes life easy.
"Mr. Kerry: Give us the names of three world leaders you've spoken to who will contribute how many troops and how much money to the Iraq situation if you are elected?"
"I knew Ronald Reagan, and, Mr Kerry, you are NO Ronald Reagan"
I'll give credit where credit is due: Mr Kerry appeared better in the debate than our president did. (I lost a couple of high school debates, too.) Still, I don't want the UN or any foreign government to make our decisions on foreign policy. World concensus??? Some type of world test for action?? No thanks, Mr Kerry!
Funny thing, whenever Bush answered a question or responded to Kennedy (oops, I mean Kerry) I felt like a nervous parent wanting him to do well.
I hope Bush can recover when the debates begin to focus on economic issues - all he really needs to do is keep asking, "How are you going to pay for it?"
(This is not the opinion of anyone in particular, just me)
I thought that both candidates performed well, albeit rehearsed and practiced, but Bush had some facial expressions that exposed his feelings, kind of arrogant because he is the president.
Or, kind of honest, because he is?? I have known excellent people who run companies well, big companies. Their strength lies not in their debating skills but in their integrity, passion and honor for the task at hand. So, lets see now, what am I reading in these posts? Bush is a bad President because his debating skills do not equal Kerry's? Quite frankly, I could care less whether he is a good debater. Everytime I see Kerry I see a manipulator, a liar and someone who is out for the glory of being President.
jmho
scorpio
p.s. Bush spent over 10 hours on the day of the debate going around commiserating with hurricane victims, shaking hands, patting shoulders to let the people know he knew and cared for their troubles. So, he looked tired. Kerry probably spent the day getting botox shots and make-up.
I know I have a prejudice, so I bend over backwards trying to find something about Bush that I can like. I was quite surprised how poorly Bush did during this first debate and how prepared Kerry was; however, my opinion may be colored by the fact that I am convinced that between the two Kerry would make more decisions that I could support.
It really troubles me that this nation is so very polarized by this election. We seem to take it as a PERSONAL affront when someone is for the "other guy". Oh yes, this is the hadeehaha section, don't want to get too serious. . .
The Tuesday nite debate may be the most interesting of all, although none of them will sway any of us.
The reality that we live in is that we are now more united as a globe than ever before. To keep as much peace and prosperity as possible, nations must work together to solve problems. The United States led this effort following WWII when it helped create the UN. We need to be a leader not just of the US, but of the world. We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world...but that doesn't make it OK to invade other countries without first exhausting diplomatic means when there is not an immediate threat. Saddam was not a nice guy, but he also was not holding the US, or its allies, in some vice of terror either. We had the luxury of dealing with him using means other than an outright invasion.
The vote given by congress authorizing the use of power was not a vote for immediate war. President Bush indicated that all administrative and diplomatic means would first be exhuasted. That really didn't happen, a close look at the time lines will show that.
We are not "safer" now. We may believe we accomplished something because Saddam is behind bars....but Afghanistan is really a mess, although we don't hear much about it in the major press, North Korea is a real mess...and Iran just keeps testing weapons. Saddam being behind bars did nothing to help secure the borders of the US.
The only way to fight terrorism is to work with our allies...and build new alliances with other countries. This is a big job and we cannot afford (financially or otherwise) to continue to go it mostly alone.
Excellent rationalization! My point exactly. But you may want to revisit that timeline yourself. We, the current administration, had clearly been told that neither the UN collectively nor some of the largers partners in the world community would support or join us. A few did. We moved forward. That, to me, means we had exhausted that effort. How many more months would have been needed to meet your definition of exhausting? It was time for a decision and a decision was made. We could argue all day about what the congressional resolution meant or didn't mean or the definition of what is is. If JFKerry were president, we would still have dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably would still be under attack in America. He isn't and we aren't.
Despite the cries of one world order and globilization, the sensible people I know will never subordinate America's decisions to a global roundtable.
Don't mind having my own mind and don't mind having my country go it alone if necessary -- but this one is not fair -- not sane -- not even rational,IMHO.
There is absolutely no indication that the war in Iraq prevents an attack on America. There was not one Iraq national among the men who attacked us on 9/11. Unlike quick-draw McGraw, terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists - are very patient. We did not expect 9/11 and I don't think we will expect the next strike either. I would rather have our soldiers protect us here than fight and die over there -- for oil. Dictators are in numerous countries -- that does not give us the right to invade, kill and steal oil.
>(This is not the opinion of anyone in
>particular, just me)
And me - I have stayed out of these discussions up to now but I thought it was time. I could list the reason, but I only have about 6 hours left here today..............
It's the part after when all the "political experts" and tv commentators interpret for us what we just heard!!!!!!#-o
We are all so fortunate to have people ready willing and able to tell us just exactly what we heard and more importantly, what it means.x:D