my "concern" about the debates

[radfringe]

back in 2000 - when Gore debated bush* it was like watching a politicized version of Goldilocks and the 3 bears...

First Gore was "too hot", then he was "tooo cold" and he attempted to get it "just right" in the third debate

One of the "reviews" waaaay back then mentioned that Gore was responding to the media reviews after each debate and adjusting his style accordingly. Meanwhile the Lieberman-Cheney debate was about as interesting and informative as listening to grass grow :boring:
zzzzzzzzzzz

my concern about the upcoming Kerry-bush* debates is not that Kerry will attempt to adjust from a "toooo hot" or "tooooo cold" mode, but rather he will take the "high road" in being "nice" and slough off the "zingers" which bush*'s brain team are preparing

Cheney slammed Kerry recently about 'sensitive wars' -- if Kerry doesn't fight back and/or take the lead on making bush* stay accountable and responsible for the last 4 years - Kerry will come off as being "toooo sensitive" and passive.

I said this 4 years ago (before and after the Gore-bush* debates) -- if the Democratic candidates don't stand up and fight back for themselves then how is the public to believe that they will stand up and fight for them?

Gore let too many 'opportunities' slide by in his attempt to get the tone "just right" -- Kerry can't afford this, he has to turn his boat into the enemy fire and put bush* on the defensive

agree or disagree? your thoughts?

[olddem43]

1. It's Kerry's race and his debate - I trust him to do what he thinks

is the best tactic. He is way smarter than most of us on these matters.

[Career Prole]

2. My concern? The only concern I have is that shrub lied through his

stinkin' teeth throughout the debates. Continually.
And no one since in the media has had the balls to point that fact out, which means he'll be free to lie again.
Any fool can look good in a debate if they're permitted free rein with the truth and never held to account for it.
So I guess my biggest concern is the gutless media. Even those few who do speak out don't have the balls to call their colleagues on their spinelessness so I blame them too.
Here are the transcripts...make your own call.
http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html
Shrub lied throughout.
:grr:

[radfringe]

3. I know he lied throughout

and is still lying -- but no one called him on it then and the mainstream media is still not holding him accountable for the lies he's putting out now -- I don't expect things to be any different (media wise) regarding the Kerry-bush* debates

That being said -- it's going to be up to Kerry to hold bush*'s feet to the fire and then get his own "choir" out there with talking points

[Career Prole]

6. I'm hoping the campaign or the DNC or a 527 puts out a nationwide ad

prior to the debates with clips of shrub talking his bullshit about his "foreign policy" and his "economic plan"...reminding people what happened in 2000.

[sniffa]

4. i remember the kerry-weLd debate

kerry absoLuteLy mauLed "big red" - he turned every zinger back at weLd and visibLy fLustered him. i've heard some peopLe shrug off that eLection - saying that "oh, that's just massachusetts where they vaLue LiberaL ideoLogy over character, etc"... that is sooo not true, hence our propensity for eLecting carpet bagging repub govs. at the time of the eLection, weLd was at the height of his popuLarity and was predicted to win in a LandsLide.

then the debates and the Late kerry push. weLd's doubLe digit Lead disappeared and kerry won in a waLk.

[lunarboy13]

5. Undecided voters...

Howard Fineman said yesterday that both campaigns have decided to appeal to their bases instead of focusing on undecided voters. There aren't that many anyway and those that are still undecided are less likely to vote. So, if this is at least somewhat true, I agree with you completely. Kerry needs to aggressively attack W. He needs to remind those that have questions about W about those very reasons they have questions. He needs to turn the attention of the campaign to W and the last 4 years -- and take it off himself and Vietnam.

He also needs to hit home a simple theme: that W is not the candidate who can make you safer from terrorists. He and his administration ignored government officials (like Clarke) who implored them to focus on terrorism once they took office. Instead, they wanted to focus on missile defense systems. Ashcroft denied an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism on Sept. 10, 2001. Then 9/11 happened. We began by doing the right thing, but then in 2002 there was a shift in focus from the Taliban in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq. And then we went to war for reasons the administration has yet to fully settle on.

Yes, oh yes, Kerry needs to hit him hard and hit him where he lives.

[michigandem2]

7. but people are on to Bush now...

he can't run on that line he ran on last time..we all know his record..that is the only thing he can't escape..so Kerry won't screw it up..and even though the media will say "bush did great" we all know now that we can't rely on them to be truthful and we have to let the people that are swayed to believe that bush was the winner that he really isn't...but they may see right through it...I thnk Kerry is up in the REAL polls...but nobody will admit it...(no links just a hunch)

[spanone]

8. I watched everyone of those debates and Gore beat shit out of bush*

He was a thousand times more informed and knew the issues. When they were over the 'media' blasted Gore for being 'too informed' on most issues, giving 'too many facts' blah blah blah. When the deck is stacked the deck is stacked. You watch bush* weasel and try to charm his way thru the debates again. Who knows? worked once. Bush* is NOT A GOOD DEBATER.