USA Today/Gallup: More people believe Bush and trust him....

I actually watched a faux "news" show this morning breaking down the debate. They stopped after every Kerry segment and completely ignored Kerry's talking points. Kerry would say Bush has no plan, more of the same, no alliances and has single handedly dismantled the US's standing in the world. Bush would say Wrong war wrong choice wrong time. They would then say, well Bush "should have said" this, something to the effect of changing your mind, completely ignoring the accusations put forth by Kerry.

It's simple; they cannot answer Kerry's accusations because neither could Bush. I find it amazing, and pathetic, that the rightwing media now feels it neccessary to answer the questions for Bush days after the debate, rather than actually have the president answer them himself on the campaign trail.

and he resonated quite well, dont you think?

Larry434:

What distortions?

Dookiestix wrote:

Larry434:

What distortions?

There were many. Here's a couple.

Quote:

He said that Bush, on the Abe Lincolon, said the words "Mission Accomplished". He did not, of course.

No, he just gave a speach on an aircraft carrier, wasting taxpayers money, to proclain that "major combat operations in Iraq are over". The Mission Accomplished sign was promoted for the photo-op. It was also said by the RNC that the military decided to have the idea and put the sign up without their (Bush Admin.) knowing. . . This is until the facts were challenged and it was found out that the sign did indeed come from Bush.

Quote:

He inferred Bush intentonally misled us to take us to war. He did not of course.

HA, read his SOTU address in 03 for the accusations and the assertion for war. Do you remember the Uranium claim, how about Saddam pursuing Nuclear weapons, not of it was true and he had DIRECT intel which stated that. Instead he used fear and threats, mushroom cloud ring a bell, to dupe the American public that Iraq was a GRAVE and IMMIDIATE threat to America when nothing was even remotely true!!

To say he did not intententially mislead the American public on the reasons for was shows you haven't looked at the issues from all sides and if you have, you've ignored any and all data contradicting your ludicrous cliam.

Quote:

He said Bush did not seek international support and we had none when we invaded Iraq. That, of course, is a gross distortion and denigration of our allies.

We had FIVE, count them FIVE nations go on the gound with us in Iraq, compared to Afghanistan, where we had 70 different countries on the ground with us, I would say Kerry was spot on!!! As far as seeking the support, he lacked the diplomacy required to garner the support, he in fact failed miserably at gaining support of other countries. He failed miseralby in this arena.

Quote:

It's a long list.

Of Bush's failures, yes it is.

He said that Bush, on the Abe Lincolon, said the words "Mission Accomplished". He did not, of course.

He inferred Bush intentonally misled us to take us to war. He did not of course.

He said Bush did not seek international support and we had none when we invaded Iraq. That, of course, is a gross distortion and denigration of our allies.

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

-- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946. (This quote is said to have been made during the Nuremburg Trials, but in fact, while during the time of the trials, was made in private to an Allied intelligence officer, later published in the book, Nuremburg Diary.)[/[/i]QUOTE]

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

squinney wrote:

For those hoping for substance from W, you'r in for a big let down.

Democratic and GOP strategists said both candidates face new challenges as a result of the first debate.

For Bush, the immediate objective is to wipe away impressions of that debate, in which he appeared annoyed and irritated by Kerry's criticism. But just as significant may be how well he passes the test of explaining why he believes his policies in Iraq are working at a time when conditions on the ground suggest that the insurgency is stronger than ever. The longer the focus is on Bush's record, these strategists said, the more trouble he may have.

Republicans said Bush must avoid debating Kerry on the details of micromanaging foreign policy and return to statements of principle with which most voters agree, from the threat of Saddam Hussein to the need to stay in Iraq. And, said one GOP strategist, Bush needs to keep reminding voters about Sept. 11, 2001, and the impact of the terrorist attacks on the country.


Source

I see you're still spinning this story like a dervish.

Who's spinning who? The Dems for saying the recent polling data showing a 10 point swing (+5 for Bush to + 5 for Kerry) is the results of the debate, or the Repubs who are looking for any possible sign of hope since their canidate was exposed for the abject failure he has been?

I actually watched a faux "news" show this morning breaking down the debate. They stopped after every Kerry segment and completely ignored Kerry's talking points. Kerry would say Bush has no plan, more of the same, no alliances and has single handedly dismantled the US's standing in the world. Bush would say Wrong war wrong choice wrong time. They would then say, well Bush "should have said" this, something to the effect of changing your mind, completely ignoring the accusations put forth by Kerry.

How about this, I call you a bold face liar, tell the whole country how you deceived them then tell on how you raped the middle class and gave money to all of your rich buddies. You tell me how I changed my mind. Tell me now who's winning the debate, you?

You seem intelligent enough to differentiate between spin and fact, and I would venture to guess you are not voting for Bush, only trying to present an alternative viewpoint. That this administration has been anything other then a miserable failure both at home and abroad.

Unlike you, I am able to understand how or why an intelligent person might support the candidate I oppose. I think such people are mistaken, but it doesn't amaze me that there are people who support Kerry. The man is not a demon, he's not a traitor, and I have serious doubts about the world coming to an end if he is elected. You may think that those of us who intend to vote for Bush are mistaken, but if you do acknowledge that we might have intelligence then I would think that you, as an intelligent person, would at least entertain the notion that we have somehow used our intelligence to come to what we believe is a reasoned opinion.

How's this for substance "Uh,Uh...Uh he keeps changing positions"
I don't Know how many times I heard that. And "Wrong war wrong time wrong place" Over & over& over again. Ha!! Sorry I can't get over that. I wish I had recorded the debate so I could laugh at this repetitive, no substance having son of a monkey!!!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Unlike you, I am able to understand how or why an intelligent person might support the candidate I oppose. I think such people are mistaken, but it doesn't amaze me that there are people who support Kerry. The man is not a demon, he's not a traitor, and I have serious doubts about the world coming to an end if he is elected. You may think that those of us who intend to vote for Bush are mistaken, but if you do acknowledge that we might have intelligence then I would think that you, as an intelligent person, would at least entertain the notion that we have somehow used our intelligence to come to what we believe is a reasoned opinion.

THere are a few reasons which I can understand voting for Bush, here are some of them.

1. You are deeply religious

2. You make over $250K

3. You have a direct interest in one aspect of Bush's policies, ie you're a farmer on subsidies

4. You've voted for a Republican canidate your whole life and you can not bring yourself to vote for the other dise (democrats are also guilty of this behavior)

I don't know if you fall into any of the above catagories, but your defending of the Bush Administration on almost all counts has me baffled. You seem intellegent enough to discern the truth from the spin, and you seem able to see through the BS in politics. This is why I'm a bit suprised that if you don't fall into one of the aforementioned catagories you're so steadfast for Bush.