All of his speech writers did a pretty good job on the last few (most critics said six, specifically) paragraphs of his speech. They'd been writing it since June, so they had plenty of time to figure out what the people wanted to hear. I think it was mostly effective in targeting, possibly reeling-in those constituents who are "on the fence.” I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but I think the speech served its purpose. He also seemed more smiley, confident, comfortable and even (dare I say it) charismatic. He must have rehearsed quite a bit. In any case, I wasn't convinced. I've heard one too many broken campaign promises. Plus, the last four years are evidence enough that great change is in order, IMO. Kerry may not necessarily be the answer I'm looking for, but it's definitely a great promise of change to simply elect him into office...

I've heard one too many broken campaign promises.
Every politician breaks promises....I heard the speech and wasn't really impressed....IMO, Kerry will break'em as well if he's elected. Speaking of that, if Kerry wins I don't plan on "Whining" or moving out of the country while he's in office....but I am voting for Bush. Hairspray, I respect yours and everybody's right to vote for whomever they choose to ;)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=1&u=/ap/cvn_bush_fact_check

if Moore is faulted for not telling the whole truth... I guess Bush should be as well.

Every politician breaks promises....I heard the speech and wasn't really impressed....IMO, Kerry will break'em as well if he's elected. Speaking of that, if Kerry wins I don't plan on "Whining" or moving out of the country while he's in office....but I am voting for Bush. Hairspray, I respect yours and everybody's right to vote for whomever they choose to ;)


I did not hear Bush's speech last night.  I was exhausted and asleep by 10:10 (not just in bed  ;)).  But lets look at this "every politician breaks promises" issue.  If we assume that politics is the art of the possible, then we must also (I think) conceed that politicians might say they want to do something but are blocked in  carrying it out, or find themselves forced to go back on their position (examples: Clinton and universal health insurance, Bush on "nation building").  Is that what we mean by "breaking promises"?  I think we need to become a good deal more sophisticated about the political process.  Candidates tend to state their DESIRES as if they, single handedly, had the power to achive them (I will...whatever).  Unfortunately (or maybe  fortunately) they don't.  They have to build a concensus around their agenda to get it enacted into legislation, as with Clinton's 1992 attempts at health insurance reform.  And to be fair to Lil' Georgie and the nation building issue, one could argue that conditions change (and surely post 9/11 was different than pre 9/11) and that requires a rethinking of agendas and priorities.  All I'm saying is that, while politicians clearly hype, we, the voters need to be both more deserning and more forgiving of their hyperboli.  We need to be more analytical, and more involved in the political process that leads to the appearance that "he broke his promise".  Please note that I have not expressed a political opinion on either of the 2 examples I used.  That is not the point of this post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=1&u=/ap/cvn_bush_fact_check

if Moore is faulted for not telling the whole truth... I guess Bush should be as well.
Moore made a movie without using all the facts...basically slandering Bush. The same thing happended with that peice of garbage that CBS passed on and Showtime picked up, about the late-great Ronald Reagan ::)

Moore made a movie without using all the facts...basically slandering Bush. The same thing happended with that peice of garbage that CBS passed on and Showtime picked up, about the late-great Ronald Reagan ::)


How is that different than Bush's speech last night?

Check out the 9/2 front page of the New York Times.  A very grafic display of three words used in the sleeches at the conventions to that date.  I don't have it at hand, but Dems mentioned jobs like 5 times more than Repubs.  Repubs mentioned 9/11 at least 3 times more than Dems, and mentioned Kerry about 15 times more than Dems mentioned Bush.  I tried (briefly) to google this but had not luck, so my comparisons are from memory.  So Repubs are again wrapping themselves in the flag, and are continuing their mud slinging at Kerry, while Dems are focusing on the well being of the majority of US.  To me, this is instructive.

He went too long, the audience was the show. A couple of Stepfords in there that were on camera
a couple of times, and the Texas homeboys.  Two scuffles were they ushered out a couple of
protesters.  On the first night a protester got within 10 feet of Cheney(I still think he is looking a
bit under the weather), then last night 2 incidents with protesters who managed to get in.  What's
up with security?  ???

He gave a speech?

He gave a speech?


So the news indicates. Same old, same old.

You'd have to pay me to watch his dumb old speech. 

Anyway, I'll here it all in soundbites.  It's easier to swallow that way.

Since I didn't watch (or listen) to the speech, I read about it. This was the article that I read.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=17&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_fact_check


What I found interesting about this paticular article is that it mentioned the things that Bush DIDN'T say. It seems to me that a lot of times it not just a matter of what someone says but what they don't say also.




Cat

and are continuing their mud slinging at Kerry, while Dems are focusing on the well being of the majority of US. To me, this is instructive.


this is happening on both sides.  Kerry's speech last night after Bush seemed to me to be a lot of mud slinging back at Bush.  Both sides are equally guilty of mud-slinging.

this is happening on both sides.  Kerry's speech last night after Bush seemed to me to be a lot of mud slinging back at Bush.  Both sides are equally guilty of mud-slinging.

Kerry's problem is he hasn't slung enough mud.  Kerry needs dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill!  The silver lining about the Bush adminstration is you never need to lie about them when you are negative campaigning.  The truth is so sick and vile it Kerry's cup runneth over, I hope he can take advantage of it.

this is happening on both sides.  Kerry's speech last night after Bush seemed to me to be a lot of mud slinging back at Bush.  Both sides are equally guilty of mud-slinging.


No, one of the biggest issues that the Democrats have faced is their percieved weakness because
they do not sling mud the way the Republicans do.  When you think of dirty campaign managers
the name Lee Atwater and Carl Rove reign supreme.  The Dems have always been on the defensive.
Kerry has been saying Look, let's not do this, you have to speak to the issues,  bush says either you are
with me you are against America.

this is happening on both sides.  Kerry's speech last night after Bush seemed to me to be a lot of mud slinging back at Bush.  Both sides are equally guilty of mud-slinging.



No, one of the biggest issues that the Democrats have faced is their percieved weakness because
they do not sling mud the way the Republicans do. When you think of dirty campaign managers
the name Lee Atwater and Carl Rove reign supreme. The Dems have always been on the defensive.
Kerry has been saying Look, let's not do this, you have to speak to the issues, bush says either you are
with me you are against America.


Doon is right on this one.  Both the Dem convention and the Kerry campaign have been very mild and reserved in the mud slinging dept., but since the Repub convention, expect to see the campaign get much more "bloody".  I hate it.  Bush can't talk about issues because he is on the wrong side of all of them, taxes, environment, jobs, foreign policy.... so all that's  left is mud-slinging.

I don't know but I'm getting the impression, especially since the end of the conventions, Kerry's petering out popularity-wise lately.

Any confirmation on that anyone?

I don't know but I'm getting the impression, especially since the end of the conventions, Kerry's petering out popularity-wise lately.

Any confirmation on that anyone?


From what I read, Bush did get a "bounce".  Let see how long it lasts.  Seems Kerry has decided that since his request to keep on the issues as been ignored, he is taking the gloves off and starting to go bare knuckles.  Good for him.

Kerry better find a way to take the White House.  If Bush gets in again, you can call America a one-party fascist state.  The Republic is over.  Period.

Our government will be made up of King george and the kowtows.  They will
wipe their a$$e$ on the Bill of Rights.

He attacked Kerry for voting against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan operations that included money for extra sets of body armor and other supplies, mocking his opponent for saying the issue was complicated. "There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat," Bush said.
er... yes, there is when there's billions in backroom deals for companies on no-bid contracts: either Bush actually means what he said, and he's too stupid to understand things for himself, or he's lying...


...or both, of course

er... yes, there is when there's billions in backroom deals for companies on no-bid contracts: either Bush actually means what he said, and he's too stupid to understand things for himself, or he's lying...


...or both, of course


Right on that one.  Let's give a no-bid contracts and spend the money on sub-standard
weapons, vehicles, clothing, and put the money in the Christmas bonus of the CEO.  It
happened in Nam with guys getting guns that would fall apart while they were firing.

Kerry better find a way to take the White House.  If Bush gets in again, you can call America a one-party fascist state.  The Republic is over.  Period.


I'm affraid you are right on this.  These people are VERY dangerous.

I listened to the speech on and off and didn't hear certain issues addressed that were brought up in these messageboards which seems to be of concern to many...

  But if Bush is winning in the polls or in Nov., when it counts, -if it by a BIG majority- it is starting to sound like EVERYBODY is being hypnotized!

THEY LIKE BUSH and his way of 'leadership' which Kerry doesn't seem to exhibit!

Kerry brings up the war service and Bush doesn't doubt he served but not in the way he describes it.

If promises are broken..why aren't the people who voted for whatever guy up in arms to say 'we don't like you anymore for doing that!"?

With money going tothe corporations,..wouldn't you like a raise for work you do? That's up to the company to distribute and if people working for them don't like it,let them complain.

Bush said whatever the military needs he'll give them...if they don't have it now..why aren't we hearing it in the news??Are they ALL being silenced?

And finally with the 'war' complainers...WHERE WERE YOU WHEN CLINTON/GORE ATTACKED IRAQ KILLING INNOCENTS??

Short term memory or party dedication?

Bring on Nov. but let's scrutinize the winner as well and we maybe can set things straight...

It reminds me of when 'bigtime' organized crime started....if the police would have snuffed out ANYONE thinking of organizing and threating others, the problems wouldn't have grownout of hand (-somewhat like politics to me).....officials either took pay offs or were scared.....people didn't complain enough when things started going bad for all.
 
   

Bush said whatever the military needs he'll give them...if they don't have it now..why aren't we hearing it in the news??Are they ALL being silenced?

And finally with the 'war' complainers...WHERE WERE YOU WHEN CLINTON/GORE ATTACKED IRAQ KILLING INNOCENTS??

Short term memory or party dedication? 


You must have been napping, Clinton did get a lot of flack from both sides of the aisle.
The Iraq bombing came when he was about to be impeached and everyone was mad
about it.  Wag the Dog and all that.  And as for military needs, there have been many
complaints, two specifically, the helicopters that seem prone to failure and the humvees
without armor plating.  People are much more interested in Swift Boats from 40 years
ago than they are about what is going on(or going wrong)today.

No too keen on dates- just administrations...Thought there was some Iraq attack in '92..the impeachment fiasco was later...

The swift boaters can do whatever they'd like as well to influence voters ala Michael Moore...this year we have to choose whoever to lead...

Why the Iraq attack is brought up compared to anywhere else...at the time they were most threatening....all down the political comments from Clinton to Kerry, it was agreed Saddam had capabilities and incentive to do something with the chemicals etc.. he had OR THOUGHT HE HAD.

Enough with 'why Iraq' for those protesters! N.Korea was brought up-'why not get them?'- THEY HAVE NUKES! That's why...

Did we see protesters scuffling inside the democ. convention? They were nicely corraled in a pen far away....The demonstrators should use all their people to help the candidate they are for instead of wasting energies on disrupting sites...maybe THEN they'll see more results to their liking.

Did we see protesters scuffling inside the democ. convention? They were nicely corraled in a pen far away....The demonstrators should use all their people to help the candidate they are for instead of wasting energies on disrupting sites...maybe THEN they'll see more results to their liking.


The protesters weren't in the pen during the convention.  They spread out around different areas
and held protests where the parties were.  They were orderly and the I believe there was only one
or two incidents were someone was taken into custody.  I don't think anyone was charged. When asked
why they seem to be so low key, there was a response that they were saving a lot for the
Republicans because that is where most of the work needs to be done.

I listened to the speech on and off and didn't hear certain issues addressed that were brought up in these messageboards which seems to be of concern to many...

  But if Bush is winning in the polls or in Nov., when it counts, -if it by a BIG majority- it is starting to sound like EVERYBODY is being hypnotized!



Uh, yeah, scary sh*t, isn't it?

Awhile after the incident of the Bush associates foul up..I called that Bush should take the responsibilty and see the people he trusted were ousted..and felt Kerry will have towin...apparently, there wasn't a big groundswell from the heartland and it sounds like people are forgiving any mess ups for some reason...therefore...I will have to reserve who I feel will win till later based on the response.

It's still anybodys game until Nov. less than 60 days away!
Don't ask me yet..it feels like it's in Bushs' favor at this point.
:-\\