Posted on 10/01/2004 1:05:50 AM PDT by kattracks
With Kerry’s camp relentlessly dampening expectations for the Democrat’s debating skills, the senator from Massachusetts cleared the low bar he needed to in order to improve his standing in the public’s mind.
But what Kerry failed to do was accomplish his most important goal: offer a clear, alternative vision.
To his credit, Kerry was well coifed, poised, and surprisingly succinct. He managed to make his wildly divergent positions seem slightly more consistent, and he even scored on a few rhetorical digs.
Missing from the 90-minute event, however, was any coherent Kerry plan for what to do in Iraq if Americans do choose to change horses midstream. The Democrat hammered home that he would secure former Soviet nukes in 4 years instead of 13—this is the issue gripping Americans, after all—but how exactly does he propose building this grand, sweeping international coalition to handle Iraq and the rest of the war on terror?
While Kerry reiterated that he thought Saddam was a bad guy—who aside from Michael Moore can argue otherwise?—he didn’t specify what he would have done to take out Saddam. Unfortunately, Bush did not use this opportunity to remind his challenger that this summer, the Democrat said the war in Iraq was justified—regardless of whether or not WMDs are ever found.
Where Bush had his best moments were tearing into Kerry’s own words -- a smorgasbord from which the President could feast.
Kerry, lest we forget, voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. And after labeling Saddam a grave threat, his latest line is that the war in Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The obvious question that Bush didn’t even have to pose is: if Kerry keeps dwelling on how it was the “wrong” war, how can he be the guy to lead us to eventual victory?
Though it was not a grade-A night for Kerry, the Democrat clearly gained ground on the evening. How much is not likely to be known for a few days, but the early—stress early—“flash polls” indicate that people who watched the debate gave Kerry the nod by a roughly 10-point margin.
Before anyone reads too much into the ultra-early poll results, though, some history: Walter Mondale was declared the winner over Ronald Reagan in their first debate.
What Reagan did in the follow-up debate that had a much greater impact, however, was perhaps the most classic one-liner in recent memory: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Reaction shots showed a Walter Mondale beside himself, laughing harder than he probably had in months.
If there is one principal demerit for Bush last night, it would be that he never found his normally reliable sense of humor. His passion was at times palpable, and at some moments, he showed a Clinton-esque softer side. That was not enough. To really put away the challenger, President Bush will need to turn on the charm in the next two debates in a way it just wasn’t on last night.
Luckily for Bush, the American people already know him. Kerry had a tougher task, given that nearly half of respondents in most polls say they still don’t know enough about him.
After this debate, the general feeling most will probably have is that Kerry is critical of Bush—quelle surprise!—but they still will not have any idea what John Kerry would do as president. And if he can’t accomplish that in the next two debates, he probably won’t be given the chance to show them.
Joel Mowbray is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.
My theory is Bush went "soft" to get women on board. It may be smart strategery that may end up paying long term political dividends. Bush will take a tactical loss to secure the big prize.
Bush still has one, Kerry's has fallen off and has been lost, however the MSM is diligently looking for it and when it's found will let EVERYONE know.
My theory is that like Clinton v. Dole GWB hung back on solid numbers.
I do not think it is a tactical loss. I think it was a perfect set up. Everybody claimed that Kerry won, just based on style, but after two hours, it wass a draw now that people started looking at substance. By the time it is fully digested, it would have been lethal for Kerry.
Global Test, giving nuclear material to Iran and ..... in a nutshell surrendering.
I know a number of people thought that the Iraq War/terror war debate would help Bush, but I disagree. I go to a number of football games and there are always those jackasses that sit in the stands and know how to coach the team better than the coach....until you gave them the chance. Kerry is one of those jackasses and he has the luxury of sitting in the cheap seats and questioning decisions he has never had to make. That's easy and can only put Bush on the defensive. Anytime the subject moved off Iraq (No. Korea, Iran), Kerry stubbed his toe.
Kerry won't have that luxury from now on as he has a longtime Senate record where he has had to make decisions. Bush need to hammer him on this record and show him for what Kerry is....an extreme leftist who is out of touch with the average American. The flip-flop stuff is nice and contradictions should be pointed out, but Bush needs to move on past that and attack his liberal record and liberal ideology.
great analogy.
i sometimes feel compelled to offer coaching advice to the rams head coach, but yelling from the "cheap seats" my opinion only gets my throat sore.
lets hope kerry has the same fate.
Speaking of Missouri football, the Chiefs losing their first 2 home games, wow. I have a friend in the organization and the mood is pretty bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.