Kerry wins the Debate in ... France and on course to losing elections in U.S.
The stakes couldn't be higher Thursday night, with President Bush driving home the message that the world is, believe it or not, safer without Saddam in power and Kerry, the bright orange pumpkin with a human body attached who leads in every poll except polls of people in America, seeking to clarify all 11 of his positions on Iraq, including his newly minted one, announced in an interview Monday with Diane Sawyer, that "it was a mistake to do what" Bush did in Iraq, "but that we have to succeed" in this mistake and that he's the man to follow through with this mistake by getting the French and Germans to swing into action. As U.S. forces bug out of Iraq, French and German forces leap into Iraq, where they'll be greeted with flowers and kisses as liberators. It's all part of Kerry's Secret Plan for Iraq.
Further clarifying his 11th position, Kerry reiterated that Iraq was a mistake and a "colossal error of judgment" and that soldiers who sacrifice in Iraq are not sacrificing for a "colossal error of judgment." (We must win this Colossal Error of Judgment, and we will!)
In Thursday's face-off, held at the University of Miami, Sen. Oompa Loompa condemned the Iraq war as too messy, noting that our Euroweenie allies, thanks to his winning personality, just can't wait to jump into this mess so we can get out. With pros like the French and the mighty Swiss army, Fallujah becomes Tourist Paradise of The World in no time flat. Kerry says the key to ending the 'insurgency' in Iraq is to have another "summit". (Zarqawi: Oh, no! Not a summit! Not that! Our insurgency is sooo dooooomed!)
The high-stakes 90-minute encounter was said to be especially critical to Kerry, whose ratings rank right up there with Dan Rather's. Kerry -- orange, rested and ready -- sought to dispel the silly notion that he's some sort of "softie", and threatened swift and decisive action against . . . the Debate Commission, hours before the debate. The Kerrytistas complained that warning lights which presume to tell pumpkin face it's time to wrap up his pithy, four-hour sound-bite, a debate detail which Kerry had agreed to before he didn't, were unnecessarily distracting, especially given the easy, non-demanding nature of the presidency. They demanded the lights be removed from the lecterns, or else -- or else they'd come off the hard way. "We'll do what we have to," warned Tad Devine, sounding a tad divine after a bitter exchange with the Commission (it must be love). The Commission told the Kerrytistas to shove it. So they did.
Kerry, who sought tonight to make a strong case that he would make America safer because he's a better debater, said he would "hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are." Wherever they are -- unless they're in Iraq. (Gotta draw the line someplace.)
Kerry insisted that the Iraq War had nothing to do with combating terrorism, so he spent an hour yaking about the Iraq War in a debate about combating terrorism.
Asked near the end of the debate if he thought Saddam was a threat, Kerry answered 'yes,' he was -- a clear jab at Kerry who earlier said that Saddam "didn't attack us," had no WMD, and could've been disarmed of all WMDs by another round of strongly-worded U.N. resolutions. Kerry said he only voted to give Bush authority to go to war as long as he didn't use it to go to war but Bush misled him -- all the more reason why you need someone smart like Kerry in the White House, says Kerry.
Bush hit back hard, placing the blame for war squarely on Saddam's shoulders: "Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war the ultimate weapons inspection enforcement mechanism."
Oh wait -- that was Kerry back in April, 2003.
As for the doctrine of preemptive war, Kerry said a president "always has a right, and always has had the right to preemptive strike" and said that no president has "ever ceded, nor would I, the right to preempt," unless it fails to pass the "global test" where "you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons," so there really is no right to preempt.
"People out there listening know what I believe," said Bush.
Eight words. Eight killer words. Which is why "people out there listening" in post-debate polls still picked Bush over Kerry as more believable, 50%-45%, tougher as president, 54%-37%, better at handling Iraq, 54%-43%, better as Commander-in-Chief, 54%-44% (Gallup survey).
"People out there listening" needed no reminder that Bush IS President, and Kerry isn't. Kerry's task was to offer voters a compelling reason to tell Bush, 'You're Fired!' Kerry didn't offer any. The Gallup numbers show he didn't. Kerry needed to deliver a knock-out blow. Kerry never laid a glove on Bush. Small wonder Kerry wanted the room chilled to below 70F for the debates. It was to halt the Kerry Meltdown.
The Meltdown continues.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
---------------------------------------------- I wrote the following days before last night's debate (and tweaked it a little afterwards ;-)
Volcanos, Hurricanes and the Debates
The question now is, Will there or will there not be a major eruption? Seismologists believe it's increasingly likely. What worries them is an explosion coming without warning. Have you been following this story? A Volcano Eruption Watch already has been set up. But, needless to say, all the signs are there -- all signs point towards a massive eruption by Volcano Kerry any day now. With his sagging polls and No-Show convention bounce, the magma and lava had been building up for months. In fact, last week, you could almost see the magma and lava blowing out of his top, the projectiles shooting out, debris flowing and ash cloud rising as he announced in a New York speech his latest firmly-held belief on Iraq.
Kerry's speech, keen observers observed, marked a turning point for the Kerry campaign, firmly repositioning the French-looking candidate as Michael Moore, sans the 900 lbs. But how big a switch of core beliefs was this for Kerry? Well, back during the days when Kerry was pro-Iraq war, about two weeks ago, after he switched from being anti-Iraq war, about two weeks before that, after he switched from being pro-Iraq war, about two weeks before that, after he . . . oops, excuse me -- getting a bit dizzy here. Just keeping track of Kerry on Iraq is sorta like keeping track of crazy Jeanne, the French hurricane who's been sucking all the coverage from storm-battered Kerry of late.
Kerry now calls the war in Iraq, a country he says is filled with terrorists, a "profound diversion" from the war on terrorists and says he would vote again for this Profound Diversion but not for the funding and noted on the Don Imus Show that "under no circumstances" would he have gone into Iraq and that he stands by his vote to go into Iraq as the right vote for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time because toppling Saddam had nothing to do with fighting al-Qaeda which is fighting the U.S. in Iraq to retaliate for toppling Saddam whose capture Kerry says has not made America safer and those who believe America is "not safer with (Saddam's) capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president," says Kerry, who accuses Bush of having a muddled message on Iraq. Kerry, in yet another dose of clarity, also notes that the capture of Saddam means we've "traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."
So, as you can clearly see, "I have one position on Iraq," Kerry told reporters last week. (Just One A Day.) Kerry, who denies waiting too late to adopt a new belief on Iraq, said the President "needs to live in the world of reality" on Iraq, "not in the world of fantasy spin." Betting that voters want to hear a dark message on Iraq, Kerry "seems to have kicked the habit of pulling his punches at the last minute and showed a new willingness to mix it up with his Republican rival," gushed Patricia Wilson of Reuters. Nothing appeals to swing voters more than nasty and scathing anti-war speeches on Iraq, experts observed. The nastier Kerry gets on Iraq, the more his poll numbers should rise. Reuters notes that the Kerry staff was "delighted" after the New York speech "at the newspaper and television coverage devoted to their boss's stinging critique of (Bush's) 'colossal failures of judgment' in the run-up to war and its aftermath." (Kerry's plan is to get the spineless French to jump into this 'Colossal Failure of judgment' in Iraq so we can bug out.) The speech, experts observed, gave Kerry, five weeks before the November elections, an opportunity to reintroduce himself and to regain the initiative in a presidential race that Kerry believes should revolve around three major issues: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. Top Kerrytistas were said to be "'pumped up'" after Kerry's "aggressive attack" in New York on President Colossal Failure, Reuters reports.
Indeed, after a week of reintroductions and nasty speeches on Iraq, the Pumped Up Kerry has Pumped Up President 'Colossal Failure' to a colossal 14-point lead over Kerry on Iraq, 55%-41%. In the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, Pumped Up Kerry trails Bush on handling terrorism, 61%-34%, 8 points on handling of foreign relations, 52%-44%, and 8 points in the overall horse-race, 52%-44%. The latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll paints a similar picture, showing the Pumped Up Girlie-man trailing Bush badly on everything from Iraq to terrorism to foreign affairs. Asked whom they think is the stronger leader, 58% pick the Colossal Failure guy, while 32% pick the Metrosexual from Massachusetts (whose message seems to be, 'Sure I've run a crappy campaign and can't even get a handle on my campaign staff, but trust me, I'm the stronger leader!').
Democrat pollster Mark Mellman says the numbers are evidence Kerry is 'staging a comeback,' USA Today reports. "Every poll out there shows a dramatic narrowing of this race," that progress is being made, that the future is bright for Kerry, that there is no Quagmire here. (Mellman gets his campaign updates by fax from Kinko's in Abilene, Tex.)
The upcoming presidential debates? The debates, experts observe, give Kerry, five weeks before the November elections, an opportunity to reintroduce himself and to regain the initiative in a presidential race Kerry believes should revolve around one major issue: Who has a clear plan for the country -- Iraq. But that's the problem for Kerry right there. This election is not just about Iraq. This election is about the broader War on Terror. It's about America and making America safer. Iraq is just one battle in a global effort. The Lefties can't figure this out and that's why Flipper's all over the map. And why he's getting conflicting advice from a badly divided party on tomorrow's debates. One faction urges him to out-Bush Bush. Another urges him to say he can do Bush's policies better than Bush. Still another urges him not to fake it and go all-out for the anti-war vote, or lose a chunk of votes in battleground states where Nader's on the ballot.
And therein lies the crux of Lurch's dilemma. His effort to make Iraq the No. 1 issue, then to separate Iraq from the global War on Terror -- in the teeth of every poll which shows the public sees Iraq as part and parcel of it -- will go down in campaign history as perhaps the dumbest miscalculation ever. The Kerrytistas who hatched this strategy thought they were being clever. They sought to paint Iraq as a war of choice, as Evil Warmonger Bush going after some innocent dictator in a country that had nothing to do with terror, al-Qaeda, etc. Problem is, that Zarqawi guy keeps popping up on TV every time a car-bomb goes off in Baghdad, then people start connecting dots.
That the Kerrytistas would pick the one issue that unites Americans and divides his party -- the War on Terror -- all the while thinking that's not what they're doing on the assumption that voters would see Iraq as irrelevant to terror, exemplifies the profound ineptitude of the Kerry campaign and why Bush is cleaning his clock in polls.
"If the war is going so badly on the ground (in Iraq), as Democrats say, why hasn't John Kerry been able to capitalize?" CNN's Judy Woodruff asked in frustration the other day. In other words, if voter assessment of Iraq is as bleak as Kerry's, why aren't they voting for Mr. Bleak? Answer: Because Americans, unlike the Kerrytistas, don't get 'pumped-up' every time a car-bomb goes off in Baghdad. Americans aren't defeatist -- they're in it to win it.
Small wonder the Kerry campaign pushed to have the room chilled to below 70F for the debates. It was to halt the Kerry Meltdown.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
