Keeping Score: A round-by-round look at how Bush and Kerry did during the debate.

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/01/04 | Jonathan V. Last

[joyce11111]

Just saw this at Drudge,

FLASH: Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)

The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet

[Recovering_Democrat]

This seems to be a fairly accurate appraisal. Bush did not score a knockout punch, but neither did Kerry. The President did fine, he could've done better.

[An American!]

Good analysis!

[MNJohnnie]

He seems to have totally missed the "Global test" question. Kerry blew it tonight. By responsing that he would defend America only if the cause "met the global test". So while the various spin misters get all caught up in Bush's speaking style them missed the substance.

[Howlin]

And he lied about the money spent in Iraq: it's not $200,000,000, it's closer to $119,000,000, which includes Afghanistan, too.

And Franks said NO WAY did they divert material or men from Afghanistan to Iraq.

[Howlin]

I think that was HUGE!

[snarkytart]

Kerry is down in the polls nationally and down in the EC, he needed the knockout blow. Joe Lockhart is correct..IT WAS A DRAW!.lol

[anglian]

Interesting comments from other posters: - Kerry mentions - War on the cheap. He then complains about cost! Then Kerry says would add two more divisions and double the special forces.How? Also - Good news for the mullahs: Kerry opposes the US developing bunker busting nuclear weapons. for what John Kerry did with that statement was to set a moral equivalence between the acquisition of WMD by terrorists and a a nuclear weapons research program (approved by the US Congress) that is vital to the national security of the United States.

Iran and the Norks have repeatedly violated international anti-proliferation treaties. North Korea is a notorious WMD proliferator and has sold nuclear-capable missiles and missile technology to terror-sponsoring nations. North Korea also played a major role in Pakistan's rogue nuclear weapons program. Both nations have buried their WMD manufacturing facilities in mountain-sides beyond the reach of conventionally-armed 'bunker-busters'.

For John Kerry to swear that he'd unilaterally disarm the United States in the face of implacable defiance by Iran and NK demonstrates an astounding lack of judgement. And add to that his long records of opposing our ABM program.

[jtmac40]

That was a good debate. Kerry did well for himself, as a matter of fact I think he won. The President was in command of the facts too though, and stayed on message.

I don't think that there will be any significant movement in the polls however.

So in effect, Bush has a lead going down the stretch and is holding Kerry off.

[ChEng]

For me, personally, who would I like in the foxhole next to me..W

[patriciaruth]

There was more than one report that the subway that went under the Gardens would not be used while Bush was there.

Now that could have been a nice lie that discouraged the terrorists from trying it, or it could be that Kerry took that to mean it would be shut down during the entire convention.

[ScottFromSpokane]

If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity.

I think that's right. Bush let slip an opportunity. A draw favors Bush because he's ahead, but if favors Kerry because Bush could have destroyed him and didn't.

However, the "global test" and "I have one consistent position on Iraq" nonsense may give Bush a chance to win retroactively, as it were.

[bobsunshine]

Good Analysis, but it didn't mention that Kerry said he was going to give "Nuclear Fuel" to Iran and see if they misuse it. Or did I hear him wrong?

[Laserman]

My response this evening to a Lib friend:

President Bush did a great job of making the case for strong, consistent leadership focused on the need to defeat terrorism. He was knowledgeable, clear and committed to the American people. John Kerry, on the other hand, failed in his mission to convince people he actually has any plan that is better or that he understands what it takes to fight global terrorism. He is committed to the "world" but not to America.

He wants to place his trust in the UN, France, Germany, Russia, and all the other countries who were on Sadam's payroll, and he denigrates England, Australia, Japan, Italy, Poland, and the other 30 countries who stepped up to the plate and understood the need to take the fight to the terrorists. He of course failed to mention that France and Germany have both reiterated that they will NOT send troops to Iraq whether Bush or Kerry is elected!

He says he is going to have to pass a "world test" before using preemptive measures. A test graded presumably by the same scumbags who were dealing with Sadam. We have no test to pass before defending America other than that of convincing the American people such action is needed. And President Bush did that on Iraq- and John Kerry voted in support of that action! Only now, out of political expedience, does he vacillate and try to weasel out of his vote.

He wants to give Iran nuclear fuel rods for "peaceful" purposes, just like Bill Clinton did for North Korea, and then trust them not to use the material for weapons. Well the North Koreans scammed the Clinton administration just like the Iranians will scam John Kerry.

John Kerry wants to destroy the diplomatic efforts to corral North Korea by going alone to the North Koreans thus undermining the coalition we have built with the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, and the South Koreans. Unilateral talks with the Koreans under Clinton is what got us into this mess. Without China and Russia in the process, it will fail.

John Kerry spouted a lot of platitudes about what "he will do" to fix various problems, but gave us no confidence he can make any of them happen.

So yes, I do support a man with a clear vision, a consistent message, and a proven record of effective leadership- President Bush.

[Salvation]

**FLASH: Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)

The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet**

Another gaffe by Kerry!

[DTogo]

A very fair analysis. Bush had better do/speak better in the next debates on domestic issues or his lead could slip.

Bottom line: Kerry wins on delivery, Bush wins on substance. (DUH! to self)

[FesterUSMC]

Round 6: What criteria will you use for knowing when to bring troops home from Iraq? Bush says, "When our generals on the ground" tell us that Iraqis are ready to protect themselves "from these terrorists." Kerry says, "Help is on the way." ("I know what it's like to go out on" missions where you don't know what's around the corner--second Vietnam reference.) During rebuttal, Bush hits Kerry's $87 billion vote for the first, and inexplicably the only, time. Round to Kerry

I disagree with this assessment... I think Bush won this exchange...

[xzins]

Ridiculous...no way that Kerry took rounds 6, 9, 14, 17.

This guy doesn't like Bush refusing to acknowledge Lehrer's question about the President being a liar.

It was so biased that it points out how seriously they miscalculated Lehrer's partisanship.

Bush is supposed to be Mr Nice Guy while they discuss him being a liar.

Astounding.