Don’t Shoot the Messenger . . ’cause this assessment’s grim

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything — were a political naïf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time — I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate.

As I write this column, I have not talked with anyone about the debate, and I have listened to no commentary. I am writing without influence (which is how I try to do my other criticism, by the way). What I say may be absurd in light of the general reaction — but so be it.

I'd like to share with you some notes I made during the debate. You may recall that I offered similar scribbles from the two conventions.

Bush "won the stride." By that I mean that he crossed the center of the stage first, to shake his opponent's hand. In 1980, Reagan strode over to shake Carter's hand — and utterly surprised him. Carter was sunk almost from that moment.

Kerry must be darned tall — he made Bush look pretty short. Same as the Bush 41-Dukakis gap? Not sure.

As he began, Kerry spoke clearly, and at a nice pace. He was disciplined about the clock. I wasn't nuts about those double fists he made — but he relaxed them as the evening wore on.

Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his.

Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. (I happen to love his whole battery of looks — but I'm weird.) Also, the president did his eye-closing thing, just a little. Could have been worse.

Furthermore, Bush sounded very Texan — I mean, extremely. More Texan, more drawly, more twangy than usual. I think the more tired he is — and, as a rule, the later in the day it is — the more Texan he sounds.

He was right to say that the enemy understands what is at stake in Iraq — bingo. In fact, Bush was never stronger than in the opening rounds of the debate.

Kerry was smart to mention all those military bigwigs who support him. We conservatives roll our eyes when we hear this; sure, Kerry can roll out about ten; we can roll out about ten thousand. But this support for Kerry will be news to many Americans.

The senator seemed to rattle the president, about 15 minutes in — and he stayed rattled. Also, the president was on the defensive almost all the time. Rarely did he put Kerry on the defensive. Kerry could relax, and press.

I was hoping that Bush would put Kerry on trial — make him the issue. Sure, Bush is the incumbent. But it can be done.

Kerry was effective in talking about parents who have lost sons or daughters in the war. Bush was fairly good, later, too — but not quite as good, I thought. (These are all "I thoughts.")

Although the two candidates had the same amount of time, Kerry got many, many more words in. And they weren't rushed words. Kerry spoke at a good, measured pace all through.

Bush said, "We're makin' progress" a hundred times — that seemed a little desperate. He also said "mixed messages" a hundred times — I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, "It's hard work," or, "It's tough," a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition — when there are oceans of material available — is another.

When Kerry said that our people in the military didn't have enough equipment, Bush was pretty much blasé. He showed no indignation. He might have said, "How dare you? How dare you contend that I am leaving our fighting men and women defenseless!"

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.

When he talked about Iraq, he ran the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish — a little head-in-the-sand-ish. Bush is not. But he might have left that impression.

And why didn't he do more to tie the Iraq war to 9/11? To the general War on Terror? Why didn't he remind people that this is a war of self-defense — that, after 9/11, we couldn't go back to the days of episodic strikes, and law enforcement, and intelligence gathering?

And why didn't he shove Kofi Annan down Kerry's throat? "My allegiance is not to Mr. Annan; my allegiance is to the American people. The secretary-general has called our war illegal. Nuts to him."

Kerry kept mentioning Bush's father — how good he was, as compared with 43. Why didn't Bush let loose the significant fact that Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf War?

When it came time to mention our allies in the Iraq campaign, Bush mentioned only Blair and the Polish premier. That made it seem like a pathetically short list — no Italy, no Spain, no Australia.

When Moderator Lehrer and Kerry were talking about American casualties, Bush might have brought up the 9/11 casualties — and the casualties we might have incurred had we not acted against Saddam Hussein. "We ran the risk of suffering a lot more deaths if we had let Saddam remain in power."

Look, I'm not Monday-morning quarterbacking here. This is not simple esprit d'escalier. This is all basic.

Bush could have mentioned that Saddam was a great harborer and funder of terrorists. He let Kerry get away with saying that Iraq and terror had nothing to do with each other.

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over?

Kerry used Secretary Powell against Bush repeatedly, and effectively — same as he used 41 against him. Bush never parried.

I'm thinking that Bush didn't respect Kerry enough. That he didn't prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment — "For gooness' sake, the American people are with me. They know I'm doin' the necessary. They're not going to dump me for this phony-baloney."

I had a feeling that, as the debate progressed, Kerry felt very lucky to be hit with so little. To be relatively untouched.

On other occasions, Bush has been extremely persuasive in talking about the "risks of action" versus the "risks of inaction." Could have used that — to remind people of the choices he faced.

I have a feeling that Bush could have done just the same — exactly the same, no better, no worse — with zero preparation. With no practice at all. Just wingin' it.

Kerry said, "I've never wavered in my life." That's ridiculous. Who doesn't waver in his life?

Strangely enough, it was Bush who got bogged down in detail — trying to remember detail — not Kerry, who was good on generalities (as well as details).

So when Bush talks about Iran and North Korea, he gets all ally-loving and anti-unilateralist? He gets all, "Be my guest, Jacques and Gerhard"? Bush may be right; and he may have been trying to show his flexibility; but I think this can confuse the average voter.

And his answer on North Korea is to tout Jiang Zemin, that beast? (At least Scowcroft and Eagleburger should be proud.)

From this debate, you would never know that Kerry is one of the most famous, or infamous, doves and lefties in American politics — lefter than Ted Kennedy, lefter than Hillary. He seemed positively Pattonesque, at times. So now he praises Ronald Reagan! A fabulously disingenuous performance.

His pronunciation of "mullahs" as "moolahs" was a little less fun — more silly.

Oh, Bush could have killed Kerry on the Patriot Act. Just killed him. Didn't happen.

Kerry's closing statement was superb — couldn't have made better use of his time. You almost didn't recognize the Massachusetts liberal we have known for 30 years.

Bush was weary — harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by. You can't exploit them all, no. We all kick ourselves, after some public performance. But Kerry, it seemed to me, let not one opportunity go by. And he perceived some that I hadn't caught.

Yeah, he screwed up a couple of times: got the "break it, buy it" line wrong; said "Treblinka" instead of "Lubyanka." But that was small beer.

And you know what? The worst thing about Kerry is not that he is inconsistent; not that he is a flip-flopper. The worst thing about him is that he is a reflexive leftist, who has been wrong about nearly everything important his entire career. Nuclear freeze, anybody? Solidarity with the Sandinistas?

This is a man who called the Grenada invasion — carried out by his now-hero Reagan — "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation." His view of Grenada was no different from Ron Dellums's.

Friends, I have no doubt that this little reaction column of mine will disappoint many of you. I'm sorry. I have called George W. Bush a Rushmore-level president. I believe history will bear that out; and if it doesn't, history will be wrong. I think that Bush's reelection is crucial not only to this country but to the world at large. I not only think that Bush is the right man for the job; I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him.

But tonight (I am writing immediately post-debate) did not show him at his best. Not at all. He will do better — I feel certain — in subsequent debates. I also worry that they count less.

Yes, I agree that Bush look of annoyance makes him look simian--not good. My mom thought that Bush didn't make as many mistakes as she thought he would but that he did well. Nonetheless, I think that overall Kerry won the debate and I believe he will win the undecided. Frankly, I think that Bush will lose the election

Wishful thinking. Kerry's relentless "It's All about me" speaking style and weak in the knees talk about "Global tests" and "bi lateral talks" may make the political elite and professional leftists happy but it is NOT going to sell in a post 9-11 America. Kerry talked to his political base, Bush talked to the American people. On both substance and style Bush won. From a marketing point of view, as opposed to a professional debate styling view, Bush make the sale, Kerry didn't.

"I think Bush was very composed, that he didn't go over and wring Kerry's neck."

Or fire up his chain saw and cut kerry's podium in half!

It was hard for me to watch and listen to Kerry--he's like a talking tree---a piece of wood. And he's full of it. His senate record says it all.

I don't think that "joe sixpack" has any less common sense than me. I am not very politically astute. Perhaps you are and know better, but it sounds maybe perhaps a little condesending, not that I'm saying it is. I agree with you that media is a powerful medium. I hope that the average joe six isn't as sheepish as you suggest.

I was afraid that what I wrote might sound a little condescending, and I assure you that I did not mean to come off that way. Common sense aside, though, I think it's a safe bet that a majority of people are impresses by a smooth and polished style, which Kerry displayed tonight. Yes, the substance of the debate favored President Bush. I just hope that the Bush team will work on the president's delivery before the next debate.

When Kennedy debated Nixon, most people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won easily. Most people who saw the debate on television, however, favored Kennedy. It was a victory of style over substance, and that is what President Bush needs to avoid. Again, I truly believe that anyone who reads the transcript of the debate will give the nod to the president.

Lets face it, if Bush had clearly won we would be crowing that it was over. The President didn't perform as well as he has in the past tonight and thats bad and we ought not to put on the rose colored glasses and call it sweet victory as so many are prone to do here. But Reagan lost his first debate also. We have two to go and Kerry expectations will be sky high now.

Reagan was facing an incumbent president and thus, he had to show that he could be a better President (not hard against Carter)

Kerry did not do this in this debate.

He showed that he is a Senator with 20 years of debate experience not a leader.

His refusal to answer the question on what he would do in Iraq and telling people to go his website was condescending (he did that with Imus also).

When someone asks you a question, no one wants to be redirected to get the answer!

After telling what you would do, you could say for further information go to the website.

I think that attitude is going to turn off alot of people

My impression:
Kerry was at his best in terms of style, delivery and stateliness. Bush did not appear to be in command of the facts and did not seem well-prepared. He seemed to miss many opportunities to counter Kerry's arguments and often seemed halting and searching for something to say. At times, he even seemed a bit whiney in his responses. He just wasn't at his best -- Kerry was.

Hopefully, most people will vote based on their cumulative impression of "flip-flop" and their confidence in W's demonstrated ability.

Nope Kerry's relentless "It's all about me" speaking style and vauge posturing platitudes did not sell him to the American voter. You people really need to get beyond the superfical speaking style and look at the substance. From a substanative viewpoint Kerry lost, badly.

Unfortunately this is a fair critique of tonight's debate. Sorry to disagree with fellow FR folks who I hold in high regard. But to not acknowledge a problem IMHO is a bad idea.

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent. Maybe we should have a term for this? Call it "McCainism" A metal defect that requires the victim to constantly critize their own side while NEVER pointing out where the other side blew it. Mccainism does not make you look smart. See REAL intelligence would be to provide some serious BALANCED review not this hysterical "OH WE LOST! IT IS ALL OVER" chicken little screech time after time, post after post.

Mark my words Boy's and Girls, John Kerry just lost the election tonight. Since most who suffer from McCainism seem to be lawyers, I will put it to you in terms you might understand. John Kerry may, or may not, have won the formal debate but he didn't win the Jury. And you people always forget this one fact. The JURY (i.e. The American people), not the Debate coaches decides the election.

John Kerry lost the election tonight people. You heard it here first

If only it were true. Fact is, the media will bury these points. Most Americans will never hear about them again. These points will be forgotten by Saturday, and what will remain will be the impressions that were formed tonight. And the consensus seems to be that Kerry won on impressions.

No, you got it backwards.

People will remember the lines 'we did not need that tax cut' 'global testing' and 'nuke fuel for Iran',

the 'perception' will fade,but those words won't

Taken from the viewpoint of the avereage "undecided" who doesn't know the facts or the history of both candidates, I'd say it was a tie.:

Kerry "won" on "formal debate skills" and "speechifying" .
President Bush won on likability and honesty.... And he came across as "a guy who don't take no crap". while Kerry came off like kind of a supercillious wimp.

Never met anyone who was really good at debating that was any good at management and decision making, while I have known a lot of bad debaters that were great executives.

I don't see this debate making any real difference in the election.... I was hoping that The President would give a more polished performance, and that Kerry would have had a complete "melt down" on stage.

Perhaps Bush should not have spent "a full day viewing hurricane damage and comforting hundreds of people."
He should have made a quick "compassion" photo op for the evening news, then spent the rest of the day in a more relaxed manner.

If you say Bush's willingness to spend "a full day" on compassion for hurricane victims speaks well of him, I would disagree. This election poses a mortal danger to this country and the world, because it could result in a Kerry presidency. In that case, Bush's highest duty is not to the victims of acts of God. It is to win this election. And the debate was more important than a marginally better story on the Florida evening news about compassionizing.

I totally agree with you. I just can't get over that Kerry was to give Iran nuke fuel.

I have a thought about this debate. Kerry rambled on and on about how this war was a mistake and Bush kept hitting him over and over about how he said it was the wrong war and the wrong time. What if we find WMD? What if Saddam was making nukes elsewhere? This speech might have been a trap for Kerry and that's why Bush wanted it as their first debate and Bush didn't attack Kerry relentlessly.
There may be strategery here, folks.

Good analysis. One thing I noticed was when Lehrer asked Bush about Kerry's character, Bush was very gracious, and said he appreciated Bush's service to the country, being a good father, and how the Kerry daughters were nice to his daughters, blah blah blah. And when Kerry was supposed to say something nice about Bush in return, about all he could say was something about how he chuckled at some of the twins' comments. Not a nice guy, or a nice thing to say.

When Kennedy debated Nixon, most people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won easily. Most people who saw the debate on television, however, favored Kennedy. It was a victory of style over substance, and that is what President Bush needs to avoid. Again, I truly believe that anyone who reads the transcript of the debate will give the nod to the president.

Exactly and a very good analogy of the situation.

My feeling is that Bush can never match Kerry in delivery. He can come close, but in the end Kerry will win on style points as he has in every election.

But this time he is dealing with a different animal, a national audience that has seen style before in the form of Bill Clinton and yes, even John Kennedy.

The style point will win the debate, but it does not translate to votes unless one candidate stumbles badly and offers up a sound bite that resonates.

This did not happen to anyone but Kerry tonight. Kerry's untrue statements and distortions can and should be repeated many times over the next week.

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent. Maybe we should have a term for this? Call it "McCainism" A metal defect that requires the victim to constantly critize their own side while NEVER pointing out where the other side blew it. Mccainism does not make you look smart. See REAL intelligence would be to provide some serious BALANCED review not this hysterical "OH WE LOST! IT IS ALL OVER" chicken little screech time after time, post after post.

Since you don't know me you have no basis to know whether I'm what you described or not. What's clear to me is that there are a significant number of people here who do not understand group think or bias. The fact that all FR folks are computer literate and hang-out in a political based board make them different. That difference impacts the way they see things.

The threads in here are all about Kerry's gaffs. That will be obvious to those who take the time to educate themselves on the facts. Those who don't will measure the win/loss on the debate differently. The people addressed in this article may or may not be like FR members. As such I believe the author was right highlighting missed opportunities and who controlled the debate. You may not like the fact that he didn't write something that matches the way you think but it doesn't make it any less valid. I do believe that he has described what the average Mr. & Mrs. American undecided voter saw when they watched this debate.

The President was unprepared and did a poor job. Is it fatal? Unlikely. Is it helpful to his re-election bid? Certainly not.

I thought the biggest mistake Bush made was not jumping on Kerry's comment that we should lead by disarming our nuclear weapons. That point could have been mined for a million zingers tonight.

Something like: "Senator Kerry, I do not equate us with our enemies, and I do not intend to lead by disarming with nothing but the hope our enemies will follow."

Kerry acted like NK isn't lead by a insane dictator. I just don't see how Bush could let that pass.

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.