Posted on 09/30/2004 10:35:23 PM PDT by Pokey78
Don't shoot the messenger.
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.
In fact, it was Kerry who had to bring up 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."
Well, they may opt for the 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.
Toward the end, Bush mentioned SDI (though weakly). Hurrah.
His pronunciation of "Vladimir" was priceless.
His pronunciation of "mullahs" as "moolahs" was a little less fun more silly.
Ah, so it's Kerry who mentions George Will! And favorably!
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.
You sir do not understand the essence of what this president is all about.
He would do the same thing if the situation was the same. The election and the job as he sees it are of equal importance. That is what makes him so special. He is not a opportunist or a cad.
Kerry fits that description, not Bush, not ever.
I'm not sure who you mean by "you people" since I was speaking only of MY impressions.
I am a strong Bush supporter. I have donated hundreds of dollars and walked my neighborhood precinct contacting hundreds of registered Republicans to get out the vote and will do it twice again before election day. What have you done to insure Bush's election beside snipe at others?
I also believe that in stating the situation as I see it -- not the way I think someone wants to hear it. If you read my post you'll note I did not say that Kerry won on substance - only form. But many people will respond to that even if you or I and other informed voters don't.
So, you are saying that the president would risk his ability to debate well by spending a whole day with hurricane victims, and that you like the idea of a president making this choice?
Well, that's a fine choice for a private citizen who doesn't have a nation to defend. It's a poor choice for
a commander in chief. One of Bush's duties is to win this election. Let him do the compassion thing tomorrow, after he's debated.
Admittedly, we have come to expect hugs and handouts from presidents during major natural disasters. But I'm old-fashioned enough to care more about real leadership. And to me real leadership includes performing as well as possible in a debate that may influence the fate of our country for the rest of the century.
Think with your head, my friend, not your heart.
LOL. Yeh, I guess so.
I agree. People seem to take lightly that he is still working every day and campaining at the same time. Unlike Kerry who's not shown up for work in a year, gets pampered daily, probably gets a long nap every day, etc...
Check Hugh Hewitt's analysis. I think Kerry's victory is all surface. Even the ABC poll, which shows Kerry won, doesn't result in Kerry getting more voters.
I think people may think Kerry won...but they still don't like him. And won't vote for him. He has a Concession-Speech face, and just because it's smiling tonight doesn't mean much.
Thanks, LBT. So many FReepers seem to be unable to take criticism of the president.
Republicans eating there own and throwing int he towel already. *sigh*
Cowards.
I hate to say but after the way so many on this board kavetched tonight and submitted to the orchstrated efforts of the Dems to demoralize us.
They swamped the online polls and flooded the net and the rest of the net with their propoganda. They struck out in unison at the talk radio shows possing as self defeated Republicans and what did we do? Cried on our own shoulders and declared a very French surrender.
Freedom only belongs to those who are willing to fight for it. Stop your kavetchin and start the spin you schmucks. Time turn this around and not lay down.
We should be full networked with every family and friend member before the next debate and be prepared to flood the online polls, websites, talk radio station, and TV instapundit shows the second the debate ends. Or we should just put on our little berats and move to France.
He had duties to perform.
If you think for one moment that he would let a stinkin debate get in the way of doing what is needed to protect this country you have a screw loose.
I wonder why, after all the crap he has endured starting with the Chinese capture of one of our spy planes, that he does not just retire and enjoy life for a change.
The answer is that he cares more about this country and it's people than you can grasp.
The debate came second as it should.
I had no idea about an anthrax scare. If there was one, of course he should have dealt with it.
Your post is extremely unfair. My comments were directed to spending "hours" with hurricane victims, which is not part of a president's responsibility.
Just because Kerry did well also doesn't mean that Bush completely sucked.
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.