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.
But, that's the problem. These things are NEVER about substance. They are about a tilt of the head, a look at a watch, a drop of sweat. There may only be a sliver of voters out there who are undecided. But, they could be swayed by style only. Think about that; this late in the campaign and someone is "undecided"! That can't be because they are waiting for "substance." "Substance" has been around for months.
No way to honestly make this look good for us.
Im not happy in saying I though Bush was horrible last not . Composed ? He seemed rattled most of the time .NO IM NOT A DEM...dont start OK ?.I went through this last night .Im sorry , i thought the night was a disaster for us and Im sick over it . Bush had a ton of chances to smash Kerry and didnt ..Why the hell did have to go to Fla that day ..That was real smart to do .
Agree...Is it better to make believe that is went well for us last night ?
3 problems with this analysis.
First, the disclaimer that "if I didn't know anything about either guy, then..."
That is a meaningless premise. Because anybody who watched the debate tonight knows *something* about the candidates. Especially Bush, who's only been the POTUS the last 4 years. And they are not 4 eventless years, they are four tumulous years. A person who after the last 4 years who is totaly oblivious of who Bush is is not somebody who's going to vote, or watch the debates.
2nd. Bush's support is much firmer than Kerry's. As polls have shown, many more of the people who say they'll vote for Bush say they are certain, compared to Kerry who's support is much weaker. I don't think Bush lost any votes tonight, he may not have persuaded many undecided, but he is polling about 50% in many polls, so he doesn't need the undecided, just to hold on to people who already plans to vote for him. So even if all the undecided who "doesn't know anything about either guy" go for Kerry, that's not enough. Proof of this is in the Gallup post election poll, despite most people thinking Kerry won the debate, Bush still came out post-debate ahead of Kerry is "who's more likeable", who "agrees with me on the important issues", "who is more believable", and "tough enough to be president". In fact he won the tough enough to be president question 54 to 37. That's right, only 37% of the people who watched the debate afterwards think Kerry is tough enough to be president.
3rdly, I disagree that the later debates count less. They count more. Remember 84 when Reagan was terrible against Mondale in debate one, but came back and won the 2nd one. Also in 2000, Gore won the first debate fairly handily, and then got taken out of his game by W in the 2nd one, which completely turned the momentum of the race. This debate did not change the momentum of the race. Kerry proved he is a better debater, but he didn't convince that he'd be the better president.
Im with you ..Who the hell though up that idea for him to go to FLA the day of the most important debate of his life ? He looked beat and spoke horribly half the time..STUPID MOVE for sure.
What this debate shows is how hokey high-school debating society rules are. Kerry was great at throwing out "facts." The problem is that he made up a lot of facts on the fly and they were wrong. They ought to change high-school debate rules to take off points for making up lies.
Second, Bush may have missed many opportunities to rebut Kerry's absurd claims, but he got in some good telling blows. Kerry's points about letting the Chinese off the hook in NK's nuclear problem, turning our defenses over to international bodies, his contempt for Americans and his contempt for our allies were pretty well answered.
This isn't about style. It is about who you want to have as President, and Kerry with his arrogance, inability to make a decision, and recklessness with security lost it.
I agree. I love President Bush. There is no doubt in my mind that he is the BEST man for the job.
BUTTTTTT..... the point of the original post is not what he or intelligent people think (that's us by the way). He is talking about those undecideds (who if they had half a brain, they would be decided).
I personally became upset at all the facial expressions of President Bush, and found the debate much better when I rolled over, closed my eyes, and just listened to the him speak.
His facial expressions took away from his message - and you couldn't miss that - Fox News kept showing it. I felt that we saw a lot less of Kerry's facial reactions when President Bush was speaking.
Just my opinion...
He SHOULD have said a LOT of things last night and he DIDNT ..He let that horses ass Kerry slide witha lot od crap last night .Bush came off as meek and defensive..He was horrible and I for one was totally let down..
Carolyn
Bush could have put him away on so many issues.
Kerry trashed the coalition of Asian nations with the USA working to contain Korea... Bush let him go on that.
Kerry said his VOTE against the 187 billion supplemental was a mistaken way to TALK about the war... Bush failed to mention that SENATE VOTES are not just TALK. Bush let him go on that.
Bush let him go on his 20 year anti-military, anti-USA voting record in the Senate. This was a foreign policy debate. A 20 year voting record is an important foreign-policy predictor. Bush let him go on that.
We all laughed when Kerry changed his campaign team several times.
Bush should have been doing the same.
There are Bush advisors who should have been fired long ago. Now it's too late for that. Now they should be shot.
This was not a true debate. This was a series of short speeches. Bush's advisors didn't send him him with any good short speeches. Kerry's advisors sent Kerry in with a lot of good (lying) short speeches.
All of Bush's advisors --- including Rove --- should be lined up against the wall and shot. They should be replaced with a team run by Rush Limbaugh.
What a sad, sad, day. I just hope we dont get that commie traitor anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist, pro-Europe, pro-terrorist scumbag Kerry and his scumbag lawyer boy in the Whitehouse.
Did I mention? Bush's advisors should be lined up against the wall and shot. With large caliber weapons.
We all laughed at the idea of Clintonistas sabotaging the Kerry campaign.
I'd like to know who's sabotaging the Bush campaign. Clearly somebody is doing that. Clearly somebody in the Bush camp does not want Bush to be president. I'd really like to know who that is.
AFTER CBS????
Bush spoke the truth while Kerry lied.
Bwahahahahaha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!! IN YOUR DREAMS!!
Where do I start? AT THE END? - When TERRAYZA waddled onto the stage and the usual grimacing hug ensued? - OR EARLIER ON IN THE DEBATE? - When JOHN F. KERRY pronounced "Putin" four or five times in that unfortunate pronunciation (at least in my neck of the woods) and PRESIDENT BUSH had sense enough to call him the more glamourous "Vladimir" - IT WAS OVER!!! - I could go on, and on, and the lamestream media will try to anoint JFK the winner, but Bwahahahahaha-ha-ha-ha!!! MESSENGER, YOU and YOUR MESSAGE ARE SHOT!!!!
If televised Presidential debates were not about style then RMN would have been POTUS in January 1961.
I am not saying that the battle is over or lost. I am saying that I was very disappointed by our guy last night and I know how the MSM will play it.
I hope that the American voter is a more clear thinker than he was 43 years ago.
His Democratic opponent spoke as if only the rich got a tax cut under Bush, when in fact taxpayers in all income groups did.
The Democrat apparently misspoke when painting a dark picture of the chaos in Iraq today. He said of Iraq, "we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up."He apparently meant terrorists, not weapons of mass destruction, were crossing the border.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6144991/ Kerry suggested that the United States has spent $200 billion on Iraq, largely because it supplied the bulk of the troops. This is an exaggeration, because it combines the amount already spent -- about $120 billion -- with money that is expected to be spent in the coming year or requested by the administration.
At another point, Kerry said "Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you fix it." This anecdote comes from Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," but actually, Woodward reported that Powell privately talked with aides about the rule that if "you break it, you own it." He did not say this to the president -- and it turned out Pottery Barn does not have such a rule."
Did I mention? Bush's advisors should be lined up against the wall and shot. With large caliber weapons.
I totally agree..Good move also letting him tour FLA disaster areas the day of his mOST important debate ever.
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.