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.
DRUDGE: C-SPAN Secretly Tapes Lockhart Saying Debate Was A Draw
One thing I have not seen refered to tonight: Dan Rather and CBS.
(Pause while people think "Ooookay...he's off subject...")
The bloggers who demolished Rather's lies are even now compiling, as I have already seen on the net tonight, annotated transcripts of Kerry's answers, building up a stack of Kerry lies. By the weekend's end, the net will be swamped with this stuff.
Kerry is forgetting the post-Rathergate media we've so recently started living in. The lies WILL spread. I jsut hope Cheney keeps some of them alive in the VP debate, so Bush can pick up on a couple in debate #2.
I think Bush won tonight, and have been bummed by the reviews to the contrary. But already I'm feeling better as I realize how Kerry's about to get buried in a mountain of his own bull. That will only enforce the dis-ease people have over him.
I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
I think that look is normal for anyone in the same room with Kerry.
I only got to listen to half of the debate on the radio. It sounded like Bush was groping for words alot.
I have watched alot of debates before and I don't remember any of them being like this. This was an attack mode from Kerry. I don't think Bush was expecting this nor do I think he was expecting the lies. Such as when Kerry said he never called Bush a liar or the closing of the subway station comment. Bush may have never heard Kerry call him a liar and was not sure of the subway closure. This was not a debate in my opinion. The only response Bush could have had to this was to call Kerry a liar on stage and that is not his style. I think all of this had Bush flustered.
Kerry blew it with the global test comment. Bush said "global test" and it sounded like Kerry was saying the US would have to take something like a 4th grade test. I laughed on that one.
Bush's closing sumation was excellent.
I think people’s first reaction is that Kerry won because they expected someone who would flip – flop and say something dumb because that has been Kerry’s performance in the Campaign to this point. Also, Kerry is a skilled debater and was better on classic debate style, and this was more or less a classic debate structure.
However, as the days pass and internet bloggers examine what each Candidate said and identify false statements by the Candidates, I believe that the conclusion will be that Kerry actually lost.
Without question Kerry got a number of things wrong – General Franks has already contradicted Kerry on men, weapons and material being pulled out of Afghanistan and going to Iraq. There will be many others. Kerry made the mistake of trying to sound very informed and cited a lot of “facts”. He is not quite as smooth a liar as is Clinton. And Clinton didn’t have to face the Internet and its now legion of bloggers.
There are several statements by Kerry that will come back to haunt Kerry, some are:
Kerry proposed giving nuclear fuel to Iran for “peaceful” purposes and the only “peaceful” purpose nuclear fuel could be used for is energy. So the US should have given nuclear fuel to a country that has the second or third largest amount of energy in the world in the form of oil & gas. A very stupid proposition when you think about it. Also, that proved to be a failed policy when Clinton gave North Korea nuclear tech for “peaceful” purposes and NK used it to build nukes.
The other “biggie” was Kerry saying that we needed to meet a “global test” before proceeding with military action to protect ourselves. We were attacked, we are at war, there is a high probability that we will be attacked again. Kerry will ask permission before taking action to protect American lives. How many ways can you say DUMB.
Also, Kerry would abandon the “bunker-busting nukes” essential for the US to get at, or at least threaten, North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are buried under a mountain in each country. The typical leftist “unilateral disarmament”. When we are in a shooting war, we should disarm – great strategy.
There were other gaffs by Kerry, but these alone, I believe, will kill Kerry when the RNC and/or bloggers get them out to the public.
Many were thinking Bush would land a knockout punch and they don’t think they saw one. I think in a few days or a week you will see Kerry fade once what he said soaks in.
IMHO, President Bush gave Kerry the rope, and let him run with it.
Also, the President mentioned that America's military would remain all volunteer (NO DRAFT!) which would have perked up the ears of any guy from 18 to 24.
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 only got to listen to half of the debate on the radio. It sounded like Bush was groping for words alot.
I have watched alot of debates before and I don't remember any of them being like this. This was an attack mode from Kerry. I don't think Bush was expecting this nor do I think he was expecting the lies. Such as when Kerry said he never called Bush a liar or the closing of the subway station comment. Bush may have never heard Kerry call him a liar and was not sure of the subway closure. This was not a debate in my opinion. The only response Bush could have had to this was to call Kerry a liar on stage and that is not his style. I think all of this had Bush flustered.
Kerry blew it with the global test comment. Bush said "global test" and it sounded like Kerry was saying the US would have to take something like a 4th grade test. I laughed on that one.
Bush's closing sumation was excellent.
No, they will be remembering 'we did not need that tax cut' and 'global testing'
I didn't think it was grim at all. Bush did fine. Many of the questions posed were obviously written to put Bush in a bad position. A lot of his answers had to be basic and from the heart, because specifics would endager foreign policy. He is the SITTING PRESIDENT. He can't just break into rambling theory on what he would like to do about Iran or N. Korea, because anything he says during the debate will be taken literally on the bargaining table overseas tomorrow morning.
What's he supposed to do? Let all of our policy and battle plans out of his sleeves just because of a debate? He can't. He's tied to the office and in the middle of a war. I thought he projected honesty and integrity. And it was obvious in a few places that he was very upset that he couldn't just gush the whole truth of a situation at the American people. That's the kind of man you want in office.
It doesn't matter one bit if you can't speak as eloquently as your opponent, as long as the vast majority of people can look you in the eyes and know they can trust you with their lives.
Kerry, on the other hand, had all the polish of a used car salesman. Not a statesman. The kind of person you get stuck dealing with when you buy a car. You don't want to, but you're forced to listen to him. And if you have ANY other good option you take it. Bush is definately a GOOD alternative to what Kerry projects.
We (in my family) thought Bush won but concede Kerry sounded and looked better than anticipated (better then when he gives one of his hectoring speeches). Toward the end he almost got that tone but reined it in. He said many things that are wrong and that are being exposed so that will undermine any good impression he might have made on a few.
Kerry seemed to control the tenor of the debate, and that makes him the winner, regardless of his positions.
True. And we'd be wrong.
It's a cumulative thing. Bush didn't jsut suddenly lose ground he's been building in the swing states, and when the ads come revealing all the lies Kerry said...I'd rather be where Bush is now. That's not hyperbole; I'd be shouting and yahooing if their positions were reversed earlier tonight; right now, I wouldn't want to be Kerry, though, now that the sheen is wearing off.
You must be smoking something.
Tell me, what States is Bush going to lose because of this debate? NJ? Calif? NY?
He didn't need to, Kerry needed to show why he should be President and not Bush.
Kerry failed in doing that and therefore will lose this election.
Americans are not going to have their foreign policy dictated by 'global testing', espically after seeing how the UN did not handle Saddam.
The more time passes, the more I think Bush scored the most with his points and has better soundbytes. Kerry won the debate for a few hours, but I think over time that'll change when people start really analyzing what he said.
Good assessment and agreed.
isn't the next one a 'town hall' type debate? Bush should win that easily over old ironbutt
We are in absolute agreement on this.
Bush did not have to win the debate, or any of the future ones.
What he must do and did do was hold his own by defending his policies and connect the war on terror to Iraq in the face of the opposition to that idea.
In my mind he succeeded.
He did not win out right, but won because he has the title belt and the challenger needed a knockout to take it from him. That knock out did not occur, and in fact never materialized.
Could Bush have done better?
Sure, he could have, but after a full day of viewing hurricane damages and comforting hundreds of people he was a bit flat.
I also believe that something was distracting him in the audience. The sound was muted in that direction but I sensed a distracting occurrence in the direction of the audience. I hope we get some reports about that.
The Dems have nothing of substance from this debate to use against Bush, but on the flip side there is much that Kerry said that was untrue or misrepresented. Kerry also danced around several points that Bush made and never completely answered anything. he simply diverted to other subjects. (pivoting)
Bush or anyone else for that matter, will have a very difficult time beating Kerry on a debate. Kerry is just too good at it. But he does not need to. Kerry can't connect with the average Joe and acts like a smart ass. His words are thick and meaningless to most.
Those on this forum and others who say Kerry won decisively are either in agreement with his Bull crap or are grading on style.
We know our Bush pretty well, and he cannot do what Kerry does in the style category.
It must be said, that style alone does not make a good president. Substance is the issue and Bush won the substance battle without question. It is unfortunate that debates are graded on style, but voters vote substance.
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.