Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bush-Kerry Face-Off
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 10/01/04 | Joel Mowbray

Posted on 10/01/2004 1:05:50 AM PDT by kattracks

With Kerry’s camp relentlessly dampening expectations for the Democrat’s debating skills, the senator from Massachusetts cleared the low bar he needed to in order to improve his standing in the public’s mind.

But what Kerry failed to do was accomplish his most important goal: offer a clear, alternative vision.

To his credit, Kerry was well coifed, poised, and surprisingly succinct.  He managed to make his wildly divergent positions seem slightly more consistent, and he even scored on a few rhetorical digs.

 

Missing from the 90-minute event, however, was any coherent Kerry plan for what to do in Iraq if Americans do choose to change horses midstream.  The Democrat hammered home that he would secure former Soviet nukes in 4 years instead of 13—this is the issue gripping Americans, after all—but how exactly does he propose building this grand, sweeping international coalition to handle Iraq and the rest of the war on terror?

 

While Kerry reiterated that he thought Saddam was a bad guy—who aside from Michael Moore can argue otherwise?—he didn’t specify what he would have done to take out Saddam.  Unfortunately, Bush did not use this opportunity to remind his challenger that this summer, the Democrat said the war in Iraq was justified—regardless of whether or not WMDs are ever found.

 

Where Bush had his best moments were tearing into Kerry’s own words -- a smorgasbord from which the President could feast. 

 

Kerry, lest we forget, voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.  And after labeling Saddam a grave threat, his latest line is that the war in Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

 

The obvious question that Bush didn’t even have to pose is: if Kerry keeps dwelling on how it was the “wrong” war, how can he be the guy to lead us to eventual victory?

 

Though it was not a grade-A night for Kerry, the Democrat clearly gained ground on the evening.  How much is not likely to be known for a few days, but the early—stress early—“flash polls” indicate that people who watched the debate gave Kerry the nod by a roughly 10-point margin.

 

Before anyone reads too much into the ultra-early poll results, though, some history: Walter Mondale was declared the winner over Ronald Reagan in their first debate.

 

What Reagan did in the follow-up debate that had a much greater impact, however, was perhaps the most classic one-liner in recent memory: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”  Reaction shots showed a Walter Mondale beside himself, laughing harder than he probably had in months.

 

If there is one principal demerit for Bush last night, it would be that he never found his normally reliable sense of humor.  His passion was at times palpable, and at some moments, he showed a Clinton-esque softer side.  That was not enough.  To really put away the challenger, President Bush will need to turn on the charm in the next two debates in a way it just wasn’t on last night.

 

Luckily for Bush, the American people already know him.  Kerry had a tougher task, given that nearly half of respondents in most polls say they still don’t know enough about him. 

 

After this debate, the general feeling most will probably have is that Kerry is critical of Bush—quelle surprise!—but they still will not have any idea what John Kerry would do as president.  And if he can’t accomplish that in the next two debates, he probably won’t be given the chance to show them.


Joel Mowbray is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; debates; firstdebate

1 posted on 10/01/2004 1:05:50 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks

My theory is Bush went "soft" to get women on board. It may be smart strategery that may end up paying long term political dividends. Bush will take a tactical loss to secure the big prize.


2 posted on 10/01/2004 1:10:41 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Bush-Kerry Face-Off

Bush still has one, Kerry's has fallen off and has been lost, however the MSM is diligently looking for it and when it's found will let EVERYONE know.

3 posted on 10/01/2004 1:12:19 AM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

My theory is that like Clinton v. Dole GWB hung back on solid numbers.


4 posted on 10/01/2004 1:15:51 AM PDT by Helms (nu-ance : [French, from Old French, from nuer, to shade, cloud, from nue, cloud, from Vulgar Latin ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
After this debate, the general feeling most will probably have is that Kerry is critical of Bush—quelle surprise!—but they still will not have any idea what John Kerry would do as president.

That's a good summary. Bush could have made an effort though, to point out just that, that Kerry offers a lot of criticism, but no plan of his own. Kerry's only plan so far has been a dumbed down version of exactly what we're already doing, and he's trying to sell it as a bold new direction. In a way, it should be a ringing endorsement for Bush, something he should have seized upon.
5 posted on 10/01/2004 1:15:56 AM PDT by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I do not think it is a tactical loss. I think it was a perfect set up. Everybody claimed that Kerry won, just based on style, but after two hours, it wass a draw now that people started looking at substance. By the time it is fully digested, it would have been lethal for Kerry.

Global Test, giving nuclear material to Iran and ..... in a nutshell surrendering.


6 posted on 10/01/2004 1:17:19 AM PDT by FranceForBushInAustin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
My theory is Bush went "soft" to get women on board. It may be smart strategery that may end up paying long term political dividends. Bush will take a tactical loss to secure the big prize.

I don't feel it was a loss. He further damaged Kerry's credibility. Kerry simply had no comeback for any of his flip-flops. Kerry just nodded his head like a buffoon.

It is Cheney's role to attack. It will be fireworks come Tuesday.
7 posted on 10/01/2004 1:21:39 AM PDT by igoramus987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

I know a number of people thought that the Iraq War/terror war debate would help Bush, but I disagree. I go to a number of football games and there are always those jackasses that sit in the stands and know how to coach the team better than the coach....until you gave them the chance. Kerry is one of those jackasses and he has the luxury of sitting in the cheap seats and questioning decisions he has never had to make. That's easy and can only put Bush on the defensive. Anytime the subject moved off Iraq (No. Korea, Iran), Kerry stubbed his toe.

Kerry won't have that luxury from now on as he has a longtime Senate record where he has had to make decisions. Bush need to hammer him on this record and show him for what Kerry is....an extreme leftist who is out of touch with the average American. The flip-flop stuff is nice and contradictions should be pointed out, but Bush needs to move on past that and attack his liberal record and liberal ideology.


8 posted on 10/01/2004 1:31:55 AM PDT by Troublemaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: igoramus987
I agree, no loss whatsoever. President Bush answered the questions, Kerry did not. President Bush probably had to look a bit rankled just to keep a straight face.

Kerry is very good at making bizarre gestures to coordinate with his bizarre thought processes.
9 posted on 10/01/2004 1:37:17 AM PDT by Pebcak (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Troublemaker

great analogy.
i sometimes feel compelled to offer coaching advice to the rams head coach, but yelling from the "cheap seats" my opinion only gets my throat sore.
lets hope kerry has the same fate.


10 posted on 10/01/2004 2:52:32 AM PDT by 537cant be wrong (the lib turneraitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 537cant be wrong
Every fan does it. One of the things I enjoyed while playing was that the stands were further away than other sprts, so most of the stuff we never heard. You get used to it. But it's only football, not the security of the nation. Kerry enjoys the luxury of hindsight. Anytime Kerry has to look in the future, he's got nothing.

Speaking of Missouri football, the Chiefs losing their first 2 home games, wow. I have a friend in the organization and the mood is pretty bad.

11 posted on 10/01/2004 3:12:22 AM PDT by Troublemaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson