Posted on 10/01/2004 1:21:37 AM PDT by kattracks
Mano a mano, Sen. John Kerry abandoned the trademark windy nuances and just came out and uttered several simple declarative sentences, which came down to "I can do better." And that was pretty much all the senator was able to say in the first of his three debates with President Bush.Kerry was not at all ineloquent in this conviction, and it is fair to say that Bush, purely on style points, was on several occasions bested by an opponent of superior debating skills. But Bush wasn't there to be flashy. Bush was there to say to the American people exactly what he has been saying all along, which came down to: "We won't achieve our objective if we send mixed signals." And how right he is.
Kerry spoke mathematically, citing hard facts in some cases - yes, it's true that handing off Tora Bora to the Afghan locals was a bad military misjudgment - and not exactly hard facts in others - no, senator, the New York subways were not shut down during the Republican National Convention - to support his contention of late that Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
It remains the case, from what could be discerned from his presentation, that Kerry has only one plan to "do better," and that is to "bring people to the table." New credibility will do that job, he said. Fresh start. That is his plan, which, at bottom, is not much of a plan.
Bush, for his part, however exasperatedly defensive he let himself become, spoke from the heart. Here is a President who believes with that heart that "a free Iraq is essential to the security of this country." Here is a President who believes with that heart that "the front on this war is more than just one place." Here is a President who said from that heart: "The people out there know where I stand. The people out there know what I believe." And indeed they do.
If the President was not necessarily at his most articulate last night, it's still a fact history will agree that he made the right choice in taking out Saddam Hussein to preserve a safer world for our children and grandchildren. He has been sure of his beliefs for a long time.
[snip]
You can e-mail the Daily News editors at voicers@edit.nydailynews.com. Please include your full name, address and phone number. The Daily News reserves the right to edit letters. The shorter the letter, the better the chance it will be used.
Originally published on October 1, 2004
Sincerity and authenticity win big time over being smarmy and slick.
I'm not that sure of that. Clintoon fooled most of the people with slick and we ended up with 9/11.
I always considered the NY Daily News to be Liberal, except for their editorial section lately.
Kerry had wonderful presentation and spoke with authority and had all the right camera angles to make him look the best, plus a moderator that hardly laid a glove on him but civilly hammered away on Iraq for him...but when you revisit what he actually said you come up with hogwash if not downright insanity.
We need to be multilateral in Iraq, 30 coalition partners aren't enough. We need bilateral talks with North Korea, 5 coalition partners are too many.
We need to outsource our national defense decisions; they must past an "international test" before we do a preemptive strike which can only be successful if there is no warning.
President Bush has ignored science in stem cell research and global warming, and that's why he misled us in going to war in Iraq.
Nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous problem of our times and I will solve it by giving nuclear fuel to Iran.
I can bring cumbayah to the table when I solve how to win Iraq by having a summit, and in the meantime Saudi Arabian rulers are jerks, Poland and Britain are coerced and bribed and Putin of Russia is a KGB totalitarian who no decent person should speak to.
The man is insane.
President Bush was given bad camera angles, shown reacting while Kerry was talking, which was against the rules, and had spent time that day dealing with real people who had suffered real losses in the hurricanes...and he looked exasperated by Kerry.
But everything he said made sense, and reflected a sane and steady approach to the current problems of a world gone mad long before he took the reins of power, with a vision and plan for long term solutions as well.
Did he knock Kerry out? No, but there were too many lies and pipe dreams coming from the other side to refute in 90 second rebuttals.
When people talk about the debate, what will they tell each other about the substance...
I think the glow of Kerry's glibness will fade like cotton candy, and the exasperation of Bush's sincerity and levelheadedness will be seen with greater appreciation.
And then as always, events will drive the last month. I'm sure the Dems are prepared now to show that Kitty Kelley's books are backed by affidavits and hystericalhistorical memo's.
But like the camera angles last night, and terrorist attacks, you can't always descend far enough into the pit to see what dirty tricks they will pull and what lies they will be peddling in October.
But we have an ace up our sleeves. We know how to pray.
Kerry thinks Treblinka is in Moscow.
He said so in the debates.
No one pointed out that fact. It's just like spelling potato wrong.
I watched c-span's split screen format and Kerry looked terrible, in fact his profile looked like the well known drawing of a haggard old woman.
now I realize that looks should not be the deciding factor, but they were in the Nixon/Kennedy TV debate.
when Kerry's eyes were wide open they looked hollow, vacant, perhaps stupid, his face had gone from bright orange to washed out ashen white and his constant nodding of his head, while Bush was speaking, was truely weird.
and while Bush left us momentarly hanging in some of his commentary, Kerry's answers were boring, confusing and non-responsive.
wonders of wonders, CBS gave the debate to Kerry based on their "metered" polling.
but like Bush said in response to one of Kerry's answers about fighting on two fronts in the war on terror, and I paraphrase - we're capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time...rto
Totally agree.
Kerry's plan to send nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran was mindboggling.
I agree. If that doesn't scare the bejeebers out of the American people, then they're drunk and sleeping it off.
Here ya go, Ayatollah, here's some nuclear fuel 'cause I just know that you'll use it only for nice things....no dirty bombs from you...no way. No nuclear research from you.
That, Global tests, Treblinka, changing on stage from bilateral to trilateral...amazing.
And they say he won on "style."
Guess it must be stylish to say stupid sh_t!
I don't know. The President was on message. But it was clumsily done. He wasn't listening to Kerry, a lot of the time. Kerry had the substance, in some ways. But what he substantively promised was frightening! Bush also had substance, based on his actual performance in office. I wish Bush would have appropriately replied in many cases. Kerry would have been a wreck by the end of the debate - Lehrer, too, of course (which would have been just as good).
In other words, it wasn't the Lehrer softballs that Kerry wasn't hitting out of the infield. It was the fat pitches Kerry was throwing Bush that Bush couldn't hit into the cove.
I totally agree with you. SO many times there were great responses to Kerry that Bush just didn't have.
I REALLY hope that people could see through the style and listen to the substance.
Yeah - Kerry HAD substance, as it were. But what he said was INSANE! And I think that's what's going to be his story until the next debate.
...and don't forget "I have a plan."
...of course, don't forget that he failed to describe the plan and he failed to explain how he would do better!
I concur with your analysis. I might add that Bush should have pointed out that the CIC does not have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight when leading. Hindsight seems to be the basis for all of Kerrys positions. Before he acquired his hindsight, his statements agreed with Bushs actions.</p>
When Kerry said that pulling us out of the global warming treaty has hurt us in the world, I wanted Bush to say" If I remember correctly Senator, the vote was 95-0 against ratifying the treaty. Were you one of the 95 against or one of the 5 that didn't bother to show up that day?"
So many chances lost. But again, W was not supposed to get into a "punch up". State your case and stay on message. Ity will be Chenney's job to bloddy Kerry. And rest assured, he will!
Bush has heart, Kerry's insides are hollow, except for those lies inside.
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.