Posted on 10/01/2004 2:05:46 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
Gary Andres I thought the debate boiled down to a classic head versus heart affair, with no major gaffes and not a lot of new information.
Senator Kerry came across as cool, polished, and intelligent. Yet he reminded me more of a competent management consult — bloodless and cerebral — than an endearing leader. His lines could have been right out of the Harvard Business Review — "outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghan war lords," changing the "dynamics on the ground" and numerous mentions of "international summits and cooperation" — analytically dissecting White House decisions, without alternative concrete solutions.
President Bush, on the other hand, came across as a determined leader, facing tough terrorists adversaries, emotionally beckoning his people to stick with him in this noble, messy, yet essential campaign to promote freedom and keep America safe. He was like the plainspoken football coach that just had a tough first half, received some criticism from the armchair quarterbacks, but had the grit to press forward in a tough situation, knowing the pain in the road ahead was both necessary and inevitable.
I thought Bush's clear-eyed statement that he "understood how this world works," was one of his best lines. Kerry came close at times to sounding Pollyannaish, by suggesting the war on terrorism would be a lot better if we could just get more international cooperation.
Bottom line is neither side decked the other with a fatal blow. The president got his licks in on Kerry changing positions and the senator hammered home the point about Mr. Bush being strong but not smart in the war on terror. Yet I'm not sure the truly undecided voter (all ten of them) really learned anything new about either candidate Thursday night.
— Gary Andres is vice chairman of research and policy at the Dutko Group Companies and a frequent NRO contributor.
Ed Kilgore
1.The smirk is back; astoundingly, Bush won the Al Gore Debate Look-a-like Contest.
2. The debate revolved around Iraq, which is not good for the president.
3. Whoever told Bush that "mixed messages" is more effective than "flip-flop" should be fired; it was easy for Kerry to turn that one around.
4. Round one: Bush's turf, Bush's rules, Bush with less to lose, but he did.
— Ed Kilgore is the policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Robert Moran
President Bush had to stumble for Kerry to get any real movement out of this debate. That didn't happen.
The president was himself. He was blunt, colloquial, and tough. His message and demeanor were the same. It's hard to imagine Bush losing votes based on his performance Thursday night.
Now we move to the spin phase. Kerry partisans will claim that their man passed the first test (but not a "global test") of these debates by looking and sounding intelligent and Presidential. Unfortunately for the Kerry camp, they needed more than that. They needed to draw blood. They didn't.
The Bush camp will have won the spin phase if they are able to (1) demonstrate that Kerry is still living in the 9/10 world by pasting him with his "global test" for military action and (2) dissect his dubious claims of consistency on Iraq.
— Robert Moran is a vice president at Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates. He is an NRO contributor.
Peter Robinson
In his column Thursday morning, George Will sniffed that at the University of Miami we would see not a debate but "parallel press conferences." Will was mistaken. Both Bush and Kerry proved articulate enough to express their differences from each other at some length, and with some passion. And in doing so, each revealed much of his own character. The debate had little enough in common with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to be sure, but it represented a credit to the nation all the same, offering voters a clean choice.
Who won? Nobody. To firm up his lead, ensuring a victory, Bush needed to equal or overmaster Kerry, demonstrating a sense of ease and relaxation at the lectern, while explaining the end game in Iraq — making clear, in other words, how he's going to get us out. He did neither. Kerry, trailing in the polls for three weeks now, needed to make a convincing case that he could do a better job than the incumbent. Instead he did little but list Bush's mistakes.
Because Kerry proved articulate — and because the press needs a new story — the headlines tomorrow will all say that the race is tightening. Maybe. But I suspect Bush will retain his lead. Whereas in this first debate Kerry displayed the fox-like qualities of his mind — he knows a little about a lot — Bush proved by contrast that he is a Reagan-like hedgehog. Bush may know less than Kerry, but what he knows is central, and he knows it well. As Bush himself put it, "I want to tell Americans, you'd better have a president who chases their terrorists down."
Indeed we had — and voters know it
— Peter Robinson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of Uncommon Knowledge, is author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.
I couldn't agree more! Especially while Kerry emphatically stated he would fully support our military in their efforts. Interesting...the track record doesn't support your claim!
"What parallel universe do you live in?"
From the many posts I have read, right here in THIS universe, I can only point out that I am not alone. The Bush camp is already trying out the "Dubya was tired from working with hurricane victims" spin; tantamount to admitting -- contrary to any revised spin they come up with today --, and that is not going to work. The President was unprepared, period.
My comments were made with my having the advantage of being honest enough with myself that I know that perception is reality. I have sense enough to know that any misstep by President Bush is going to be inflated and expanded on by the MSM for days, and he provided the media, and the Kerry campaign, plenty of fodder.
On the other hand, allow me the courtesy of an honest appraisal of the debate without an attack on my opinion. Kerry didn't hit any out of the park, but a better performance by Dubya would have made me a lot more comfortable.
Carolyn
I didn't see the debate, although I heard about five minutes on the radio when I had to run to the car during work.
The subject at the time was North Korea, and nuclear proliferation.
The thing that immediately frustrated me was how GWB failed to hit the Democrats and hit them hard on how they completely blew the 1994 agreement with NK.
GWB also went off on this etherical explanation about a multi-lateral meeting with NK rather than a bi-lateral approach, which to me seemed way too wonkish. Bush was way, way too defensive and kept adding phrases like, "um" and "c'mon".
He also failed to nail Kerry when Kerry made the statement that nuclear proliferation was the biggest threat to America.
BUSH SHOULD HAVE SAID, "Then why do you want to give MORE nuclear material to Iran, and why did the former Democratic administration give nuclear material to North Korea, both of them rogue nations that have openly expressed their willingness to build nuclear bombs and join in the war on terror."
During the time i listened, which I said was about five minutes, my impression was that Bush was timid. He seemed afraid to get too rough with Kerry. Maybe he WAS tired.
I love GWB. I spend half my day putting Bush/Cheney2004 bumper stickers on anything and everything I can get away with. I donate money. But I was very frustrated for those five minutes. I turned it off because I didn't want to become discouraged and would rather think of GWB the way I know he can really be.
First allow me to say I wish your husband a speedy recovery.
Secondly, may I be excused for being so tart?
I had just read all the "gloom and doom" posts from some of these less than stalwart Freepers who seem to be in the "Bush is going to lose, and we'll all die" mode.
I really had no business being so sarcastic to you.
It would seem, at my age, I would understand that many can't see the forest for the trees.
FWIW ... I thought GWB did what GWB does. He looks you in the eye, tells you what he thinks, and is very unpretentious.
The "debate" questions were rigged, in that they all concerned GWB's actions and none of JF Kerry's undermining of the WOT, his voting record, amd his inactions. Of course we all probably knew that was going to happen.
GWB seemed to get tired just trying to respond to Kerry's lies.
Inasmuch as these debates are for the "undecided" votes, and GWB was not hostile and biting in his remarks to Kerry, I think GWB did really well. At least to those who understand the world situation.
The problem is the undecideds have absolutely no clue, or they would not be undecided at this late date in the campaign.
Again please excuse my first postings attitude.
Regards
Carolyn
I could not agree more! President Bush is absolutely the best choice for president. Kerry would bring this country to ruins. But the fact remains that Mr. President needs to work harder and getting his point across. I suspect he will be alot sharper at the next debate!
Me too, not to mention the possible puking and fainting.
I was disappointed too. It is interesting to see that people posted to you that you were wrong. Sure I love W and a debate doesn't make or break you, but he sounded like he usually does, half asleep.
I don't think you understand the president. He isn't in it for him. He's in it for us. We should elect George W. Bush because we need him at this place in time.
Q 3 (to Kerry): "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Q 4 (to Bush): What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
Q 18 (to Bush): All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?
Oops, those were actually four separate questions in the last post.
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232070/posts?page=51#51
Bush built the container or the house to destroy Kerry.... Kerry is running water---- Bush let him run freely as he prepared the frames of the container to keep the aqueous behavior of Kerry... the house was successfully built...it is ugly and dirty work, that is why Bush worked so hard and let Kerry run.
The container was built on three key principles:
1. Kerry is a flip-flop politician
2. Kerry is a globalist proUN proWorld Court
3. Kerry is anti/weak on defense and poor for morale
Bush contained and framed these key "currents" of this liquid chameleon Kerry. Bush can now beat the hell out of Kerry within the house in which Bush framed. Kerry can't move. The only way for Kerry to escape is by exploding the frame, which will destroy his campaign... he'll have to embrace these "currents"....
Bush has won, he was winning the debates... not the debate.
And you won't hear this until that dark mousy curly haired Krauthammer speaks on Fox... then all the news hacks will pick it up.... and I don't get paid for this... those stupid losers in the beltway press get all the doe.
Oh, because I can't spell
51 posted on 09/30/2004 10:45:26 PM CDT by Porterville (Men have learned to shoot without missing ...and I have learned to fly without perching on a twig)
When I heard question #3, I choked. It was highly biased, using the same language as Kerry and was barely a question. Lehrer had some fair questions, but the bizarre, egregious ones were anti-Bush. #3 & #4 were insane. You're right. If Bush were better, he could have done what Kerry did -- ignore the question and answer what you want to answer.
I sadly have to echo your comments. Intelligent people will listen to the words and then Bush wins, but the general public, going with "appearance", saw a confident sKerry winning. It's a shame.
You are right about the "yes men", What can we expect this friday as far as the questions go... Do you know? Will it be a snoozer? Chenney kicked Edwards butt. It was like "Who do you want a heart beat away from the prez, Mickey mouse or George Patton. Of course, CBS (might as well call them DNC) said Edwards won.
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.