Posted on 10/01/2004 4:24:55 AM PDT by veronica
Bush won the debate last night.
Yes, yes, all the snap polls and focus groups, like most of the talking heads, say that Kerry won. It was stylistically his best performance in memory. He certainly passed the "looks Presidential" test. The lights indicating the time limit, which everyone, including me, thought would hurt Kerry, turned out to be great for him, forcing him to adjust his rhetorical style for the better; it was in fact Bush who went over time once.
But here's a quick test of last night's electoral effect: what do you remember a day later, off the top of your head?
Chances are, it's that Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." Or that it is bad to send "mixed messages" (or "mixed signals"). Bush said each of these things seven times (Kerry, attempting to parry Bush's thrusts, said "mixed messages" another three times). Kerry spoke competently on each point of debate, but swing voters aren't going to walk around with his talking points in mind -- he only brought up rushing to war three times, for example.
Kerry scored some real rhetorical blows, but he didn't hammer them home as he should have. The failure to catch bin Laden in Tora Bora is a real vulnerability, and while Kerry wisely brought it up early, he only mentioned it again once. While Bush may have the better half of the argument over the efficacy of bilateral vs. multilateral talks with Pyongyang, and the Clintonites may bear much of the blame for the progress of North Korea's nuclear program, but the fact that the missiles went online recently is, at bottom, a big problem for the President. By the time Kerry brought up North Korea, casual viewers -- and the typical swing voter is about as casual as they come -- may have already tuned out.
And Kerry's performance, as good as it was by his standards, was still marred by a few gaffes. That his idea of a superior president is one who asks foreign leaders "What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?" is not the best image for Kerry to project. Romantically invoking a meeting with Charles de Gaulle in Paris does little to dispel the perception of excessive France-friendliness. And the notion of "global test" for when preemption is okay left Bush open to zing him for wanting to let international popularity trump national interest.
Matt Drudge posted last night that Kerry advisors were unknowingly caught in a candid conversation by C-SPAN's cameras where Joe Lockhart told Mike McCurry that "the consensus is it was a draw." Lockhart is more or less correct. And that's why I say Bush won. Kerry might get a small bounce in the polls, but probably not enough to fundamentally change the trajectory of the race.
Is the election over? Not yet -- despite the consensus that last night's would be by far the most important match-up, something in the upcoming debates could prove far more relevant. A lot can change in a month. For the moment, though, Bush's small edge is likely to remain.
John Tabin is a frequent online contributor to The American Spectator.
No. I paid to receive this data. Be patient. National polls over the remainder of this weekend will bear this out.
LLS
All part of Hillary's plan (or dare I say conspiracy?) to ensure a Kerry defeat?
Last night, people here were saying Bush lost (I didn't). Today, what's everyone talking about? "Global Test".
Think Kerry still won?
If you want a guy who can win a debate contest, and as long as the score keepers don't do a fact check on his answers, then Kerry is your man. He will say anything to win a formal debate. However, being C in C involves much more than formal debating. When Kerry gets outside of the debate box, he offends people, he lies to people, he is obviously much more concerned about himself than with you and me. The comment I recall from people on Capital Hill is that Kerry "does not play well with others."
Everyone should forget about "style," and look at substance. Kerry made several statements that simply were not true, he contradicted himself (Saddam was not a threat, Saddam was a threat), and he has no distinctive plan for Iraq, despite his assurances that he does (it is pretty much the same plan that Bush has, and Kerry knew he was lying when he said "I have a plan, Bush has no plan").
Here is hoping sKerry made some serious misstatements last night such as the Osama in Afganistan mistake etc. and the MSM will be forced to cover those misleading statements.
Kerry is all talk. But he never really says anything. What little he does say is harmful. He has no business being a senator and certainly not the CIC. I think Bush won on substance and clarity. Kerry gets style points, but only for the debate. I don't vote on style.
Calling our fighting men and women CHILDREN is NOT a good. As usual sKerry shows his LOATHING of our Military.
Expectations have been lowered for Bush and raised for Kerry in the next debate. Whether deliberate or not, Bush has a week to review Kerry (and the liberal moderator's) approach and get ready for his own attack. This debate set the stage for what to look for. The next debate will start to firm opinions for any true undecideds.
With the 527's, the experience of the DUI surprise in 2000, and any other manner of surprises/diversions left, a month from now, this debate will have meant little in the final outcome. I still have faith that Rove and crew have some heavy artillery in reserve but I also have no doubt more crap will be tossed at Bush.
If there is any solace for both the optimists and the pessimists, its that the election is already in the Lord's hands. Win or lose, joy or frustration, we must trust that his plan is better than any that we could imagine.
But on substance Bush won, and I think that will carry the day, ultimately.
The facts are stark and plain. We are in a death match with terrorists and we must be on offense and use our power when we choose to, and you don't have to be a great orator to get that simple point across. It's the only salient point and all of Kerry's smooth BS won't win any voters over IMO, on that all important defining issue.
I was trying to look at the debate from the view of an undecided or persuadable voter. I think from that viewpoint, Kerry clearly came across better than Bush.
On substance - I don't think Bush clearly defined the differences between himself and Kerry. Sure, he told us his position, but didn't contrast that well enough from Kerry's position(s).
This debate had no influence on MY vote (for Bush), but I suspect it will move a few votes Kerry's way. With this race so tight, we can't afford that.
I have agree that Bush wins hands down if you read the transcript. But form a presentation standpoint, I was squirming in my chair watching him. It was frustrating. A very disappointing performance from Bush. Thank God he's got substance on his side.
Exactly. We still got a month to go. There's no point pulling the trigger until you see the whites of their eyes.
Whether Dubya won or lost will be forgotten. What will not be forgotten are the lies and outrageous statements made by Kerry.
Kerry never called Dubya a liar?
Kerry has had only one position on Iraq?
Only rich got tax cut?
New York subways closed?
Iraq war cost $200B ($119B so far)
Giving nuclear material to Iran?
Action must pass GLOBAL TEST?
Dissed ALL allies except British!
Disses Allawi!
Disarm unilaterally?
Cancel missile defense?
Saddam not a threat, then later became a threat?
Wrong war,etc. = aid and comfort to terrorists, demoralizes troops, Americans, and our Allies!
No link between Saddam and al-Queda? (911 Report says otherwise)
Iraq is now in charge of Iraq!
I can't wait for Rush, Hannity, and the bloggers to destoy Kerry's statements. Especially the Vast Right Wing Pajama Party!
I'm a big Bush supporter,but I thought the President blew it big time. He seemed intimidated by Kerry. He didn't go after Kerry's record against defense & intelligence. Those bunker buster bombs have saved countless American lives and how else can we get weapons stored in mountains & caves and the Pres. said nothing. The President better get his act together for the next debate or the election will go down the drain.
I noticed that too. It was like his people frantically scrubbed the orange off his face, but forgot about his hands.
I just widsh Bush would quit trying to overplay the nice guy image
Public wants a string resolute leader
That's why Zell Millers speech brought the delegates to their feet
Public hasn't seen somebody like that in ages
This wimping down of America has to cease
Amen!
I had to work last night, but I did listen to the first hour of the debate. What I found interesting is that the "image" is totaly different. The perception I got from last night was that Kerry was overly aggressive and rude constantly. I heard nothing but contempt in Kerry's voice for the President. It made me feel, well, (like my tagline says) like shouting at my radio.
I dunno. It just sounded like Kerry was beating on his chest, acting too macho. He sounded like he would rather fist fight President Bush than discuss the issues, and President Bush was trying to have a civil conversation with America, about where we as Americans are and where he would like us to go.
All in all, Kerry did better than I expected, but I do feel Bush won on substance. All this proves is that President Bush has a real fight on his hands.
Just my amateur opinion. Shred at will.....
Correct! "Global Test" was not a word in the dictionary of most Americans. We tried the diplomacy/inclusion route and it failed. Americans know this. The moment that most Americans will remember is sKerry's admission that he would indeed ask permission the next time. Also, to say tha "America is not safer..." is a tough sell on a public that hasn't been attacked in thier own backyard since 9/11.
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.