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.
What we can't imagine is what problems the President of the US takes to bed with him every night.
Kerry went to bed with the everyday problems of a Senator, a person who manages zero people, the consequence of his decisions barely discernible, and the affluence of a man who's main residence is really in France.
Bush went to bed with the constant responsibilities of a wartime President. Captains of ships also walk around pretty much sleep starved as well. On an average night they get a call or maybe two depending on the situation.
I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, but I question Kerry's statement that 90% of the casualties in Iraq have been Americans. I doubt if the number is over 8 or 9%.
Clearly at least 90% of the casualties in Iraq have been Iraqis, with some Iranians, Syrians and Jordanians thrown in for good measure.
I agree. What Bush didn't do is put Kerry away, so we'll have 5 more weeks of irritation, until election day, when Bush will finish Kerry off for good.
"Bush had to share the stage with a lying, piss-elegant fop who would sell America down the river to please Jacques Chirac, and I think Bush's annoyance at that showed, and frankly, I can't blame him.
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 agree, JFKerry is an eminent threat to the US, and the security of "freedom" loving nations.
Give our thanks to your nephew. Welcome home!
$150 M in Repukie advertising down the drain in one fell swoop! That's a rate of about $100 M per hour, is it not? I believe we're not wasting that much moolah in Iraq, even now.
For the most part, Bushy was clueless in the face of Senator Kerry's factually supported positions. Bushy kept repeating that Kerry changed positions, but didn't support his flimsy arguments with facts the way Kerry did.
Bushy challenged an assertion by a Kerry aide that Allawi was a "sock puppet". Turns out (yesterday's Wash Post) that Allawi's speech to Congress was drafted in cooperation with the Bush admin and an aide to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Too bad they didn't invite a Kerry aide so that the "sock puppet" charge would not ring so true.
Can you say "President Kerry"?
Kerry is like gore, who the media proclaimed won all the debates in 2000. Al gore is still the raging tree-trunk man, while Kerry is the "dainty sugar in the blood boy" from Ma. I live on the Alabama/Florida line and all I see is W-04 stickers on 99% of the cars in both states. I did see one kerry sticker on a 75 Pinto with the driver sporting a pony-tail and a very de-shelved look. The crack- pipe works wonders for kerry's supporters.Bush/Cheney 2004
Short version, it's about objective:
All Bush had to do was NOT LOSE. Kerry had to win big.
Bush achieved his objective. Kerry did not.
President Bush is not an eloquent, powerful speaker. What he says, however,has weight and power. As a side note, I am contiually amazed that so many people these days cannot spot a LIAR when they hear one. Years ago it was much harder to fool the average American. Kerry could not have run for dogcatcher and got elected. The choice seems clear IMHO. Kerry is your New World Order candidate; America first with President Bush. "Out of the heart the mouth speaketh."
I can hardly wait for the ad that shows Kerry saying he's never called Bush a liar using that word, juxtaposed with his statements saying exactly that. I hope they don't miss this one, because I don't think most people have ever bought into the "Bush lied" mantra in the first place, and the real liar is Mr. Kerry.
Liberals hate the military and appear for photo ops only. I saw an alleged photo of Klintoon in Korea with our troops posted by the Army Times. The photo was a phony in which they had inserted a picture of commie klintoon in with the troops. A careful inspection often exposes the phonies just like skeery kerry. John boy has never learned that lies have short legs. "They are caught easily" President Bush by a landslide!Bush/Cheney 2004
My thirteen year old daughter was aghast at that Kerry bit of logic. He did flip flop. He also lied when he said he had never said that President Bush lied about Iraq. He has said the President lied. If one listens more to what Kerry says and not how he says it (although that grates on me), the truth of flimsy stance is obvious.
In the words of your first lady wantabee: SHOVE IT
If it's all about money, then vote for Kerry so he can take all of it from you.
You are right. There are no undecided voters. Just non-voters.
Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can sit back and look at the current information and the current results and say "back then we should have done thus and so". Time and time again Senator Kerry is on record as making the wrong decision at the time it had to be made.
The best Senator Kerry can offer is that he thinks he is able to make the right decision three years after it is required. America does not need a president like that.
Why say what will never happen? It's like saying "President Dean." :)) All the internals today favor Bush. No votes were changed, Bush still waaaaaaay ahead on the WOT issue.
I agree with your comment that the President should just answer the questions. At times he was just babbling to fill his allotted time. Kerry did the same. I would like to see the candidates answer the questions concisely and then shut up. It really looks bad when they complete their thoughts and then start babbling.
More importantly, he said that Bush lied many times in Ohio, a swing state that was watching last night. He spent a lot of time in Ohio contradicting himself. We saw it last night.
I've read 10,000 posts on this topic in the last few hours. Of all of them, yours sums up my thoughts most exactly. In every respect.
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.