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.
Kerry would halt development of small nuclear weapons.
Proof he doesn't get it.
I believed that in Floriduh in 2000, and I was right. :)
In my own household I have to say that Kerry lost badly in a couple of key ways. First, he lost my wife (who tends Democrat) -- by the end, she distrusted everything he said. And second, my kids began to mock him -- they're pretty sharp at recognizing double-talk. I offered very little commentary during the debate, so their responses were genuine.
What it means is this: my wife and kids are not atypical. Kerry probably turned off a lot of folks last night and Bush, at worst, lost nobody. As Tabin says: victory goes to Bush.
I couldn't agree more. Anyone who has followed the issues, however distantly, at this point has made a decision.
With all the over-the-top mudslinging that's been going on the past year, I seriously doubt there are a significant number of voters who will make a decision based on rhetorical skills or hairstyle.
Bush didn't disappoint me, simply because I've seen him speak so many times, I know what to expect. He was completely in character last night -- somewhat tired, but considering the state of the world, and the fact that he's been touring hurricane-wracked Florida in 90-degree heat, even that was appropriate.
As far as Bush not taking the openings he was given to attack Kerry, I don't see that as weakness, or inability to react. I see it as self-control, because I believe that Kerry's personality and positions (and the DNC's behavior) are just as repugnant to Bush as they are to his supporters, and Bush has to exert great effort to edit his comments rather than descend to the excremental level of his opponent.
We have the luxury of commenting, blogging and Monday-morning quarterbacking, but a war-time President faced with the most perilous decisions in our history simply does not.
I laughed when Kerry mentioned several times that he has been "consistent" on Iraq, and has had 1 "consistent" position all along. We can all laugh, but for those stupid undecided's who haven't been paying attention, it may sound legit. I don't get these stupid undecideds anyway. Either you believe in something or you don't. Bush and Kerry couldn't be more different, so how the hell can you be undecided? Idiots!
Sounds like there are quite a few of us whose apolitical are a good barometer of the debate. (I have to add that my kids thought Kerry was full of it, and I've found that they have really excellent BS filters.)
I think most of us here on FR are a little to close to the forest to see the trees, so to speak. We expected/hoped that GW would knock it out of the park everytime he spoke. We wanted a repeat performance of the days after 9/11, like when he was with the firemen at Ground Zero.
I think your "Average Joe" on the street who does not watch Fox News 24/7, listen to Rush and Hannity, buy political books, and spend hours on FR, will think GWB did just fine.
Your hateful bias shines through like a waft of odor from cowpile.
Your man, sKerry, stood up there like a statue and mouthed all the lines that were transferred by wire into his Frankenstein brain while he slept. Everything he said was out of context and had nothing to do with the questions Jim Liar asked.
President Bush, tired from his day of trekking through wreckage of the latest Hurricane and "feeling the pain" (a little Clintonesque talk for you) of those who were dispossessed by the storms.
sKerry, on the other hand, has had nothing to do for the past twenty years.
It was interesting to count the times sKerry referred to his four months in Vienam racking up Purple Hears for hangnails. You seem to be so close to the senator, MurryMonkey, ask him to show you his scars.
For months he has moved across this nation with his ketchup queen wife, lying, committing numerous faux paux, (little french lingo there for you frog-lovers)actually enough to fill a comical book.
You partisan MonkeyMummy call Republicans Repukies and I call your side socialist/communist DemocRATs.
Now. Drain your cesspool, call the honey dipper to suck the slime out of your outhouse and bake some cookies.
If only we had a nation filled with women like you, we'd be speaking arabic and bowing to Mecca.
* Kerry said something about us not passing the "global test" and Bush said our national security is not "popularity contest"
* I'm trying to think of anything bad that Bush said and I can't really think of anything.
* Bush had trouble sometimes articulating his points, while Kerry seemed a more polished debator.
* Kerry says he would have turned control of Iraq over to the UN; this made me think of Rwanda
* Kerry wants to "go it alone" with North Korea, which is inconsistent with his views on Iraq and his "global test" statement
* Kerry made a good point about cargo containers; but Bush mentioned costs and Kerry responded with something about tax cuts for the rich and this made me think about how Kerry would raise taxes which would hurt the economy.
* Kerry kept alluding to Bush being a liar about the war, but it seems he came to the same conclusions about it when it was politically expediate for him to do so. He said something about "yes, war was the right authority to grant but we didn't do enough before using the authority" and Bush said we'd been waiting long enough, Saddam would soon have been let out his box (so to speak). * Kerry feels this is the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time..."
* Kerry at once said the war was a mistake, but wouldn't tell the troops their cause was a mistake.
As I think about it, I can't really think of Bush saying anything wrong, though I think Kerry left a little doubt in people's minds about whether we might have rushed too quickly to war in Iraq - though I feel Bush answered this pretty well. However, Kerry said a lot of little things that didn't seem right; it surprised me a little, in fact, when he admitted he'd do things like "global test" and turning Iraq over to the UN, etc.
IMHO
Lehrer's biased questions showed him in all his flaming liberal glory. He should have worn a cheerleader's skirt with "I love John" emblazoned across his butt.
This piece of farce never asked the poodle why he won't sign the 180 or if he might consider apologizing to Nam vets.
How about a question like this: "John, who do admire more? Pol Pot or Benedict Arnold?"
Or this question: "John, do you still own your flying dog, VC?"
And: "John, does Tearayza allow you to wear the pants at home and do you have the pre-nup agreement memorized?"
A chattering monkey woulda been a better moderator than Lehrer the Loon.
She's not a donor. MurryMonkey is a user of gooberment services.
I agree, Bush still waaaay ahead. When you look back on last nigh and think about what you saw and heard you realize that Kerry had nothing to say. What he had-he had all the elements required for a good debater. Good color suit and tie, very flattering, good skin tone-I guess after lots of swatches they finally got a good shade for him, also he had good posture, he had good gestures, he had good strategies for how and where to look after he answered a question-but still he had nothing to say. When you really think about it, Bush is still waaaay ahead.
I'm still chuckling about W saying "moolahs."
Aren't all liberals? The democrats in my family are voting for Bush. They thought about not voting at all, but Kerry scares the bejeesus out of them.
Same here. Both my husband and I thought the same thing - Bush looked defensive, irritated, and tired. On occasion he had some good moments but overall, it was Kerry on the offensive and Bush on the defensive. But then, that's to be expected given the fact that Bush is the incumbent.
I thought Bush's closing argument was much better than Kerry's. Kerry may have won on the debating points and in a debate competition, clearly was the winner. However, he also came across as Monday Morning Quarterbacking and lots of me-tooism. "I'll just do it better" nonsense.
I'm disappointed because Bush had lots of opportunity to put Kerry away - and not in a mean way but just by mentioning his own words more and some facts about the coalition - and he didn't do it. I think he should have spent less time clearing brush and more time preparing. Also, I think they had better find someone other than Judd Gregg (?) to take Kerry's spot during the practice sessions.
Actually, I thought his questions were pretty good....
If you mean that he can connect a few complete sentences together. And cobble some dubious "facts" together....Then I guess he is "an excellent speaker".
This country is the father of the "Used Car Lot".....and we had the ultimate "Used Car Salesmen" President, in Bill Clinton. We don't need another one.....
This isn't primarily directed at you......Grandma. I've just had it with the people in this country that....are so easily swayed by the silver tongued, promise anything, lie about what you think you can get away with, DemoSocialistMarxistLyingLiberal professional politicians.
Okay...I'm sorry, "RANT OFF".
FRegards,
To add to your point, I think some of here wanted the President to point a finger at Kerry and say "You are a damn liar who gamed the system for medals in Vietnam and committed treason after coming home." While many of us would have cheered, I'm not sure that would have gone over well among those who, unlike us, do not follow this stuff with a passion.
"Can you say "President Kerry"?"....
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!
MurryMom...YOU MUST HATE YOUR OWN CHILDREN and GRAND CHILDREN AS MUCH AS YOU HATE PRESIDENT BUSH, because YOU are Supporting a LIAR who will DESTROY AMERICA, OUR FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
When President Bush is Re-Elected for 4 More Years...You ought to Move out of The USA and go to France or Canada...where You can raise GOATS and ASSES (Donkeys)!
Here's what I posted on another FR thread this morning, it may get Your Demon-Rat Hemorrhoids in an Uproar...but Who Cares?!
A few things bothered me about the Debate last night:
# 1 the so-called "Moderator" Jim The DEMON-RAT from PBS was definately BIASED toward Kerry the Flip-Flopper / LIAR.
KERRY looked Very...ORANGE (FAKE TAN IN THE CAN) Phony!
KERRY stated that he is Against the USA producing and using Missiles!
And...He would Stop the Funding of our MISSILE Programs...
Like that IS Something New from KERRY, he HATES our MILITARY, LIBERTY and FREEDOM; KERRY the FRENCH LOVING SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST is seeking to DESTROY The USA.
**DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT YOUR FAMILY WILL BE EXEMPTED FROM FUTURE TERROR ATTACKS THAT WILL BE UNLEASHED BY THOSE SEEKING TO DESTROY US UNDER a "president" KERRY???**
KERRY IS only too Slap-Happy to do away with The PATRIOT MISSILE Program designed to Protect The USA from INCOMING NUCLEAR MISSILES
KERRY also stated that he would STOP the Production of Special Bunker Busting Nuclear Head Bombs, and he would never use the ones we have!
Those two comments alone were enough to SCARE The HELL out of me...How about You?
WHAT ELSE WILL KERRY TAKE AWAY FROM OUR MILITARY AND DEFENSE?
KERRY'S 20 year Senatorial Voting RECORD Proves that he will WEAKEN our MILITARY and leave us VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS.
JUST HOW MUCH $$$ is KERRY Getting from our ENEMIES to SELL US OUT?
And what about the "GLOBAL APPROVAL" KERRY is so Desperate to get before making a Decision to DEFEND AMERICA FIRST?
THE USA DOES NOT NEED TO GET THE UN's or GLOBAL APPROVAL OR PERMISSION FOR ANYTHING WE DO.
KERRY LIED, LIED and LIED and then he tripped over his own LIES.
I actually felt Nauseaous / Disgusted even listening to KERRY'S Voice and Lies.
SADDAM was directly involved with Al Quida, and there are WMD's...Saddam already used them and sent the Left Overs to SYRIA and IRAN.
About Osamma Bin Laden...Lets REMEMBER that Pakistan and Mushariff would NOT Allow the US MILITARY onto their Land to go and get Bin Laden.
And what about KERRY'S Comments about COMMUNIST North Korea's NUKES?
ALL Intelligence Reports say that: North Korea has the capabilities of sending a few NUKE Missiles to hit Mainland USA.
That's ALL we need is for BOZO KERRY THE CLOWN and his Clintonian Minions to Screw Up the Progress President BUSH, his Administration and our Allies have made concerning COMMUNIST North Korea.
KERRY is an ARROGANT NARCISSISTIC POMPOUS ASS...and he proved IT last night...KERRY was visibly Nervous, his hands were Shaking and he was Sweating.
GOD HELP US THAT KERRY THE LIAR NEVER GETS INTO OUR WHITE HOUSE!
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.