Posted on 10/01/2004 6:05:39 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
OCT. 1, 2004: THE DEBATE
Remarkably, it was the man with the big lead – President Bush – who took the debate’s biggest risk: His frank discussion of meeting with the wife of a slain soldier, PJ Johnson. To talk so candidly and personally about grief and loss is not something that presidents who have ordered men into battle have been accustomed to do. But Bush did it – and thus created what may have been the evening’s most memorable and moving moment.
Sen. Kerry by contrast was as usual fatally cautious. He was indeed fluent and calm as everybody will soon be saying. But Kerry’s problem going into this debate was not that anyone doubted that he spoke English well or that voice was sufficiently grave and mellifluous. Kerry’s problem was that the Bush campaign has persuaded crucial segments of the electorate that Kerry is too weak and indecisive to be command in war.
That problem was intensified by this debate. Two examples:
In response to a presidential dig about Kerry’s I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted against it gaffe, the senator said the following: “Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.”
Moderator Jim Lehrer immediately - and maybe predictably - responded with this question:
“Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, ‘How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’
“Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?”
Kerry’s answer? “No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.”
So – mistake or not mistake? Kerry can’t decide.
It happened again in Kerry’s two-minute concluding remarks. He opened thus:
“I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know who's the person who could be a commander in chief who could get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace.”Then, less than 60 seconds later, he said: “I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning.” Well which is it? Getting the kids home – or winning the war?
Kerry has locked himself in a strategic box. Only a horrible mistake by President Bush could have let him out. The president didn’t stumble. So Kerry is still boxed in – and losing the election in consequence.
"I can't decide to be against it and I can't decide to be for it." Like I predicted, John F*ckin' did his best to avoid taking a position and while he offended no one, he pleased no one either.
"I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know who's the person who could be a commander in chief who could get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace.”Then, less than 60 seconds later, he said: “I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning.” Well which is it? Getting the kids home – or winning the war?
Only Kerry could come down on both sides of the issue at the same time. Talk about flip-flopping on coming home/staying to win the war. Its getting confusing! (laughing)
sKerry was on both sides of each issue..give Iran nuke fuel...remove nuke material from Russia (how is he going to do it, 2 choices very costly bribes or force?)
'I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.'
He complains about NK having bomb material, yet wants to give them to Iran.
He didn't mention slick willie gave the same kind of 'sweetheart' deal to NK which is why we are in this position with NK.
Fight the WOT, BUT kill the bunker buster program and missile defense. He wants 2 new divisions..but failed to say how he'd pay for them or how he'd entice 40,000 men and women to enter the Military. We are already taking on all that volunteer...which leaves sKerry with doing a DRAFT. How is he going to pay for them? His domestic spending is reaching $4 Trillion now. He called our Troops CHILDREN, how disrespectful.
Bilateral talks with NK, but multilateral talks with Iran.
Like I said both sides of the issue, just different countries.
Kerry did NOT utter the word Vietnam, but 5 or 6 times he mentioned the fact he was a combat veteran.
BTW so was Benedict Arnold, Napoleon and Hitler, all three thought they could run a country and fight a war better than any one else.
He didn't. Stylistically, maybe, but that's the first thing to fade, like a Tan-In-A-Can tan. Now that people are talking about what was said....
I htink too many people tried to draw a direct correlation between Gore's sighs and Bush's seeming grouchy demeanor. That's not transferable. Already I'm hearing over and over about the "Global Test".
Kerry stepped in it last night. The USA Today poll of which is better prepared to be CinC is evidence enough. Remember the good marks he got the night of his DNC speech? Remember the "bounce" he got in the following days?
I dunno, it's bad when you see Susan Estrich sparkle with glee. I like her a lot better out of power than in, but I was not happy when I saw the repeat on FNC this morning.
"His frank discussion of meeting with the wife of a slain soldier, PJ Johnson. To talk so candidly and personally about grief and loss is not something that presidents who have ordered men into battle have been accustomed to do. But Bush did it – and thus created what may have been the evening’s most memorable and moving moment. "
IMHO, that was the best moment of the night. A home run for Bush.
Susan Estrich being gleeful is insignificant. Like democrats do, she is on one of those "Bush is dumb!" jags. Look at the numbers in the Gallup, USA Today and ABC polls--all three showed people think Kerry won the debate; all three show he's behind Bush in leadership by a staggerring amount.
Let Susan Estrogen and the DU Dummies continue to nurse their fantasies of a Kerry inauguration in 2005.
Susan Estrich has a job either way. Bush wins, she does grim talky head bit. Kerry wins, she does glee talky head bit. Same pay.
All I am saying is that it's probably good not to get complacent. Internal polling before last night showed W up only by 5 points. That is an achievable percentage if W bungles the lead.
Yes, she still has a job. But we are better when she is not politically happy than when she is politically happy.
No one's saying we should be complacent, but forget the national horserace numbers and look at the internals. Kerry can't win with Bush so far ahead on leadership.
And more importantly, look at the electoral votes.
One month is a long time in an election.
Also note the rise in reports of suspicious voter registrations. Whyizzit that dead people vote Democrat?
But Bush squandered a chance to put Kerry away by not talking about the Oil for Food program when Kerry talked about US troops protecting the Oil Ministry and those stalwart friends France, Germany and Russia.
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.