david cornholeo???
Posted on 10/01/2004 9:52:58 AM PDT by MarlboroRed
"You've just witnessed the beginning of the end of the Bush administration!"
So shouted a Kerry aide as I stumbled out of the spin alley set up in the University of Miami's Wellness Center after the end of the first face-off between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Such exuberance was perhaps overstated but understandable. Kerry had more at stake this evening. A poor showing would have placed him in a position from which a come-from-behind victory would have been a hard-to-conceive possibility. But with a viable performance--in which he demonstrated he knows the facts and he knows his own mind--he narrowed that all- important commander-in-chief gap. Still, Bush was no slouch, even though he slumped at the podium. He did at times wince and come across as irritated and annoyed: This guy's questioning my judgment?. (The Kerry campaign, as I type, is putting together a video for release Friday morning that will chronicle Bush's unappealing expressions and body language.) But Bush, as he has done well on the campaign trail, defended the war in Iraq with strong, declarative statements meant to convey strength, conviction and idealism.
The snap polls taken by networks immediately after the debate found a decisive edge for Kerry. Yet it's doubtful the overall dynamics of the race were altered much. These 90 minutes, in a way, reinforced the fundamentals. Bush is the fellow with the uplifting themes: we're fighting for freedom, democracy, and our own survival in Iraq against killers who want to shake our will; it's tough work; the costs are indeed high; and I will be the strong and resolute leader who leads us to triumph. Kerry is the one with the sobering words: Iraq is a mess; we're not any safer; we must change course; and I have a better plan. It's inspiration (arguably misguided) versus critique (arguably not so inspiring). These are two rather distinct approaches, and they represent more of a psychological than an ideological split. Partisans on each side have already lined up with a candidate, and such voters are not likely to shift their loyalties on the basis of a debate performance (or anything else). The question is whether those legendary undecided voters will be responsive to the stirring tones that Bush aims for or will they be convinced by the pointed, rational arguments that Kerry seeks to present. Polls show that most Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. But does that mean voters will automatically gravitate to the finger-waggerer who says he has a plan instead of the swaggerer responsible for the screw-up? Voters who now consider the war a blunder could still favor the candidate with the more upbeat or rousing message. In his closing remarks, Bush declared, "We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and its a valley of peace." Kerry said, "I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear."
What Kerry achieved in this debate, which focused on foreign policy and national security, was to show tens of millions of television viewers that he could be forceful and that Bush is not the only person in the race with a set of convictions. Kerry vigorously argued that Bush has not made the nation safer and that there are critical differences between his approach and Bush's approach to dealing with the threats faced by the United States. He repeatedly maintained he could work better with other nations and persuade them to become more involved in dealing with the fiasco in Iraq. He declared more than once that he had plans for Iraq, for the so- called war on terrorism, and for homeland security. He denied his intent is to turn tail in Iraq. "I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances," he said. "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances. This president has left them in tatters across the globe." And Kerry accused Bush of making "a colossal error of judgment" by invading Iraq and diverting attention from "the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden." Iraq, he said, "was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it...And he rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now that is not a judgment that a president of the United States should make."
Bush hit the familiar points: his administration has captured or killed much of al Qaeda's leadership (if not the top guy) and has taken out repressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. He repeated what has become his customary defense of the invasion of Iraq--with or without WMD stockpiles, Saddam Hussein was a threat--and he threw in the usual misrepresentations. (For instance, he said that Hussein had been "systematically deceiving" the UN weapons inspectors, but the inspections process had been proceeding, more or less, effectively prior to the invasion.) Oddly, Bush cited few indications of progress in Iraq, but he did claim that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have been trained. (After the debate, Kerry aide Rand Beers exclaimed, "By any generous estimate, it's closer to 22,000.") But Bush did speak in passionate and emotional tones about the casualties and difficulties in Iraq, and he insisted he had his own plan for success there.
Bush repeatedly cited his own steadfastness and attacked Kerry for having sent "mixed messages" by voting to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq and then claiming Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." Again and again, Bush pounded Kerry on this point. A person who sends such "mixed messages" cannot be expected to be a decisive leader in the war on terrorism. And Bush attempted on several occasions to deride Kerry's arguments: "He says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: 'Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'" When Kerry said that if an American president wants to launch a preemptive strike, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people fully understand why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons," Bush saw an opening. "I'm not exactly sure," he said, "what you mean, 'passes the global test,' you take preemptive action, you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to make this country secure." Expect to see a Bush ad soon in which Kerry is mocked for believing the United States must "pass a test" before taking action to defend itself.
Bwa-hahahahahahah. It kills them.
Wow, maybe the debate wasn't as bad as I thought if the leftie Nation magazine is writing solemn articles.
I can`t seem to get to my bookmarks, can anyone help? I need them for some post debate letters to the editors.
Kerry won the stylistic elements of the debate.
But he continues to dissemble and to contradict himself. Where does he stand on Iraq?!? Dunno. After 90 minutes, it's still a mystery.
"Expect to see a Bush ad soon in which Kerry is mocked for believing the United States must "pass a test" before taking action to defend itself."
David Corn knows that this will kill Lurch.
Bottom line:
Kerry had to use the debate to decrease his negatives and to increase Bush's.
Didn't happen so Kerry lost.
That's it. Period.
Rush just said one writer has came up with 17 distinct lies Kerry spewed during the debate. I think we should look to the positives here. Kerry has given Bush unlimited ammunition to hit him with.
Several newspapers have already said that Bush won hands down. I watched Mort Zuckerman in amazement this AM, he literally ripped Kerry apart. They wife said wow, I never knew Zuckerman had it in him.
So, as bad as they are, I for one don't think the MSM will let these lies pass unchallenged, for the story is simply too juicy to pass up.
A very fair and impartial review?! That was some pleasant reading. If only all of print media were like that!
The President said that, almost verbatim, at his rally in Allentown PA this morning.
We know Bush's right on the war against terrorism and it eats us that he didn't crush Kerry for good, but the public perception will continue to be that Bush will protect us and Kerry will not.
Kerry showed he is a better debater than W. W showed he is in charge and frenchie really didn't lay a glove on the president. Ok, I'll give him the debate but lets look at the numbers. These are numbers the ratmedia won't say too loudly.
Among women, The President is up 3. The standard, set by Gore and Clinton is +11, so Kerry is down 14.
Among Catholics The President is up in every poll the plus numbers range from 11 to a 17, 55/38. Gore won Catholics by 3 points so Kerry is down anywhere from 14 to 20 points.
Among Hispanics, a Mirram Global poll done in Nevada, New Mexico Colorado and Arizona, Kerry leads 56/36. To realize a benefit from this group, a Democrat should get at least 65% so Kerry is down 9 points here.
All of the above aside, Kerry's biggest hole is with Blacks. This problem has been consistent since last spring. In the early summer the internals of public polls started to whisper that Kerry had just 80% of Black voters.
When these internals showed up again a few weeks back, it was first the same 80%, but it got worse from there. On Monday Gallup released its internals. The Black voters they spoke to said they support Kerry at only 60%!
On Tuesday Pew said they found Kerry had only 73% of Black voters. That was the day that Kerry brought Jesse on board, so please don't discount these numbers.
On the other hand, Bush voting Blacks are showing up in these numbers: In NJ and Ga 20%, in Maryland 21% in Oregon 30%. Notwithstanding what Rush just said: yes,this is over. Maybe Kerry could pull up with one of these groups, but all four? Sorry, no sale.
But I do think that Bush will draw almost even among women--this was the case for Republicans in 2002, and the world is just as scary now as then.
The Bombardment begins and Bush is on the warpath. It is good that he does this today because he requites himself from some of his mistakes from last night.
david cornholeo???
Kerry has a "set of convictions"? News to me. Maybe it means Kerry got arrested during his anti-war protests.
"For instance, he said that Hussein had been "systematically deceiving" the UN weapons inspectors, but the inspections process had been proceeding, more or less, effectively prior to the invasion.)"
That's risible. Dealing with Saddam was like dealing with Baghdad Bob. You could not trust a word he was saying. And we know for a fact they were in material breach of the UN resolution and had banned weapons (long range missiles).
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.