Posted on 10/01/2004 3:09:50 PM PDT by Steven W.
Hugh on fire with the correct analysis on last night's debate.
Except that is a tremendous misreading of the situation regardless - Bush did NO harm to himself. The question is how much he may have gained, if any. I contend that Bush was focused on gaining those in the middle and Kerry was focused on trying to sustain his liberal base. Kerry maintained some anti-war support. Bush wouldn't lose anybody because of last night and his cool demeanor scores points with those in the middle and women, especially, who wouldn't like a blitzkrieg that many seem to have been demanding. But the anti-war voters - or those even at all affected by Kerry's appearance - will not ever consider voting for Kerry; they were the ones Kerry was losing to Nader & why he jolted left to stop the bleeding. I like Krauthammer too but he lives in the liberal vaccum and is frequently susceptible to the spin that exists there, despite his otherwise sound reasoning. Same thing happened with people sucking up to Kerry after his convention when only a few correctly determined that was a LOSER (as was this debate for Kerry)
Once again, Kerry is the "Bounceless Candidate." Any "bounce" he should have gotten out of the debate last night would have dissipated within a few days as Bush and his team pound on "Global Testing," among other Kerry comments.
Thanks. Good job.
LOL!
Great post. I appreciate it and it took me a bit of time to read and absorb. Well worth it. Thanks.
I agree, Charles is wrong
It was Kerry that said things like Global Test, Giving Iran nuclear fuel and bending over to North Korea about the talks
Will the polls say they wished Bush hammered Kerry more?? .. of course they will
But when the poll is asked who do you trust with your life ... No one trusts Kerry .. and they won't vote for a man they don't trust
plus Cheney is going to pound these things home on Tuesday evening.
I listen to him on KTKZ-1380 on the drive home.
In the post debate spin I noted John (Ambulance Chaser) Edwards in an impromptu rally said "We have now clearly seen how Kerry has what it takes to be President, We have now seen just how Presidential he commanded the debate, blah blah blah"
My opinion on this is that the Democrats were really expected to be pasted by Bush since foreign policy is his strong point. Its true that sKerry kept on attacking plus the questions WERE biased against Bush but overall Bush was consistent in being with his core beliefs.
As someone said: Kerry was as slick as a used car salesman and if presentation was everything then he won on that point. However style is not what counts; this aint no beauty contest folk, this is a run for the most powerful & stressful job in the world.
As we note in Roman times the Centurions were men of great character and the leaders above them know how important it was for the country & military to have men of integrity to lead men.
Kerry s camp was not expecting any sort of a victory, and yes, this perceived victory in this first debate seems to have re-invigorated them.
But the game isnt over yet!!
watch as time draws closer for the Karl Rove stuff emerges to really sink Kerry, plus remember we have an indirect ally with Hitlery in the wings :-)
I so agree! It's like the grown-ups voices in Charlie Brown cartoons....wah..wah...wah, wah, wah wah, waaaaaaaahhhh...... ;)
"....Kerry did hang himself with that "global test" line."
This moron wants it both ways: In the matter quoted above he wants to have a global test conditional to actiong in forign policy but NOT have one at the same time. and be independent.
He wants to give aid and comfort to the enemy and attack the war but be a troop supporting patriot at the same time.
He's fascinating as hell. Almost as fascinating as the culture which allows him to exist.
You have some issues to deal with if you think Gore has any merit at all. Gore is mentally retarded.
Rush is right
The fools over at the DNC think Gore lost the debates because of his sighs
Gore lost because of his Locked Box, fuzzy math and inventing the Internet .. along with many other things
Ceci, and Charles to a lesser extent, are acting as if this debate happened in a vacuum, and is the be-all and end-all of the campaign.
Let's see, we have a debate Tuesday night between the untested John Edwards and the unflappable Dick Cheney, and a week from tonight the Bush/Kerry debate in Missouri.
I agree with that somewhat .. but I just think the President hates the formal stand up speechy thingy .. he's not an orator, he's a one-on-one communicator, because he sees value in every life.
Kerry is not a one-on-one communicator because he already thinks he's better than you.
I just sent the DNC an email and told them I loved the video of Bush facial expressions .. now the DNC knows how the public feels when it has to view (I named a variety of dem people) spewing the DNC talking points ad nauseum.
Think I'll get a thank you note ..??
LoL! You'll get one from me -
THANK YOU!
Before the debate the conventional wisdom was that a debate — except in the short term — only effects a campaign if a candidate commits a big gaffe, such as when Ford said that he would never allow the USSR to dominate eastern Europe during his presidency.
I'm hoping this is the case and Bush's rope-a-dope strategy works.
Kerry certainly gave him some material to work with.
But even as is, and where is, Bush prevailed on substance, not technique, in last night's debate.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "And the Debate Winner is -- Lemony Snicket"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
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.