Inside Politics: Debate 'revisionism'

The Washington Times ^ | Published October 7, 2004 | Greg Pierce

[Pfesser]

Political analyst Charlie Cook concedes that he might have been wrong in originally judging President Bush the winner of the first presidential debate, but he says whatever margin of victory Sen. John Kerry has enjoyed has been exaggerated.

"I canvassed a few Democratic strategists on the pro-Kerry side immediately after the debate, and none of them seemed overly impressed with Kerry's performance either. But data from the liberal-leaning Americans Coming Together focus groups of swing voters in Tampa [Fla.] signaled that Kerry had won the debate, and an instant poll by ABC News confirmed that result," Mr. Cook writes in his Off to the Races column at www.NationalJournal.com.

"Interestingly, as every 30 minutes went on, the magnitude of Kerry's win on cable television increased geometrically. By midnight, when I turned my set off, this had become not a debate between Kerry and Bush, but between Lincoln or Douglas and Elmer Fudd. It was pack journalism at its worst, piling on with impressions formed more after the debate than during. While I am willing to concede that I spent too much time listening to what Kerry said than watching Bush, I do believe that debate-night revisionism has gone out of control."

[conservativepoet]

Finally, a little truth.

[madison46]

Yeah, but too late to change it, gota work through it

[bushfamfan]

Notice people are not actually talking of how impressed they are with Kerry's stance on the issue. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE SAID! IT'S JUST THE WAY HE SAID IT! The Bush campaign needs to remind people of WHAT KERRY ACTUALLY SAID IN THAT DEBATE and Bush needs to be prepared and ready in this next one.