Don’t Shoot the Messenger . . ’cause this assessment’s grim

National Review ^ | 10/01/04 | Jay Nordlinger

[MNJohnnie]

Yes, I agree that Bush look of annoyance makes him look simian--not good. My mom thought that Bush didn't make as many mistakes as she thought he would but that he did well. Nonetheless, I think that overall Kerry won the debate and I believe he will win the undecided. Frankly, I think that Bush will lose the election


Wishful thinking. Kerry's relentless "It's All about me" speaking style and weak in the knees talk about "Global tests" and "bi lateral talks" may make the political elite and professional leftists happy but it is NOT going to sell in a post 9-11 America. Kerry talked to his political base, Bush talked to the American people. On both substance and style Bush won. From a marketing point of view, as opposed to a professional debate styling view, Bush make the sale, Kerry didn't.

[nutmeg]

bookmark bump

[two23]

"I think Bush was very composed, that he didn't go over and wring Kerry's neck."

Or fire up his chain saw and cut kerry's podium in half!

It was hard for me to watch and listen to Kerry--he's like a talking tree---a piece of wood. And he's full of it. His senate record says it all.

[gsrinok]

I don't think that "joe sixpack" has any less common sense than me. I am not very politically astute. Perhaps you are and know better, but it sounds maybe perhaps a little condesending, not that I'm saying it is. I agree with you that media is a powerful medium. I hope that the average joe six isn't as sheepish as you suggest.

I was afraid that what I wrote might sound a little condescending, and I assure you that I did not mean to come off that way. Common sense aside, though, I think it's a safe bet that a majority of people are impresses by a smooth and polished style, which Kerry displayed tonight. Yes, the substance of the debate favored President Bush. I just hope that the Bush team will work on the president's delivery before the next debate.

When Kennedy debated Nixon, most people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won easily. Most people who saw the debate on television, however, favored Kennedy. It was a victory of style over substance, and that is what President Bush needs to avoid. Again, I truly believe that anyone who reads the transcript of the debate will give the nod to the president.

[GSWarrior]

The best moment was when Lehrer quizzed both candidates about our border policy.

Yep, that was good.

[fortheDeclaration]

Lets face it, if Bush had clearly won we would be crowing that it was over. The President didn't perform as well as he has in the past tonight and thats bad and we ought not to put on the rose colored glasses and call it sweet victory as so many are prone to do here. But Reagan lost his first debate also. We have two to go and Kerry expectations will be sky high now.

Reagan was facing an incumbent president and thus, he had to show that he could be a better President (not hard against Carter)

Kerry did not do this in this debate.

He showed that he is a Senator with 20 years of debate experience not a leader.

His refusal to answer the question on what he would do in Iraq and telling people to go his website was condescending (he did that with Imus also).

When someone asks you a question, no one wants to be redirected to get the answer!

After telling what you would do, you could say for further information go to the website.

I think that attitude is going to turn off alot of people

[MNJohnnie]

My impression:
Kerry was at his best in terms of style, delivery and stateliness. Bush did not appear to be in command of the facts and did not seem well-prepared. He seemed to miss many opportunities to counter Kerry's arguments and often seemed halting and searching for something to say. At times, he even seemed a bit whiney in his responses. He just wasn't at his best -- Kerry was.

Hopefully, most people will vote based on their cumulative impression of "flip-flop" and their confidence in W's demonstrated ability.

Nope Kerry's relentless "It's all about me" speaking style and vauge posturing platitudes did not sell him to the American voter. You people really need to get beyond the superfical speaking style and look at the substance. From a substanative viewpoint Kerry lost, badly.

[MNJohnnie]

Could Bush have done better?

Yep, but what all the relentlessly negative Freepers and trolls still do not realize. Kerry HAD to do better and he didn't.

[MNJohnnie]

Unfortunately this is a fair critique of tonight's debate. Sorry to disagree with fellow FR folks who I hold in high regard. But to not acknowledge a problem IMHO is a bad idea.

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent. Maybe we should have a term for this? Call it "McCainism" A metal defect that requires the victim to constantly critize their own side while NEVER pointing out where the other side blew it. Mccainism does not make you look smart. See REAL intelligence would be to provide some serious BALANCED review not this hysterical "OH WE LOST! IT IS ALL OVER" chicken little screech time after time, post after post.

Mark my words Boy's and Girls, John Kerry just lost the election tonight. Since most who suffer from McCainism seem to be lawyers, I will put it to you in terms you might understand. John Kerry may, or may not, have won the formal debate but he didn't win the Jury. And you people always forget this one fact. The JURY (i.e. The American people), not the Debate coaches decides the election.

John Kerry lost the election tonight people. You heard it here first

[fortheDeclaration]

If only it were true. Fact is, the media will bury these points. Most Americans will never hear about them again. These points will be forgotten by Saturday, and what will remain will be the impressions that were formed tonight. And the consensus seems to be that Kerry won on impressions.

No, you got it backwards.

People will remember the lines 'we did not need that tax cut' 'global testing' and 'nuke fuel for Iran',

the 'perception' will fade,but those words won't

[LegendHasIt]

Taken from the viewpoint of the avereage "undecided" who doesn't know the facts or the history of both candidates, I'd say it was a tie.:

Kerry "won" on "formal debate skills" and "speechifying" .
President Bush won on likability and honesty.... And he came across as "a guy who don't take no crap". while Kerry came off like kind of a supercillious wimp.

Never met anyone who was really good at debating that was any good at management and decision making, while I have known a lot of bad debaters that were great executives.

I don't see this debate making any real difference in the election.... I was hoping that The President would give a more polished performance, and that Kerry would have had a complete "melt down" on stage.

[California Patriot]

Perhaps Bush should not have spent "a full day viewing hurricane damage and comforting hundreds of people."
He should have made a quick "compassion" photo op for the evening news, then spent the rest of the day in a more relaxed manner.

If you say Bush's willingness to spend "a full day" on compassion for hurricane victims speaks well of him, I would disagree. This election poses a mortal danger to this country and the world, because it could result in a Kerry presidency. In that case, Bush's highest duty is not to the victims of acts of God. It is to win this election. And the debate was more important than a marginally better story on the Florida evening news about compassionizing.

[hansel]

I totally agree with you. I just can't get over that Kerry was to give Iran nuke fuel.

I have a thought about this debate. Kerry rambled on and on about how this war was a mistake and Bush kept hitting him over and over about how he said it was the wrong war and the wrong time. What if we find WMD? What if Saddam was making nukes elsewhere? This speech might have been a trap for Kerry and that's why Bush wanted it as their first debate and Bush didn't attack Kerry relentlessly.
There may be strategery here, folks.

[TwoWolves]

I hope you're right. The media seems to be proving me wrong already.

[California Patriot]

"From a substantive viewpoint, Kerry lost badly."

I'd agree.

Now, would you please persuade us that swing voters will take a "substantive viewpoint" on this debate?

[NYCVirago]

Good analysis. One thing I noticed was when Lehrer asked Bush about Kerry's character, Bush was very gracious, and said he appreciated Bush's service to the country, being a good father, and how the Kerry daughters were nice to his daughters, blah blah blah. And when Kerry was supposed to say something nice about Bush in return, about all he could say was something about how he chuckled at some of the twins' comments. Not a nice guy, or a nice thing to say.

[Cold Heat]

When Kennedy debated Nixon, most people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won easily. Most people who saw the debate on television, however, favored Kennedy. It was a victory of style over substance, and that is what President Bush needs to avoid. Again, I truly believe that anyone who reads the transcript of the debate will give the nod to the president.

Exactly and a very good analogy of the situation.

My feeling is that Bush can never match Kerry in delivery. He can come close, but in the end Kerry will win on style points as he has in every election.

But this time he is dealing with a different animal, a national audience that has seen style before in the form of Bill Clinton and yes, even John Kennedy.

The style point will win the debate, but it does not translate to votes unless one candidate stumbles badly and offers up a sound bite that resonates.

This did not happen to anyone but Kerry tonight. Kerry's untrue statements and distortions can and should be repeated many times over the next week.

[BBT]

You might want to read post #3529 in this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1231992/posts

[LiberalBassTurds]

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent. Maybe we should have a term for this? Call it "McCainism" A metal defect that requires the victim to constantly critize their own side while NEVER pointing out where the other side blew it. Mccainism does not make you look smart. See REAL intelligence would be to provide some serious BALANCED review not this hysterical "OH WE LOST! IT IS ALL OVER" chicken little screech time after time, post after post.

Since you don't know me you have no basis to know whether I'm what you described or not. What's clear to me is that there are a significant number of people here who do not understand group think or bias. The fact that all FR folks are computer literate and hang-out in a political based board make them different. That difference impacts the way they see things.

The threads in here are all about Kerry's gaffs. That will be obvious to those who take the time to educate themselves on the facts. Those who don't will measure the win/loss on the debate differently. The people addressed in this article may or may not be like FR members. As such I believe the author was right highlighting missed opportunities and who controlled the debate. You may not like the fact that he didn't write something that matches the way you think but it doesn't make it any less valid. I do believe that he has described what the average Mr. & Mrs. American undecided voter saw when they watched this debate.

The President was unprepared and did a poor job. Is it fatal? Unlikely. Is it helpful to his re-election bid? Certainly not.

[CalRepublican]

I thought the biggest mistake Bush made was not jumping on Kerry's comment that we should lead by disarming our nuclear weapons. That point could have been mined for a million zingers tonight.

Something like: "Senator Kerry, I do not equate us with our enemies, and I do not intend to lead by disarming with nothing but the hope our enemies will follow."

Kerry acted like NK isn't lead by a insane dictator. I just don't see how Bush could let that pass.