Posted on 10/01/2004 3:55:40 AM PDT by Liz
On the day of the most im portant debate in their political lives, President Bush was in shirt sleeves consoling Florida hurricane victims, patting some on the back, hugging others and shaking hands with the tired relief workers. John Kerry had a manicure.
If ever there was a metaphor for the difference between these two candidates and their respective relationships with the American people, it was this. As The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes put Kerry's problem so succinctly last night, "This is a man who really needs to go bowling."
For all the back and forth between the two men, the debate did nothing to change that reality. Kerry's pontifical performance was light on specifics, heavy on criticism and plagued by the inconsistencies that have characterized his positions on Iraq for more than a year.
While there were few fireworks, I suspect swing voters did come away with a few perceptions. First, Bush knows what he's trying to accomplish. He believes deeply in the rightness of the war in Iraq and its centrality to the larger War on Terror. His message is the same message voters have heard since 9/11 — we will go on the offensive to fight terrorists wherever they are found to keep this nation safe.
On the other hand, voters saw Kerry continue to struggle to define his position on the war — justifying his latest position, which is to call the war a mistake, while promising to bring new allies on board to fight for what he terms a "grand diversion."
He failed totally to make a convincing case for either his strategic vision, what there is of it, or his so-called four-point tactical plan for winning in Iraq which bears a striking resemblance to what the Bush administration is already doing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
...I think Lehrer thought Kerry had not articulated his position correctly and it threw him for a loop when Kerry (who was preaching multi-national involvement) started criticizing mult-national involvement in N.Korea and talking about bilateral talks.......
As the man said......Kerry is consistantly inconsistant.
A glaring and extremely significant inconsistant hole in the Kerry stance. As allies, Asians don't matter, they are inferior to Euros.
If the incident really happened, which is doubtful, they probably said, "We need you like we need a hole in the head." They were probably too "nuanced" for Kerry. :^)
Good catch! Kerry spoke to Jim Leher - if anyone - and NOT to the American people. Bush spoke to US.
Kerry's statement that he would send nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran was mindboggling.
I didn't know that. Does that include use by the 527s? Footage might be one thing, but what the candidate says must be public domain.
Lehrer?
I agree that this hi-lighted an extreme difference between the two and shows Bush to be the shrewder poker player.
Kerry's "Pottery Barn Rule" statement that you fix what you break was also assinine. I think the PB rule is you break it, you buy it.
That whole thing WAS dumb and, I think, was intended to show that Kerry is in touch with the little people. Like he would EVER grace the doorstep of a Pottery Barn.
Yep. As I said last night, no undecided voter went away from that debate feeling he'd be safer under a Kerry Presidency.
The PBrn allusion was intended to show Kerry's common touch, but we should ask the American voter if they want a guy in the WH who gets a manicure and was botoxed and bronzed for a debate, who wears thousand dollar haircuts, and has a personal butler that waits on him hand and foot.
Exactly! I thought at the time that the airport incident never happened.
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?)
Complain 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.
Bilateral talks with NK, but multilateral talks with Iran.
Like I said both sides of the issue, just different countries.
Kerry does this alot. His comments about Bush "outsourcing" Tora Bora to war lords is a prime example. Just a week or so ago, it was brought to light that after the first Gulf War, Kerry felt that outsiders and Iraqi rebels could have been used to topple Saddam Hussein so U.S. troops didn't have to. He always seems to want to have it both ways.
On another note, I rediscovered this comment by Kerry in a March 17, 1991 article about a visit to Iraq by Democratic Senators: "Kerry, who voted against the use of force in the gulf, said yesterday he has no regrets about his vote. But as he chatted with soldiers, he added he was "delighted by the outcome" of the war."
It's very reminiscent of his exchange with Diane Sawyer. When she asked him if the Iraq war was "worth it, Kerry said that "it depends on the outcome."
If people were looking for blow-hard entertainment, then Kerry won. If people were looking for steadfastness, consistency and a feeling of security, then Bush won. Although Bush repeated himself over the 90 minutes, it was obvious he was sincere about what he was saying. All Kerry did was pontificate and posture himself. He did not make anyone believe they'd be safer if he was in the Oval Office.
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.