69 Comments

1. Coisty:

Bush should have responded to Kerry’s remarks on the first question by mentioning that the French and others have made it clear they won’t participate in Iraq even if Kerry is elected. Thus nullifying Kerry’s entire statement about leading a coalition.

Sep 30, 2004 - 6:09 pm 2. Matteo:

Even though I was looking forward to this debate, I’ve turned it off. It’s just too annoying. If you’re interested, please have a look at my blog entry, where I liken the feeling of this thing to a “knife fight in a phonebooth”.

http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/09/debate.html

Sep 30, 2004 - 6:49 pm 3. richard mcenroe:

Bush just stuck it to Kerry on Allawi.

Sep 30, 2004 - 6:52 pm 4. David Thomson:

“Even though I was looking forward to this debate, I’ve turned it off. It’s just too annoying.”

The debate is now half over. President Bush is at least holding his own—and thatís all he needs to do. Kerry has to hit a home run. This is not likely to occur. Is the debate annoying? It is indeed if one is looking for a clear and decisive victory by either combatant. My guess is that most people will conclude that it’s a draw. If so, the president wins for all practical purposes.

Sep 30, 2004 - 6:59 pm 5. richard mcenroe:

I’m thinking Kerry looks eminently bitch-slappable. Of course, I’m biased … just a little…

Don’t forget to go here and sound off…

ABC

CBS

CNN

Fox

MSNBC

USA Today

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:07 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

So Kerry would add two more divisions and double the special forces… HOW?! And where are the materials, the logistics infrastructure, the transport for those two extra divisions? How do we get enlistments to increase to provide the manpower? And how do we double the special forces, just like that? Where do you find those kinds of men in that kind of numbers? How long would this take? In WWII divisions were mobilized in 1940 and not sent into combat until 1943. What good will that do us now, today?

You can tell Kerry spent his entire military career down at the “gimme” end of the supply chain…

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:12 pm 7. Charlie (Colorado):

You can tell Kerry spent his entire military career down at the “gimme” end of the supply chain…

“Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.”

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:20 pm 8. TmjUtah:

Kerry delivers better.

I don’t believe his commitment to prosecute the war on terror is as fervent as desire to win this election, though. He’s run the template of ‘rush to war’ by me too many times but has yet to articulate just how getting the U.N. on board (which he obviously deems essential) will enhance our ability to protect ourselves.

Ahhhhhhh…..multiculti. Clean up after the Russians. All nukes are equal, regardless of custodians. Maroon. We’d better have a low-yield penetrator with minimal fallout on the shelf when it comes time to deal with the entrenched arty north of Seoul. Or any hardened facilities in Korea or Iran.

And the number one threat is NOT WMD proliferation. It’s allowing the continued existence of the regimes or movements that will use them.

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:20 pm 9. TmjUtah:

Golly. Kerry’s gotten every talking point into one sentence. War on the cheap. Mission Accomplished. Rush to war. Incredible mess.

I thought that Bush was…what I’ve come to expect. I think that he’s got a handle on Iraq, and even more of one than I previously respected where North Korea is concerned. And I certainly don’t think that Kerry’s “Four Point Plan” has any value beyond its utility to his campaign as a gesture to undecided voters and not ticking off his base.

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:31 pm 10. heather:

I pray every day that Bush wins in November. Kerry’s idea for going unilateral with North Korea would be a disaster. His idea of a big jamboree with France and Germany is laughable.

However.

He sounds pretty good, if you don’t know what the facts are.

And, someone please tell Bush not to look so impatient and so prissy-faced when he has to listen to Kerry. That is MY role!!

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:38 pm 11. Emerald Elixir:

I tried to post several times during the debate but typekey would never recognize that I was logged in.

He’s something I wanted to post: The best way to win new allies is to show great success. Al Qaeda did that on 9-11. IMO, you have to be a pure idiot to believe Saddam was a lesser threat after 9-11 than before. Kerry is a fool to think Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror.

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:48 pm 12. Laurence Simon:

Roger-

Lehrer mentioned Iran eventually, but he never asked a question in the Israeli-palestinian issue. I’d consider that a huge foreign policy item.

Did Lehrer avoid it, or did both groups red-line that topic?

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:48 pm 13. jerry:

I did something different…I “watched” by blog hopping. I think GWB reacted pretty much as I predicted in my pregame analysis. But I think Kerry did much better then I expected at least from a written summary point of view. However, I had no sense of body language. I think the race will tighten as a result. It looks like Kerry presented a more “moderate” image rather than his cut and run position.

Sep 30, 2004 - 7:55 pm 14. Lola:

Well, I was cutting in and out as well (hubby having the remote). I know Bush does not like Kerry, but he did need to have more of a neutral facial expression. It may also have been the lateness. Some people just don’t feel at their best late in the evening.

This format is a bit too silted. I believe the town hall meeting will be more interesting.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:00 pm 15. mrp:

Good news for the mullahs: Kerry opposes the US developing bunker busting nuclear weapons.

Roger, that is an important observation, for what John Kerry did with that statement was to set a moral equivalence between the acquisition of WMD by terrorists and a a nuclear weapons research program (approved by the US Congress) that is vital to the national security of the United States.

Iran and the Norks have repeatedly violated international anti-proliferation treaties. North Korea is a notorious WMD proliferator and has sold nuclear-capable missiles and missile technology to terror-sponsoring nations. North Korea also played a major role in Pakistan’s rogue nuclear weapons program. Both nations have buried their WMD manufacturing facilities in mountain-sides beyond the reach of conventionally-armed ‘bunker-busters’.

For John Kerry to swear that he’d unilaterally disarm the United States in the face of implacable defiance by Iran and NK demonstrates an astounding lack of judgement. And add to that his long records of opposing our ABM program.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:03 pm 16. thibaud:

Yes, the format’s ridiculous. It encourages a regurgitation of talking points and suppresses any real intellectual quickness or vitality.

The goal of these stunts is to try to flush out something crucial about each man’s character: Jerry Ford’s clueless. Carter’s a self-righteous, mean-spirited pygmy. Is Reagan starting to lose it? (first debate with Mondale). Bush 41’s out of touch. Gore’s a dick. Oddly enough, there was plenty of truth in each of those snippets.

What did I learn from this latest one? Bush is sharp but may be reaching his limits, suffering a bit of battle fatigue. Kerry’s much smoother and more sure of himself than his farcical campaign management would indicate, but he’s, ironically, stubbornly stuck in a peacenik, pro-freeze mode from 1982 that we knew was foolish even then. He still, ludicrously, believes France is on our side in Iraq and will pony up troops there.

All in all, a very slight advantage to Kerry, but only because of Bush’s repeated ‘ums and ‘ers. Kerry needed a knockout, didn’t get it, and will lose in November.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:14 pm 17. Jamie Irons:

I thought Kerry came off surprisingly well — if you didn’t think too hard about what he was saying.

Near as I could tell, he both completely supported the war in Iraq and would win it, though he thought it was all a terrible mistake, which he would not have made. Though before the war he thought Saddam was a danger, now that he knew there “were no weapons of mass destruction,” he would never have gone in in the first place.

But still, he would have “won the peace,” by having “a plan that would work,” and at the same time would have the “allies” “respect us again.”

Or something.

Bush, though he at times seemed tired and irritated, came across to me utterly charming and believable.

That I say this now shows the profound change I’ve undergone since 9/11.

Jamie Irons

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:16 pm 18. thibaud:

Bush/Rove should go to town on the nuclear bunker-buster issue. Recall Kerry’s pro-freeze stupidity, and with it, his consistently dovish voting record throughout the Cold War.

Remind the voters that we are actually facing a second cold war, this time against Iran and NoKorea, and that moral equivalence theories and nuclear freeze ideas are tantamount to suicide.

This could be devastating. Wonder whether Rove and co will grasp what they have here?

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:19 pm 19. Terrye:

I think most people feel that kerry did better than expected but I thought he was his usual pompous self. The man just bugs me. Iraq good, Iraq bad. Iraq right. Iraq wrong. Iraq stay. Iraq leave.

When he made that smart ass comment about Bush making a mistake invading Iraq and that was worse than the mistake Kerry when he talked about not voting for the 87 billion, I just stared.

No… what was worse was voting to give the president the authority and then condemning him for using it.

I thought Bush looked put out, but Kerry looked like some prissy school marm taking notes. What was that all about? To do lists? pick up laundry, go to the bank, buy new yacht…..

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:21 pm 20. Terrye:

thibauld:

I noticed that too. I thought, My God not the nuclear freeze again. He got his ass handed to him on that years ago. Does this man not learn?

I also thought the Kyoto thing was stupid. Besides he did not vote to support it himself. 95-0 means 0 as in nada, zip.

Maybe that was one of the days he was too busy to show up for work.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:26 pm 21. Peter Boston:

I wish that Kerry had the balls to tell the American public about his real foreign policy plans. He’s alluded to it with his stream of “better” allies rhetoric, which is code for France. Kerry tossed out a few other clues: US must agree to international treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, US must suspend nuclear bunker-buster research, US must focus the WOT on bin Laden.

Since Kerry won’t tell us what he’s up to we have to look at what foreign policy initiatives his French ally is pursuing. In a nutshell France is promoting what de Villepin calls a world democracy. Sounds interesting but what de Villepen is really talking about is an international autocracy with France, naturally, sitting at the head table.

The leadership would have absolute authority over the war making authority of every country, even when national security interests are at stake. The leadership would have power to allocate resources like oil among the members.

Preposterous? Google de Villepin and “world democracy”. John Kerry intends to shred the US Constitution for a world government.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:30 pm 22. Doug:

Let me make a few observations:

1. Debates should be eliminated in presidential politics. We didn’t need debates to select Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman Eisenhower, Lincoln etc. etc. These are exercises in silliness. No candidate is going to allow himself to be put in a position where he can be made to look foolish. And an election should not be decided on whether a president looks at his watch or sighs or grimaces.

2. It is truly impossible for a biased person to genuinely analyze a candidates performance. Roger and I think Kerry is a lying weazle so we disregard everything he says and think everyone else feels that way. Same is true vice versa. So I will not bother to give you my personal views on the performances except to say that Kerry left himself so wide open for sharp counter-attack that it killed me that Bush does not have the skills to go in for the kill. I wished while watching it that Bush could have chanelled JFK. (the original that is) But that is not who he is.

3. I think the MSM will DEFINITELY spin this as a Kerry victory. I hear it already. “Kerry lived to fight another day.” As if Bush was going to blow him away in a debate. As for the question of whether it will actually sway voters, I find it hard to believe that anyone who was concerned about Kerry’s resolve or leadership skills will really be impressed by a ninety minute sound bite fest. So I would be surprised if the debate really moves the numbers.

4. I am listening to some jackass on WABC say “Bush failed to deliver the knock out blow. He was the George Forman tonight and Ali got off the ropes.” We have got to stop these. Someone has to say the emperor has no clothes.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:30 pm 23. Buddy Larsen:

Kerry’ll pick up a few pointrs for staying on the stage with POTUS, but I’m like the host-post, my personal distaste for the entire reality of the Kerry archetype, the Howard Wolfson, Tad Devine, innumerable others, smart-ass smirking sneering bald-face liars club, who want the presidency for the goodies they can grab from it, gives me an unpleasant spiritual chill when I contemplate it up close. So, I’m a lousy judge.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:32 pm 24. richard mcenroe:

“I have never wavered in my life,” John Kerry.

You know, this may be the one true thing Kerry has ever said…

He cut and ran on the Mekong.

He cut and ran from Vietnam and his “band of brothers” as soon as he had his three band-aids.

He agitated for this entire country to cut and run from supporting the South Vietnames.

He cut and ran when the Filipina election workers asked him for sanctuary.

And now he wants to cut and run from Iraq. You do not talk about finishing the job and then set deadlines to leave.

Any “ally” who would trust a commitment of support from a Kerry administration would have to be suicidal.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:34 pm 25. thibaud:

The nuclear freeze comment was the most telling comment of all.

We won the Cold War by hanging tough and rejecting the peaceniks’ call for unilateral disarmament. The mullahs and Kim respect strength at least as much as the Soviets did. And now Kerry’s calling for disarmament again! Who whispered that bright idea in his ear?

Forget Iraq– no one has that problem solved. The nuke issue should be the deciding one in this election, and Kerry’s shown himself to have learned nothing, absolutely nothing, since 1982.

In Rove’s hands, this should be devastating. We all remember the Cold War and the stupidity of those who argued for unilateral disarmament.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:35 pm 26. Terrye:

Doug:

I know I did not learn anything new but I don’t think it was a lack of skills that kept Bush from completely killing Kerry. I think he held back. I am not sure why, but I think he did not want to appear like a bully.

But I got the distinct impression that he thought Kerry was an idiot. Who knows maybe the RNC is fashioning all sorts of ads to counter the debate as we speak.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:36 pm 27. Goof®:

I enjoyed my evening, and, yes, I did watch, and, no, I’m not lying.

33 days to go.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:37 pm 28. Doc:

Bush was the clear winner on substance but Kerry “won” nevertheless.

Kerry “won” because the questions were mostly around the pros and cons of Bush policies and hardly any about the pros and cons of Kerry’s (vague) policies.

Also, Kerry “won” because he was on the offensive and managed, amazingly, to put Bush on the defensive.

Also, Kerry “won” because Bush kept responding to Kerry’s bait.

And Kerry “won” because Bush couldn’t drive a stake in the heart at the right moments, such as, “How come Senator Kerry favors multilateralism in every case but in Korea? Could it be that the Senator dislikes Republican policies of multilateralism as in North Korea?” Or, “If the Senator feels the country was misled about WMD’s in Iraq, let him explain why he has consistently voted to gut our intelligence services.”

And Kerry “won” on style even though the actual substance of his remarks was generally incoherent and an intellectual jumble.

Bush seemed to be off his feed tonight, with more than the usual amount of word blocking pauses. He also hunched over the lecturn while Kerry stood straight.

Bush could have knocked Kerry out of the ring altogether but instead the fight was held in Bush’s corner with Bush counterpunching from the ropes. An opportunity lost. Too bad.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:37 pm 29. Matteo:

Doug

I liked your comment and will add it onto my blog post. It sums up my thinking pretty well. Basically, since no one should be making an important decision about whom to vote for based on one of these debates, why should they be given the opportunity? I’d be happy to see these things pass into the mists of history. However, I would think they’d still have a valuable role to play during the primaries.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:46 pm 30. Terrye:

Glad you had a good time Goof.

I bet the terrorists were just terrified of Kerry’s debating skills.

what a smile.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:50 pm 31. Rick Z:

While my immediate reaction is “technical draw with Kerry winning marginally on style points,” my gut tells me that five weeks from now the two “soundbites” that will resonate most with voters will be the “global test” for pre-emption exchange, and Bush’s sincere and heart-felt comments on war casualties.

Of course, my “gut” also told me that the AMC Pacer was the prototype car of the future.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:51 pm 32. Samuel:

I never expected Kerry to get clobbered. When did Bush clobber Gore? Never on points, that is for sure, Gore won every debate I saw, yet Gore lost. I have always said I don’t know how this President does it, I am more puzzled by him then any other politician ever, I am befuddled by the man. I say we will know who won by Monday. From my honest standpoint I feel Kerry got the better, he definitely won the expectation game, but again that is judging the debate from a standpoint that is very different then people looking for simple confirmations.

If we are to judge who won it will be answered by whichever campaign leaves the debate controlling the subject matter between now and the next debate. That is a very different matter from what our eyes and ears say at this moment. Debates are like magic acts, they are deceptive to any short term reasoning that resides within most of us.

Now I must also add that like Roger, I have never voted for a Republican, but I also must admit I have never been more behind a candidate in my life as I am Bush. In other words like Roger I’m not a swing voter by a long shot. I’ll also add that I loathe John Kerry so I can’t be fair because fairness to me would be administered only in the forms of harsh punishment.

Lastly I will say this, Kerry looked better, Bush looked pissed (probably a similar look on his face that I had) but that may translate into resolve for some, who knows? This I can guarantee, Kerry made many more mistakes, regardless of how he looked. He did not diffuse the flip flop tag and actually added more sound bites of discrepancies to his record. He also stupidly introduced tax cuts into the debate (Why?). Bush made no mistakes of substance (I wanted him to kick the shit out of Kerry, but he was probably smart not to), but this President plays the political game of attrition better then any I have ever seen and I believe that is the path he is on. Let the spin games begin, I still bet on the President and his team, I believe the Democrats will take heart from Kerry’s performance for sure.

My final take is this… from a lawyering perspective Kerry won, from a message and sound bite perspective Bush won. Bush still has the wind behind him. Few if any arguments have changed. If survival was the key, Kerry succeeded, if a knockout was desired by Bush then he failed, but we are still in a fight where Kerry needs to knock out Bush to win. Very interesting.

WOW! My buddy Dick Morris just came on and said what I just said. Kerry won on style, Bush won on substance. Maybe, I’m wrong!

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:55 pm 33. ambisinistral:

What a wheezing bore that debate was. As usual, Kerry was a double-talking doofus and Bush had marbles in his mouth and couldn’t explain his policies clearly.

Regardless, the winner and loser will be declared in the media, and we all know what that means.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:57 pm 34. thibaud:

I can’t believe I heard a candidate arguing for unilateral disarmament again. I thought i was listening to the peacenik/freeze advocates from 1983-84.

If Bush and Rove were looking for a final spike to drive through Kerry, they have it now. unbelievable that anyone could have learned from our Cold War triumph that unilateral disarmament was the way to handle totalitarian regimes’ drive for supremacy.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:57 pm 35. ambisinistral:

Couple more comments. My wife is an ABB voter (she’s taken to accusing me of turning into a right-wing loon) and she wasn’t bothered by Bush’s facial expressions. She thought Kerry fidgeted around too much. Her impression was they both did ok.

We were both surprised and thought Kerry had lost the debate on the last question when he said nuclear proliferation was the greatest threat to the U.S. today. We both expected Bush to come back and hammer him that terrorists were the greatest threat. However, he didn’t and the moment passed. I think he missed a golden opportunity to skewer Kerry over that comment.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:07 pm 36. Terrye:

I think Bush was on the defenseive because of the questions.

For instance did Lehrer ask Kerry any pointed questions about his record in the Senate? No, all the defending had to be done by Bush.

Kerry just had to talk in that high tone blue blood voice that half of America hears and thinks ‘damn yankee.’

Some people call that kind of voice presidential, some call it stuck up and pompous. I am of the latter persuasion. So I am not objective.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:07 pm 37. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó One way or another, this election is a referendum on Bush. Even Kerry’s “Supporters” don’t pretend he has any real record of achievements to point to or run on. All they can do is shrug and put on their “My Mom Went to Treblinka Square and All I Got Was This Lousy Candidate” t-shirts…

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:29 pm 38. Samuel:

Terrye

In the end substance persists, Kerry looked good but his message is as murkey as ever. People like the President not because of his nuanced abilities. This debate matched Bush’s demeaner, I never decided to support Bush because of style, smirk, or command of the English language, I support him for his resolve, simple views of right and wrong and unwavering stances his black and white takes on life carry him to. People will talk about Kerry’s prowess and Presidential style, and the Republicans will have to be content to get about a half of dozen more commercials from the material the contradictions of the debate by Kerry provided. Kerry argues for the here and now, principle has nothing to do with it. His part of the debate was very unprincipled, it will rightfully be more exploited over coming weeks. We already know for Democrats that the President is stupid and can’t speak, so no new material there to be sure. On substance however Bush made no mistakes. What effective soundbite are they going to use against Bush from this debate? I can think of plenty for the Republicans. No he didn’t knock Kerry out, but he may also have deemed that unecessarily risky. Anyway two more debates to go.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:35 pm 39. John©:

Read Drudge. Lockhart overheard dismally proclaiming Bush’s tie on all issues with Kerry. Obviously, Joe was dismayed by Kerry’s performance. As an old–and quite recent–Afghan hand, OBL is not (NOT, JFK) in Afghanistan. Not in the sense of ‘alive and breathing’ in Afghanistan or anyone else. His DNA particulates are too small to measure, even by the crack team of CSI. Dead and gone. Long gone.

I’m very disappointed that Bush didn’t push the great success of Afghanistan, but the prosecutorial style of debate–by both Lehrer (abysmally baised) and Kerry– didn’t leave much opportunity on that subject from POTUS. Since the style of the debate was to consistently pressure Bush to defend his policies while leaving Kerry’s decades long record of shame off-limits, we didn’t really have a debate as much as an inquisition. From where I’m sitting, this didn’t play as well as pundits are claiming. (Vide: Lockhart’s remarks.)

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:35 pm 40. Terrye:

richard:

Yes I know. But I bet that Bush knows Treblinka was a death camp and not the address of the KGB.

I thought Bush did fine. Kerry is like cotton candy. After it is gone, there is nothing left but a sticky feeling on your fingers. He is air. I honestly can’t remember half of what he said. But whatever it was he said with prefect diction.

But I thought they were both redundent to a great extent.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:36 pm 41. Jamie Irons:

I wonder what Rick Ballard thinks?

[Tries to remember how Catherine (wondering where she is) was able to summon him from the bat cave...]

Jamie Irons

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:36 pm 42. Terrye:

Samuel:

Yes I agree. I think Bush actually held back on Kerry. I am not sure why, but I am sure there is a reason.

But if looks could kill Herman Munster would have been a greasy spot on the floor.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:49 pm 43. John Clayton:

Who won the debate? I thought it was fairly close, that both made mistakes, and neither overly impressed or had an on-air meltdown. I thought that both candidates were dead on as to the most dangerous threat- nuclear proliferation. There wasnít any difference, even though Bush tried to make one by citing terrorism and proliferation together. Kerry simply didnít state the obvious- a stateless terrorist with a nuke is much more likely to use it than a North Korea or an Iran which has a return address. But they can disseminate nukes to terrorists, either for cash or ideological reasons. So that question was a wash.

Apparently most viewers thought Kerry won:

the onliners voted on who they thought won the debate:

CNN online voters: 18% (18,300) votes for Bush, 79% (81,310) for Kerry, 4% (3834) for a tie.

MSNBC online voters: 30% Bush, 70% Kerry

Poll of viewers reported:

ABC: 36% Bush, 45% Kerry, 17% tie.

Fox News: nothing- and I thought their motto was “you decide.”

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:50 pm 44. Matteo:

Also, let’s not forget that the next debate is the VP debate on Tuesday(?). I believe that will wipe out whatever effect comes from this first debate, with a big advantage to the Republicans. Probably that will be the most entertaining debate of this series. I would not be surprised to see the audience for the next two presidential debates shrink. There wasn’t anything actually enjoyable about watching tonight’s, and I don’t know how many people will want to come back for more punishment.

http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/09/on-to-vice-presidential-debate.html

Oh, and TypeKey is just plain evil.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:50 pm 45. Terrye:

John:

How many Bush supporters would be watching CNN to begin with? Gee, did CBS have a poll too?

Call in polls are so bogus.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:01 pm 46. richard mcenroe:

I’m going to discount the online polls, since the Dems had a big push on to flood them…

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:02 pm 47. rastajenk:

“As I recall the lessons learned windsurfing at Tianamen Beach….”

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:02 pm 48. insatty:

The Newsweek Liberals on Chris Matthews believe that Kerry answered his flip-flops. But I don’t see it. Kerry is the same pacifist he was in 1971, the nuclear-freeze 1980s, and in Gulf-War-one 1991. But a pacifist as president would be a disaster in this fight against the islamofascists. The terrorists killed 34 children in Baghdad today, to add to their 200 children in Beslan.

But the MSM is on its second breath to elect a pacifist, and the American people may buy it. Scary, really scary.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:03 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

Jamie,

Bush played to tie not win. I don’t care for the defensive style and I would definitely give Kerry the edge. The deal is though, it wasn’t a big enough edge to move the polls. Moving the polls is what Kerry absolutely has to do and this debate didn’t do it.

So Bush lost the debate and Kerry is still right on schedule to lose the election. The RPC 3-way spread is 6.0% – it might drop to 5.5% by Monday but it would take a drop to under 5 for me to be convinced that Kerry did himself any good.

This debate will be noted for just how dull and boring it was. Chalk that up as a win for Bush because it will drive the ratings down for the next two debates.

I expect US/Iraqi retaliatory action in Iraq to start driving news cycles very soon – and that’s going to flat kill Mr. Wrong War Wrong Country Wroung Time.

Zarqawi’s Kill a Kid for Kerry play is going to give Alawi and the ground commanders the opportunity and rationale to just hammer the hell out of Fallujah. I don’t believe that we will stop this time.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:04 pm 50. John©:

Don’t forget (see the Corner’s posting this afternoorn) of Terry’s pleading instructional emailing to party faithful to clog up and skew the polls post debate on the network web sites.

Biggest mistake by moderator was to ignore Kerry’s long record of intervention against democracy in Latin America, while simultaneously supporting every two-bit Communist dictator. Add Cuba here too. A legitamate question, given that he’d tacitly (actively?) supported Ho Chi Min’s government. Lehrer a disastor. Couldn’t they have recruited someone less partial…say Dan Rather?

Given the creampuffs tossed by Lehrer (intended to give Kerry an friendly opportunity to spin every contradiction in the last year, moderator might have been at least as kind to a sitting President. And asked something about the coordination of CBS with Cleland, Lockhart, Burkett and Rather/Mapes–the bias of the MSM against Bush, the forgery of documents and Bush’s feelings about the obvious collusion of Kerry’s campaign staff. Even Chris Hitchens believes there’s more than smoke here.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:05 pm 51. Terrye:

Remember that Bush was thought to lose his debate with McCain because he let McCain piss him off.

I heard some pundits talking earlier today and they were saying Bush’s people would probably advise him to not let Kerry get to him, not lose his cool and just keep things even. That is all he has to do. I would say he took that advice.

And yes, I don’t trust the polls done like that. Probably Dean’s machine in action.

Time will tell folks.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:18 pm 52. thibaud:

Kerry as a peacenik and nuclear freeze advocate is devastating. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for him to propose a ban on bunker-busting bombs, which we alone possess. This goes far beyond a freeze; it’s unilateral disarmament, pure and simple.

Bush should have hammered him on this, and hard, and repeatedly. It shows Kerry’s true colors and is reason by itself to refuse to vote for the man. I suspect we’ll hear a lot more about this in the next thirty days.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:19 pm 53. brandon davis:

I was not going to blog or comment on this. I really wasn’t.

But I do have ONE point to make:

Prior to the debate, I didn’t have any personal animus towards Kerry.

(Nothing personal about it, like, y’know? – Just your typical conservative-type person; my vote a foregone conclusion.)

Now I do.

I no long merely disagree with Kerry, I vehemently and emphatically detest the prevaricating, misleading, inconsistent, pathologically illogical, effete neo-aristocrat sunuvabitch.

There, now …it’s all better.

Whew. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

I’m [almost] done ….

PS – I don’t know what everyone else was seeing (I don’t have a TV; I was listening on the radio), but – obviously – I don’t think the debate a “tie” …at least, not if by debate we’re talking about “a presentation of a reasonably consistent and substantive public position whose purpose is to convince knowledgeable listeners of the strength of your argument over that of your opponent“. Nah. No contest. Just move along. Nothing to see here.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:21 pm 54. brandon davis:

Oops.

I meant to say:

“… prevaricating, misleading, inconsistent, pathologically illogical, effete dilettante, neo-aristocrat…” etc.

My bad.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:34 pm 55. Frederick:

Samuel: “I have always said I don’t know how this President does it, I am more puzzled by him then any other politician ever, I am befuddled by the man.” I agree. A very deep man playing a political game that, in many ways, seems to disgust him. He balances odd weights of many different sizes and shapes. An alienated patrician at Phillips Andover and Yale. A Yale Bonesman truly at home in Crawford, Texas. A Harvard B School graduate who uses a reputation for stupidity and ignorance as a marketing technique. A first-class poker player and fighter jet pilot who calculates the value of three deuces as he tempers an instinct for boldness. A politician who recognized the unforgiving world of illusion and deceit in which he must struggle, and seems to have invented a new way to succeed, probably a very sophisticated way. I would guess that what Kerry and the MSM call a “debate” and treat as an event that Kerry or Bush won or lost, Bush conceptualizes as an important tactical move that shapes a battlefield.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:36 pm 56. Samuel:

Frederick

Agreed, Bush is a very big picture hedgehog kind of guy. I could always see what Clinton was up to, he was good enough to do it well and win. Bush really is unorthodox. I played a lot of sports growing up and I will tell you, unorthodox athletes with unique but persistent untangibles can be very unsettling, not only to the competition but also their own teamates. You just have to trust they will see angles and find a way, in the end you always end up scrathing your head, but the bottom line tells the story, people like Bush just know how to measure things in intuitive ways beyond the scope of orthodox means of measurement. A coach says, “I put him out there, we win, I take him out, we don’t, his stats seem ordinary at best but we just win when he’s out there.” That is how I view Bush. I honestly don’t know how he plans to win in Iraq, I just believe he will win and Kerry won’t, no logic. The guy has me, a former Gore voting nuanced Jew living on some kind of faith, go figure.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:51 pm 57. OldManRick:

I think it will be several days before Kerry’s proposals really sink in and we learn who “won” the debate. But I already see the beginning of a couple of Kerry slips that he is going to get pounded with from this debate.

The first is the obvious, give nuclear fuel to Iran. Most people with common sense see this as giving the mugger a gun to see if he will shoot you.

The second will be more devastating. The solution to our our current problems is to have a Summit. three times he called for a summit on Iraq. Maybe we can follow the french lead and invite the terrorists and Sadam hold outs. We can all talk nice and make up. Kerry will be pounded with this. Lileks is already having a screed about the Summit talk. Unfortunately Bush answered with “we are having summits”. He should have answered with “we are talking with our friends, and taking out our enemies”.

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:01 pm 58. OldManRick:

Global Test!!!!!!. How could I forget global test?

The third is global test. We had a global test before Iraq and guess who failed it. Global test is another code phase for UN approval.

Kerry will get hammered on the talk radio circuit with Global Test, and another Summit (talk not action).

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:19 pm 59. Homer:

We all saw John Kerry in his glory last night. Vain, ponderous, self-serving, on full view. We also saw George W. Bush. Patient, resilient, in every way an adult. George Bush showed what it takes to be commander in chief last night. John Kerry didn’t. Attitude. Bush has it, Kerry doesn’t.

Oct 1, 2004 - 12:16 am 60. almedia:

I will vote for Bush in November and I hope to God he wins. Franky, I don’t know if America can survive the long range thrust of the terrorists if Kerry wins.

In regards to the first debate, if it is viewed from an undecided, uninformed voter’s perpective who will base his/her decision on style and oratory skills, I’m afraid that Kerry won hands down and will likely win many votes based on his performance. Readers of this blog are likely informed political watchers who will judge the debate tonight on substance and will overlook style. I worry that most people won’t.

Oct 1, 2004 - 12:27 am 61. Eric Deamer:

wow Roger:

I could not possibly have had a more different reaction to the debate than you, but then, I thought Arnold’s speech was the best of the Republican Convention. I thought it was boring only insofar as 90 minutes was way too long. However, it was, without question, the most substantive Presidential debate I have seen in my young life.

I mean, do you remember the debates from 2000? What were they about again? Prescription drug benefits or something? And how both candidates basically had the exact same plan for them?

Hear we had two men with completely opposed view of foreign policy actually making (admittedly, with lame, hamhanded oratory) substantive arguments on the major foreign policy questions of our day. I found it positively riveting at times, though I agree, way, way too long.

Anyway, here’s my spin:

Bush’s team seemed to have decided to play this conservatively (in the non-political sense of the word), since the race is now theirs to lose. Bush didn’t strike at a lot of openings he had and seems to once again be exhibiting his master poker player style that Samuel talks about.

Team Kerry was falling apart at the seams and since they were finally able to pull off someting non-horrible, will somewhat credibly be able to spin this as a victory, at least in the short term. The podium-height sucked for Bush and he looked kind of hunched over. Kerry spoke fluidly (though of course he’s a terrible droner), and seemed poised, and, yes, presidential. Plus he’s tall! Good podium height for him. He managed to squelch his inner-Michael Moore and didn’t offer anything that marked him as a card-carrying member of the angry left, which could have lost him the election tonight. He did say some nonsense about Hallibruton and something about securing the oil ministry in Iraq instead of other buildings but nothing too horrible.

Bush didn’t smirk once! Nice. He seemed tired and peaved as the debate went on, thought I can’t say I blame him.

In the long run, though, it’s up to Bush supporters to fully look into everything Kerry said in this debate and expose all of the misinformationm, lies, and mutually contradictory claims, of which there must have been a treasure trove.

The takeaway, I hope will be “global test”. WTF? That was such an utterly moronic phrase I wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry made it up on the spot right there. Cheney’s already made fun of it. Heh. We might be able to get a commercial out of it.

Oct 1, 2004 - 1:30 am 62. Lola:

Samuel

I played a lot of sports growing up and I will tell you, unorthodox athletes with unique but persistent untangibles can be very unsettling, not only to the competition but also their own teamates.

I think you put your finger right on the pulse about what it is about Bush that irritates some people. Many people don’t like being taken into a game blind by the leader, even if the long-term turnout will be good for them.

I’m trying not to let this get under my skin. And I’m still resolutely voting for Bush.

About the global test . . . huhhh? Who gets to write the test? Who gets to mark up the answers as being correct or not? Will there be just one entity to grade the test or will there be many fingers in the pie? What if the entity is someone we’re trying to move against but which we got to past the test? I hope the Bush campaign takes this goofy remark and pounds it to smithereens.

So, when’s the townhall debate? And I hope to God there will be a couple of folks who have done their homework and asked very intelligent questions, not those stupid snowball questions that Lehrer asked.

Oct 1, 2004 - 2:35 am 63. Matt Evans:

Style v. substance, basically. Kerry was not-so-shockingly inconsistent from the majority of his previous statements (pre-debate comments). He was basically consistent during the debate. Kerry seemed like he found his orator groove (there is such a thing, trust me) about mid-way through – I suspect he had a little ephiphany that he was winning around the halfway mark, due almost solely to the fact that Bush was pissed off and it was showing. Kerry came off better then expected but only at a surface level – he frequently threw in debunked democratic talking points (Bush mislead, Bush rushed to war, sanctions were working et al), factual inaccuracies (Treblinka, Iran sanctions) and his attempt to waffle was on display (unilateral AND bilateral talks – John, you’re missing the damn point).

Bush’s biggest problem with public speaking (finally hit me last night) was he won’t just stick his talking point and then end. He had some pretty nice zings but he completely lessened the impact of many of them by continuing to ramble after he nailed Kerry – he did not have to use up ALL of his time because he did not have to score points (he’s winning damn it) but nobody seemed to tell him that. Plus, Bush seemed unprepared for Kerry stretching the truth and/or misrepresenting the facts. Its baffling to me, considering the democrats are essentially running on a platform of lies, halftruths and misrepresentations.

The biggest hole in Bush’s argument was his failure to spend enough time on the issue of current alliances- Kerry wants to be multilateral but calls our allies “coerced and bribed”. bush said this but it was forced, rushed and he was clearly pissed off- he needs to learn to slow down when he’s hitting a big point and quite frankly, calling Great Britain and Austrailia, two of our staunchest allies, bribed and coerced clearly flies in the fact of Kerry’s alleged multilateralism.

Overall, I’d give the nod to Kerry, only because his style was better – as much as I’d love to say substance matters in these debates, it only matters to the people who understand the issues and/or read the fisking of the candidates positions afterwards. I’ve done plenty of jury trials and you can win plenty of cases with style over substance- trust me, thats how John Edwards made his money- and unfortunately, Kerry is simply had more poise last night- kudos to whoever prepped him.

Having said that, it won’t make any big difference in elections numbers (expect the MSM to report a kerry win and a shift in polling numbers but it won’t be a big shift). Bush’s camp better have him ready for the town meeting- more clear plan and less rambling- also, HUGE mistake to not harp on Kerry’s voting record and consistent absenteeism (which I think is a much bigger deal then the GOP makes of it). Also, Bush better be well prepped for domestic/economy debates – arguably, Kerry has more ammo in this area and will stomp Bush if Bush is not clear.

Oct 1, 2004 - 4:42 am 64. ricpic:

I think it’s important to look at the debate from the standpoint of an undecided, non-political voter.

This person, barely having followed the campaign, saw a confident, articulate Kerry vs. a hesitant, defensive, only sporadically articulate Bush.

This person most likely did not pick up on the inconsistencies in Kerry’s position(s).

The election is therefore much more in question than it was before the debate.

Oct 1, 2004 - 4:51 am 65. Matt Evans:

*People will talk about Kerry’s prowess and Presidential style, and the Republicans will have to be content to get about a half of dozen more commercials from the material the contradictions of the debate by Kerry provided*

Samuel, excellent point. The problem with the style over substance argument from Kerry is he’s clearly set himself up for attack ads in the next week. I mean, “world test” prior to taking action? What the hell is a world test ? I am suddenly very frightened by a Kerry presidency. Also, a thibauld correctly noted, the disarmament thing is going to be a biggie- whoever told Kerry to oppose bunker buster bombs is clearly off his rocker and there’s a gaping hole that Rove should drive a truck through. Nothing is more indicative of Kerry’s stance on national defense then that entire line of thinking- hey, lets unilaterally disarm and everybody else will fall in line ??? Either the democratic party is really really stupid in believing if we disarm, everyone else will or they’re certifiably insane. Maybe its this inability to grasp that yes, there is actually evil in the world and this evil doesn’t much like us.

Anyone else simply mortified at the utter lack of mention of Israel? I thought Leher was saving it for the end – maybe a last question type of thing. I’m not a jew (I’m one of mike silverstein’s “evil presbyterians”) and for crying out loud, to me, Israel’s future is one of the most important foreign policy issues I can think of, especially with the Moolahs (yes, I know, SP) getting closer and closer to having nukes in striking distance of Israel. Bush should have brought it up when Iran was mentioned but Leher was terribly remiss in not bringing it up at all. I WANT to know what Kerry says he’ll do on Israel because he’s been (not so stangely) silent on the issue.

Oct 1, 2004 - 4:56 am 66. Terrye:

ricpic:

Time will tell that is for sure, but it would seem to me that if all it will take to win over undecideds is public speaking skills they would not be undecided. Kerry seemed much the same last night as at his convention. The summation was actually a rehash of it.. I served this country as a young man…………

If you catch my drift. I thought it was a draw. Kerry did not come up with anything new. nothing. Not even the four points of his four point plan.

I like Bush so I have no problem with his speaking style, it seems genuine to me. Kerry seems contrived. He could stand up there with that droning voice and read the back of a cereal box and sound articulate. So what??

Oct 1, 2004 - 5:41 am 67. Jamie Irons:

Rick Ballard

Thanks for answering my “call,” and my questions. I fell asleep soon after I queried you, but I’m back. (And you’ve probably gone back to the bat cave).

Terrye

I am in awe at your intelligence and discernment.

Jamie Irons

BYW and apropos of nothing: Have I said lately that I hate TypeCast!

Oct 1, 2004 - 6:01 am 68. Terrye:

Rick:

Right now none of us are real fond of typecast.

I saw some Dem saying that Bush did not have enough to say and repeated himself and Kerry always filled up his time. That is the point. Bush says what he has to say and Kerry could talk all day and night if you let him.

Anybody remember what he said exactly?

Other than Bush bad, me good.

And I thought Lehrer sucked. Not one hard question for Kerry. One reason Bush repeated himself was that he kept getting interrogated on the same thing over and over.

I was waiting for PBS Jim to ask Bush win exactly did you stop beating Laura.

Just another example of media bias and that will not be lost on the Bush faithful.

Oct 1, 2004 - 8:06 am 69. Peg C.:

Richard McEnroe:

A Navy SEAL reservist returning to active duty, Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations, eviscerates Kerry’s claim that he would double Special Ops forces:

link

It was an eye-opener to me and I consider myself a bit of a spec ops fan, so plenty of people must be snowed by Kerry’s glib silliness.

Check out Heidt’s site — unlike Kerry he knows what he’s talking about.

Oct 1, 2004 - 10:22 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: