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.

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.

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!

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.