Posted on 09/30/2004 9:59:08 PM PDT by Pokey78
TALKING TO DEMOCRATS prior to last night, what you heard were complaints about how bad John Kerry was as a presidential candidate. The good news for Kerry is that on the basis of his solid performance in the first nationally televised debate with President Bush, the griping among Democrats is likely to cease. But change the direction of the campaign, which Bush now leads by a small but significant margin? Probably not. Or affect the outcome? Not that either.
While Kerry did the best that could be expected of him in the 90-minute debate, he didn't elicit the sort of gaffe from Bush that might have altered the race. Sure, Democrats are bound to be more excited about the Kerry campaign today than they have been at any time since the Democratic convention in July. But that's not enough, by itself, to lift Kerry back to parity with Bush. What Kerry needed was some embarrassing moment for Bush, a clumsy statement perhaps or an unpresidential moment of indecision, that would be played over and over again on TV news shows for the next few days. That didn't happen. Kerry annoyed Bush, even exasperated him at times. But he didn't force Bush to make an error.
So the first Bush-Kerry face-off will go down as largely uneventful, like most debates in a presidential campaign. We remember only a few of them, chiefly because some offbeat incident occurred--the elder Bush looking at this watch in 1992 or Michael Dukakis giving a bloodless answer to a
No doubt the inside-the-Beltway crowd, in the media mostly, will declare that a Kerry comeback has begun. They were poised to do so unless Kerry fell on his face in the debate. In Washington terms, of course, Kerry did extremely well, showing a breadth of knowledge about foreign policy and some attention to detail. That kind of stuff never fails to impress the press corps.
But it's the voters outside the Washington-New York-Boston axis who matter. And Bush's firm insistence on a few key points--notably the need for resolve in Iraq--and his repetition of these points, is likely to have appealed to them. Repetition is Bush's long suit. His points seemed rooted in his experience in the White House, while Kerry's statements often came across as theoretical or abstract. This was especially true in the discussion of North Korea when Bush argued convincingly that Kerry's call for one-on-one talks was a bad idea because it would leave the Chinese out of the equation.
With Bush, there's a kind of mystique that most reporters and commentators in Washington don't understand. They still believe the president is a bumpkin. Kerry, on the other hand, is persuasive in the Washington sense, arguing his case knowledgeably with a specific or two. So were Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. When Bush connects with voters, the media feels blindsided. Whatever Bush does to reach the public, the press rarely notices. And Bush may have done some of it last night, especially in his strong closing statement and his mention of meeting with Missy Johnson, the wife of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Kerry often fails to connect, though he surely thrilled Democrats or independents already committed to voting for him. This is no small thing. If he hadn't stirred the faithful, the race would be over. The problem for Kerry, though, is that right now, there aren't enough committed folks to defeat Bush on November 2. The first debate didn't change that.
Boy, the Grim FReeper Club grew!
if you listened to Freddy on the post-debate show with Brit
on Fox it sounded like we might as well coronate the
ketchup king now and forget Nov 2. him and Bill Kristol...
what a couple of useless putzoids.
Zappp!
Amen!
Perhaps it is worth noting that by every estimate Reagan lost his first debate to Walter Mondale in 1984. Even Reagan's handlers conceded Reagan looked old, tired, and out of touch. The election that year was the biggest electoral landslide in history.
Did you read the article on Opinion Journal about Bush's hometown newspaper? It was extremely interesting because it is just another example of the left's hypocrisy. Apparently the founder of the newspaper is a horrible racist and bigot. He not only hated Christians but Blacks as well, and some on the left love to quote him. I think that article might get better attention tomorrow, though.
Finally a sensible assessment.
And then if you consider this:
Lehrer Stacks Deck Against Bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232043/posts
I think everything considered, Bush has done remarkably well.
While John Kerry put the President on the defense tonight in debate #1 and while the President lacked a certain fire in the belly in many of his responses, the Senator didn't specifically explain what his policy would be with regards to Iraq, if he became POTUS. Also, Kerry didn't adequately explain what his policy is on the overall WoT.
Attacking the President is fine, if you offer legitimate alternatives to his actual policy. In tonights debate, Kerry offered no substantive alternative. Except to say he would work to get the UN, France, Germany and Russia more involved in Iraq. I've got news for ya Senator. The UN, France, Germany and Russia weren't there when America needed them early on and there is no evidence they would get involved at this late date.
And same in 2000. Most thought Gore won the first debate. It was the third debate that did Gore in.
Bush missed several critical opportunities.
After Kerry went on about how soldiers were having to buy their own body armor and how terrible that was Bush should have responded, "then why didn't you vote for the $87 billion to buy them body armor senator?"
More of the same with N. Korea and Iran.
Well, it looks like he's had second thoughts, doesn't it?
The more I think about those questions, the madder I get; all Iraq questions in a foreign policy debate? All Iraq, which just happens to be the ONE topic Kerry has left to trash Bush with?
Too many Freepers tonight are "Doom and Gloom" for some reason. Bush did pretty damn good in the debate.
Fred is spot on here.
Actually I thought Fred's opinions on the panel were consistent with this article. You're right about Bill Kristol, though, he was negative, but that's not that unusual for him. What I found amazing was Kristol's old boss, John McCain. I saw him twice in my channel flipping, and he was quite upbeat and called Bush the clear winner "although Kerry did well also". High praise from McCain who was actually doing some pretty effective spinning! And trust me I'm no fan of his!
Our problem is the conservative analysts analyze and the libs spin... So we have a major disadvantage in teh post-debate spin...
Remember though, Bush's expectations will be low for the next debate, that could help
Kerry mentioned "The Plan" seventeen times during the debate. The man with a plan. Too bad he hasn't shared it with anyone.
**there aren't enough committed folks to defeat Bush on November 2. The first debate didn't change that.**
Thank goodness!
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.