Posted on 10/01/2004 2:08:53 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Special Post-Debate Release....10-1, 2004
Style vs. Substance
Round 1
Written by JB Williams
©2004-09-30
Before even I become confused by the pundit’s efforts to tell me what I saw and heard last night, I’m writing round one of the 2004 Presidential debates in to my own history book. The answer to who won the first round will depend on who you ask. If you’re asking me, both candidates lost…
John Kerry looked good, was articulate, on message, calm, forceful, yet uncharacteristically respectful. Bush looked tired, verbally stumbling at times, a bit too on message, forceful as expected, but almost agitated, defensive, even seemingly disgusted at points. If style were the issue, Kerry was the clear victor.
After a lifetime spent pontificating, from his Yale debating days, through his 20 years of filibustering on the senate floor, I expected Kerry to win on style and I was not disappointed.
But being President is about something more important than style, it’s about substance and conviction. In this arena, Kerry didn’t fair so well…
Fact is, he confirmed our worst fears, and lived up to his voting record in the senate.
In line with his 1971 statement “I think our military should only be deployed at the direction of the UN”, he actually said a “global standard” (of approval) must be met before America should act unilaterally to defend itself.
He re-affirmed that 12 years of cat and mouse and 17 broken UN resolutions constitutes a “rush to war” in his mind.
Confronted on the issue of calling Bush a “liar” for “misleading” us into war, he was forced to admit that yes indeed, he had looked at the same intelligence reports as Bush and come to the same conclusions. Bush in fact did not lie, anymore than Kerry did when both made a strong case for removing Hussein from power.
Then he tried again to sell the idea that his vote authorizing war was not actually a vote to authorize war. He said that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. But then he made sure to firmly point out that yes, Hussein was a threat, and yes he did need to be removed from power, attempting to assert that Bush simply removed him from power the wrong way, without French approval.
He said General Tommy Franks was his source that Bush diverted attention and resources from the real war on terror in Afghanistan to the wrong war in Iraq. But General Tommy Franks spoke right afterwards and said Kerry statement was false. That in fact, both financial and personnel resources were increased in Afghanistan during the period in question, and ever since, not decreased in order to address Iraq, as Kerry suggests.
Worst of all, Kerry suggested that nuclear proliferation was the number one threat to American security, (ignoring chemical and biological weapons easier for terrorists to get and use). Then he went on to state that one of his first objectives as President would be to put an immediate stop to US development and production of bunker busting nukes.
In Kerry’s half-baked way of thinking, we have no right to ask other nations to disarm without first disarming ourselves, and for a change, he seemed certain about this.
Now I realize that he said earlier in the evening that he wanted to emulate Ronald Reagan. But clearly, he wasn’t paying attention when Reagan won the cold war. While Kerry led his fellow Democrats in calling Reagan a cowboy, demanding he stop the arms race, Reagan was busy not listening and building nukes, and Reagan like Bush, was right.
All in all, on substance, Kerry only proved what most of us already knew, he has no substance, only style. That and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. It sure won’t secure a nation.
Bush had an exceptionally bad performance, but then, we all know he isn’t a “performer”.
In the end, I will write this one in to my book as not the stereotypical “David vs. Goliath” story, but rather a clash of “Goliath vs. Goliath”. John Kerry being a Goliath of style, and Bush a Goliath of substance and conviction. Nothing came across clearer than this.
Jim Lehrer’s questions could only be described as an am-Bush. Lehrer had a gentile tone. However he made certain to ask Bush about Kerry’s character and military service, knowing full well how Bush would respond. But he never asked Kerry to back up his charges that Bush was AWOL, or a draft dodger for joining the Guard.
He even framed a few Kerry question as “when you are President”, a subtle but effect Freudian tip of his hand.
In the end, the liberal mainstream press was the big winner. They got what they needed to claim a Kerry victory, a great performance by their guy.
Now I hold Bush responsible. Kerry’s position was to attack, he is after all the challenger. Bush is famous for understanding that the best defense is a good offense, yet he seemed to forget that during this exchange.
Kerry lost on substance, Bush on style. The big loser was the American people, who will no doubt be enamored by the skillful performance given by John Kerry, so much so that they miss the substance of his statements.
Kerry showed the mark of a great con, the ability to make horrific statements in such a manner as to make them sound desirable.
My final footnote will read, “I could have done a better job of out-debating Kerry myself, but that wouldn’t make me a better President than George W. Bush”.
The mainstream press will focus all their attention on style. But the American people better be paying attention, looking past style to substance. Because what Kerry said, most American’s won’t buy.
JB Williams Political Columnist www.JB-Williams.com JBW@JB-Williams.com
Good point about Lehrer.
I guess he was a better choice than Moyers.
Since I've been monitoring the news and internet today, I think Kerry made a serious mistake when he uttered the words, "Global Test". Just like Bush and Gore, the MSM pronounced Gore the winner, only to find out he didn't.
Pretty accurate, I'd say.
As opposed to, say, Jackie Mason?
Nice find. Thanks for posting it
bttt
Bttt.
I would have preferred Jackie. Less biased. (-:
"Since I've been monitoring the news and internet today, I think Kerry made a serious mistake when he uttered the words, "Global Test". Just like Bush and Gore, the MSM pronounced Gore the winner, only to find out he didn't."
Good point. I think "Global Test" should be the catch phrase for future RNC ads.
How about this: Show a joint picture of Kerry and Jacques Chirac and the narrator says, "As president, John Kerry would require a "Global Test" before taking action to protect our nation."
The implication being that Kerry would not take any action until Chirac gave him the go-ahead.
In his own fashion, John Kerry is trying to emulate Ronald Reagan. Reagan set out to destroy an evil empire, the Soviet Union, and succeeded. John Kerry also wants to destroy an evil empire...but for him, that's American power in the world.
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.