Post debate commentary
The smoke has cleared and the candidates were fact checked. Conclusion: Both are full of it. Additionally, Kerry got a bump. As the Commissar said, Kerry on points, but he needed a knockout.
I’d call it for Kerry based on perception and demeanor. Kerry was confident, direct, and assertive. He had his game face on. Bush seemed annoyed and taken aback a few times. Bush hammered his message that Kerry was inconsistent. Kerry hammered his message that Bush had messed up.
I should point out that calling it for Kerry is based entirely on demeanor and that, as someone who has followed the campaign, Kerry was unconvincing. If this was the only exposure I had to the two of them, Kerry won.
I wonder if Bush is using a Jedi mind trick. I recall the first debate with Gore. Gore took the lead and made his case. Heck, I was convinced Gore won that one. However, the media later reported that Gore was really full of it and most of the things he said weren’t really true. Is Bush doing it again? Letting Kerry appear to have won while the fact checkers do their work? We’ll see.
Foreign policy is the issue that Bush should have had handily. He didn’t run with it. It will cost him some votes.
October 1st, 2004 at 10:26 am
Fun game to play, see you can restate what Kerry’s forgin policy will be.
Once you do that ask yourself how is it different from what Bush is doing?
Once you review the debate in you mind, trying to clarfiy the differences between Kerry and bush, i think you will see that bush won.
October 1st, 2004 at 1:52 pm
Cube:
OK, I’ll bite. He’ll form meaningful coalitions (where the members participate rather than just rubber stamp). He’ll internationalize our presence in Iraq. He’ll ask and even encourage other countries to take a stake in Iraq’s future. He’ll solicit other nations, including muslim nations, to participate in the training of Iraqis’ new peacekeeping forces. He’ll do this by giving up some control in Iraq, something the Bush Administration has not been willing to do. He’ll state plainly (and in fact, has stated plainly) that the US has no long-term plans to stay in Iraq. How much more detail do you want (or expect) in a two minute answer?
And while we’re at it, what exactly did Bush say his plan was. Oh yeah, “stay the course.” Yeah, that tells me so much more than what Kerry said.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Oh yeah, and he’ll add troops, increase special forces, and improve equipment for the troops. And unlike Bush, he offers away to pay for at least part of it: rolling back the tax cuts for the highest income bracket.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:45 pm
I also disagree that Kerry needed a knockout. All he needed to do was hold his own, because National Security is supposed to be his key weakness. By not only holding his own, but actually winning the debate, he may just have revitalized his campaign. We’ll see how things shake out over the next couple of weeks. Already, Bush’s spinmeisters are working overtime.
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:15 am
“And unlike Bush, he offers away to pay for at least part of it: rolling back the tax cuts for the highest income bracket.”
Fair enough. Makes sense to me.
<Columbo voice>Oh, just one more question. Whose taxes will he raise to pay for more firefighters? Oh, and whose taxes will he raise to inspect 100% of the cargo containers coming into the country? Also – I’m sorry, this is something that just occured to me – where’s he going to get the money to provide all Americans with better health care and expanded drug coverage, and more money for teachers?</Columbo voice>
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:43 am
Les:
I’m sorry, I’m not sure I get your (or Columbo’s) point. After all, Bush is the one insisting we can have our cake (increase spending) and eat it, too (cut taxes). At least Kerry’s admitted that something‘s gotta give. No his numbers don’t add up either, but they come a helluva lot closer than Bush’s.