OT: The Debate

[wco81]

I'm not talking about some morality bar. In that respect, I suspect our current leaders are no more or less moral than our cannonized Founding Fathers.

I'm talking about the competence bar.

And most if not all voters have been to grade school.

[dougb]

No Kool-Aid, Bill. I'm not voting for Bush or Kerry, but I just have the sense that unless Kerry really blows away Bush in the next two debates, which is possible, that people will settle for the status quo and Bush will win by 7 to 10 percent.

OK, not a landslide. But a bigger margin than many expect or see now. I'll be bummed, as I think Bush is a lousy president.

Take care,
PK

I think if Bush manages to do reasonably well in the next two debates then his poor performance in this debate probably won't have much of an impact either way. Of course, if Kerry bests him in the next two debates and we get much more of the staring off into space while trying to remember lines that we got in this debate, then Kerry could really achieve some serious momentum.

But what will really be critical will be the way the media run with the story. If they start running with a script that says George Bush looks unsure and doesn't seem to have an answer re: Iraq then things could very get interesting.


Best wishes,

Doug

[Jared]

Again...his vote has been completely consistent with what he's been saying all along. From his speech on the Senate floor in October 2002 regarding his vote for the resolution (and this would be good to actually read for everyone that says he flip-flopped on his Iraq position):

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upl ... -iraq.html

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

Right. Kerry believed that then and when Bush mentioned that Kerry said Hussein was a grave threat, Kerry agreed. This quote doesn't show how Kerry's position has been inconsistent. He thought Hussein was a grave threat BUT that action should be taken multilaterally and at a last resort. How is that not consistent?

[pk500]

I'm not talking about some morality bar. In that respect, I suspect our current leaders are no more or less moral than our cannonized Founding Fathers.

I'm talking about the competence bar.

And most if not all voters have been to grade school.

OK, then: Reagan was an actor who then became a politician. He never came off as a guy with a firm grasp on the issues, more like your Uncle Ronnie, yet he was one of our most beloved presidents ever.

My case in point.

All of the elite sheepskins in the world won't get a person in the White House. The ability to inspire belief and to connect with regular folks does.

Bush is a classic case. This guy appears to be a pretty dim bulb at times and has sold Americans down the river, including more than 1,000 in body bags, with his faulty and ever-changing premises for war in Iraq. Yet more Americans believe in him than disbelieve.

So yeah, the bar has been lowered. But wishing for a time when our leaders were regal and above us isn't going to help John Kerry get elected. I don't think anything is this year, so we have another four years of Bush. Pass me the Maalox.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I, too, think Bush is likely to win. Last night was the first time I felt Kerry really went on the offensive against Bush, and it's probably too little, too late.

What was funny was I almost felt like Kerry had managed to steal the other team's debate playbook. Bush was ready to launch flip-flop attacks all night long, but Kerry was ready and at least reduced their effect. Meanwhile Bush looked completely unprepared for Kerry's counterattacks, to the point where it seemed like the words "freedom" "stability" "mixed messages" "conviction" and "Poland" kept falling out of his head like loose ceiling tiles.

Good speaking skills don't necessarily tie into intelligence or leadership. However, leadership is a perceptive, not measured quality, and being able to answer a question without an awkward 10 second pause certainly helps your leadership quotient.

[Leebo33]

Now if rural folk and other red state citizens feel more comfortable with a president more like them rather than being the best the country can produce, what does it say about them?

I think a lot of you mistake the people feeling Bush is "more like them" as being simple-minded. That isn't the case. I agree with Bush's platform on a lot more issues than I do Kerry's, so in a way Bush is "more like me." A lot of "rural folk" have strong feelings on issues such as gun control, taxes, the role of the Federal government, and abortion and that may make them feel like they can relate to Bush more.

[Leebo33]

Again...his vote has been completely consistent with what he's been saying all along. From his speech on the Senate floor in October 2002 regarding his vote for the resolution (and this would be good to actually read for everyone that says he flip-flopped on his Iraq position):

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upl ... -iraq.html

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

Right. Kerry believed that then and when Bush mentioned that Kerry said Hussein was a grave threat, Kerry agreed. This quote doesn't show how Kerry's position has been inconsistent. He thought Hussein was a grave threat BUT that action should be taken multilaterally and at a last resort. How is that not consistent?

It's really open to debate whether the action was taken multilaterally and if it was a last resort. If I felt that Hussein was a GRAVE danger then I would expect the President to have a more stringent definition of "multilateral" or "last resort." I really couldn't forsee Hussein changing his ways and suddenly complying with UN resolutions and thus the grave danger would remain. It seems to me that Kerry was trying to cover all bases. If they find WMD then he looks good for supporting the war. If they don't then he can fault Bush for acting. I really don't see that as having a position one way or another, but other intelligent people can certainly see it another way.

I didn't have time to read the entire speech. Is there any reference in the speech to "wrong war, wrong time..etc." Any mention that we should finish the job in Afghanistan first?

[wco81]

They say the Bush spinners like Ralph Reed and Karen Hughes were unconvincing last night.

However, Bush's team will use snippets of the debate in new commercials to depict Kerry negatively.

Kerry's answers about a global test for pre-emptive action will be spun to mean that Kerry will seek the approval of France and Germany before he takes the country to war. Of course, Kerry didn't say that but the Bush's commercials aren't about the truth.

[wco81]

How would Iraq have complied with the UN resolutions when it now seems pretty clear that there were no WMD programs since the first Gulf War?

How were they to prove the negative? And for all the badmouthing which Bush and his supporters did of Blix, it turns out there was a reason they weren't finding anything. There wasn't anything to find.

Kerry pointed out that Bush diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan. He also pointed out the failure at Tora Bora, when they had OBL and other AQ and they relied on air power and Northern Alliance soldiers rather than US special forces, something which I don't think has been aired enough.

[Brando70]

I'm not talking about some morality bar. In that respect, I suspect our current leaders are no more or less moral than our cannonized Founding Fathers.

I'm talking about the competence bar.

And most if not all voters have been to grade school.

OK, then: Reagan was an actor who then became a politician. He never came off as a guy with a firm grasp on the issues, more like your Uncle Ronnie, yet he was one of our most beloved presidents ever.

True, PK, but Reagan was actually competent. His deficit spending was certainly fiscally irresponsible, and Iran-Contra was the greatest breach of Constitutional checks and balances since FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. But while Reagan had his agenda, he also would change direction if he felt his agenda was going in the wrong direction or producing undesired results. He did that with his tax cuts, did it with reversing direction on the Soviet Union (I think evil empire to detante would be considered a flip flop these days), and he also did it with his approach to terrorism. And while he catered to the growing power of the religious right, he also didn't appear to be controlled by them. I couldn't imagine him giving something as silly as the Federal Marriage Amendment the time of day.

I think Kerry nailed why I don't like Bush (with a capital, not a small "b"). It was the comment about how you can be certain and still be wrong. I feel like this Administration is like Bart Simpson in a game of rock-paper-scissors: "Good old rock, nothing beats rock." And of course, paper (which can waiver) does beat rock. For all the talk about parsing and deception in the White House from 1993-2000, we've seen that same parsing and deception continued the last four years. This Administration seems incapable of admitting mistakes until after those mistakes are so obvious, they may as well be standing behind them kicking them in the butt. Bring up the problems in Iraq, and you hear "well, this is hard work." No s---, so is digging a six-foot hole, but it's a lot easier if you use a shovel instead of a rake.

[Parker]

All I know is several networks have had focus groups with undecided voters, and in all of them, Kerry won more voters than Bush did after the debate. But unlike many elections, these undecided voters were not very easy to find. Nevertheless, there are enough of them to give either candidate a victory, but not a large one.

I don't know of one pollster who thinks this election is going to be a landslide. There aren't enough of these undecideds. I don't think either candidate will win by more than 5 points. Even if you average all of the polls lately, Bush is not ahead by any more than 5 pts if you consider the polls that show a tie or Kerry ahead by a point.

If you look at the polling numbers, really the only reason why Kerry is not winning in all polls is because voters do not feel familiar enough with him and his positions. I think that changed last night, as he connected with mainstream America and offered his platform in a clear and concise fashion. Bush is a very vunerable incumbent. It would be surprising indeed and against all historical precendents if an incumbent who had an approval rating in the low 40s during an election year is able to win big.

[pk500]

Brando:

Here's a good piece in Microsoft's liberal online mag, Slate, about the excellent points you just made:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107517/

Take care,
PK

[Badgun]

>>>He certainly came off better than Bush, who was fidgeting and couldn't express himself beyond the lines he memorized.<<<

And that won't make a damn bit of difference in six weeks.

WCO, what you and most highly educated people forget, is that most Americans DO talk and think like Bush. People like him because they feel a connection to him as a "regular guy," even though it's really not true. There's nothing "regular" about going to Yale, owning a baseball team, being a governor, etc., etc.

Still, people see Bush as regular with his fractured speech and folksy mannerisms. Some see Kerry as too "smooth," too "slick." That's the penalty someone pays for being articulate in the current United States of Dumbed-Down America.

Honestly, think of the blue-collar worker or agricultural worker out there. Who is he going to identify with, John Kerry or George Bush, based on patterns of speech, mannerisms, etc.?

Easy call. Bush, in a landslide.

Take care,
PK

pk, you're right. I know Bush isn't a regular guy, but show me one politician that is. That being said, back in 2000 when Bush gave his speech at the republican convention, he almost brought me to tears. The guy looked out at the cameras and told America that he cared about them, and I really believed he was sincere. I believe Bush really cares about this country...a lot. I still feel that way even though I know he's made mistakes along the way.

The one thing I can say is that Kerry doesn't emote that feeling to me. It's like if you walked up on Bush's front porch to talk to him, he'd offer you a glass of lemonade, but if you walked up on Kerry's porch, he'd have you removed by security. To me that's the difference between the two.

[Parker]

That may be true, but it's not like there haven't been Presidents elected in the past who seem more statesly and dignified than warm and inviting.

[wco81]

What mistakes? Bush hasn't admitted to any mistakes. He was asked in a press conference earlier this year and he hemmed and hawed.

AFAIK, the administration and campaign hasn't admitted to a single mistake. Instead, you have excuses like the corporate scandals, 9/11, inheriting a recession, etc.

Excuses, no admissions of mistakes. Even supporters of Bush have admitted he's made mistakes. But he himself has not.

[JRod]

They say the Bush spinners like Ralph Reed and Karen Hughes were unconvincing last night.

However, Bush's team will use snippets of the debate in new commercials to depict Kerry negatively.

Kerry's answers about a global test for pre-emptive action will be spun to mean that Kerry will seek the approval of France and Germany before he takes the country to war. Of course, Kerry didn't say that but the Bush's commercials aren't about the truth.

Kerry's team looks like its going to take a page out of Bush's playbook of 2000 and they are rolling out debate ads this weekend. This is the exact strategy Bush used in 2000 that made it look like Bush won the debates.

PK,
There's a difference between plain spoken and having a hard time speaking. I don't Bush did anything we didn't expect from him. He always seems to have problems finishing a sentence. However before he was never judged against someone. If he's having a press conference then its just Bush and no one there to serve as a contrast. Kerry last night was impressive to me. Not so much in what he said but he was quick, coherent and very statesly. I also think that Kerry finally figured out how to stop the bleeding on his Iraq stance. Its not a great soundbite but its something that he can repeat and the media will lay off of him a bit.

Overall there were no fireworks last night. Possibly there will be more in the town hall debate. Again its probably Kerry's to lose if he gets complitcated for those.

[Parker]

I think many people may not realize how hard it was for Kerry to speak in fairly short and direct sentences for 90 minutes like he did, when that is not his natural way of speaking. It takes an immense amount of practice and concentration to pull that off.

[GTHobbes]

It must've scared the bejeezus out of W last night when he realized he was no longer debating Al Gore, but instead a real opponent.

All I know is I can't wait to see SNL this weekend...should be great stuff. I'll be interested to see if they caught any of the same "made up" words coming out of bush's mouth that I did. And it still kills me every time I hear W pronounce the word "nucular".

[Badgun]

I think many people may not realize how hard it was for Kerry to speak in fairly short and direct sentences for 90 minutes like he did, when that is not his natural way of speaking. It takes an immense amount of practice and concentration to pull that off.

Well Kerry still comes off like a prick and that will probably hurt him more than anything, especially with the regular guy. People don't want a prick as their president, they want someone warm and familiar and Bush fits that bill nicely. It doesn't matter whether it's genuine or not, but I happen to believe it is.

[FatPitcher]

Kerry won the debate handily, especially in terms of sounding confident and "presidential."

The debates are never about winning, though. They are about not giving your opponent any ammo. It remains to be seen whether Kerry's missteps (particularly the "global test" one) will hurt him more than his debate victory helps him.

I expected Kerry to completely destroy Bush and make him look like a fool, but instead, Kerry won big on style and Bush won a small victory on substance...and got a lot of ammo to use against Kerry, while giving Kerry none at all aside from a smirk and a scowl.

[webdanzer]

while giving Kerry none at all aside from a smirk and a scowl.

I bet the 'daughters on a leash' line countered by Kerry's 'I learned not to do that' costs W. a few votes, believe it or not.

[Parker]

Well Kerry still comes off like a prick and that will probably hurt him more than anything, especially with the regular guy. People don't want a prick as their president, they want someone warm and familiar and Bush fits that bill nicely. It doesn't matter whether it's genuine or not, but I happen to believe it is.

That must be why Kerry's likability ratings went up significantly since last night.

I would say a personality like Kerry is more commonly elected in Europe, but in recent memory, Nixon hardly came off as warm and fuzzy to voters. He was a very serious character. In earlier decades, presidents like Kerry were even more commonly elected, even if they didn't represent the common man and woman that well with their mannerisms or style of speech, as long as their ideas connected and they were able to convey them in a way that most people could understand, like Kerry did last night.

[pk500]

I think many people may not realize how hard it was for Kerry to speak in fairly short and direct sentences for 90 minutes like he did, when that is not his natural way of speaking. It takes an immense amount of practice and concentration to pull that off.

Well Kerry still comes off like a prick and that will probably hurt him more than anything, especially with the regular guy. People don't want a prick as their president, they want someone warm and familiar and Bush fits that bill nicely. It doesn't matter whether it's genuine or not, but I happen to believe it is.

Bad:

I agree with you, in principle. But Bush came off as more of a prick last night than Kerry. His eye and facial gestures while Kerry spoke and his zeal to attack on responses showed him living up to the Republican cliche of mean-spiritedness.

The Veep debate will be very interesting Tuesday, as we'll see if a kinder, gentler Dick Cheney emerges or whether he'll be the flame-breathing prick that everyone thinks he is. Cheney better respect Edwards as a debater, as any guy who has made millions as a trial lawyer knows how to put on an oratorial show.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Andrew Sullivan had a great line about Bush referring to the leash. Someting like "No president who presided over Abu Gharib should mention 'leash'" or something like that.

Bush's malapropism of the night was talking about the Iraqis fighting the insurgents "vociferously." So instead of shooting at insurgents, the forces on our side are yelling at them?

What a "catastrophic success" that's going to be!