10.01.2004
Bush-Kerry Debate 1
My gut impression is that the polling margin will tighten...about a point.
DEBATE TRANSCRIPT
Now, on to what others are saying...alot...no surprise...updates will come all day long below this line. Please post your own thoughts!
Hugh Hewitt: [Kerry] executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September.
Washington Post: In the end the candidates drew sharply distinct portraits of themselves and each other. Mr. Bush stressed his own resoluteness, which Mr. Kerry suggested included a dangerous tendency to be divorced from reality. Mr. Kerry stressed his commitment to alliances and patient leadership, which Mr. Bush suggested could mean weakness. Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.
Washington Times: President Bush and Sen. John Kerry essentially stuck to their scripts, landed few significant blows and fought to a draw in last night's opening presidential debate, political strategists from both parties said.
The strategists said the outcome probably will give a minor boost to Mr. Kerry who has been flagging in recent polls, but also will buffet Mr. Bush's reputation for steadfastness that has been credited with swaying undecided voters to his camp.
"I think that on points, on the issues, Senator Kerry won," said Mr. Tuman, who teaches classes on presidential rhetoric and debates. "But in terms of the realpolitik of the situation, the president did not lose. He went into the debate needing to avoid making a major mistake."
Deacon at Power Line: So what bounce, if any, does Kerry get? I have to think he'll get some. Whether he gets a lot may depend on how much credibility he had left going into the debate. Kerry's basic pitch was that he'll do better on every front -- kill more bad guys, win us more friends, win in Iraq through more effective training, etc. He sounded good saying this, but will swing voters believe these promises? To persuade them that they should, he referred several times to his service in Vietnam. But how much credibility does this give him, in light of the Swiftvet campaign? He kept saying he had only one position on Iraq, and Bush wasn't terribly effective in showing otherwise. But has the prior work of the Bush campaign already established this conclusively?
Captain Ed: I think there were enough highlights for each candidate to make a couple of political commercials, although I'm hearing that the Democrats are making one with nothing but George Bush's facial expressions ... as if they haven't tried belittling Bush enough in this electoral cycle. Republicans will certainly make one from the "global test" remark that John Kerry must wish he'd skipped.
And this one, from deep within the blogosphere, by my left-wing friend Phil at The Daily Grind: Since the majority of Americans are only going to sit through a single, hour and a half debate between the presidential candidates, it was important for Kerry to nail it, and he did just that. Bush looked and sounded completely incompetent, while Kerry proved to be the statesman that this country so desperately needs.
My gut impression is that the polling margin will tighten...about a point.
DEBATE TRANSCRIPT
Now, on to what others are saying...alot...no surprise...updates will come all day long below this line. Please post your own thoughts!
Hugh Hewitt: [Kerry] executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September.
Washington Post: In the end the candidates drew sharply distinct portraits of themselves and each other. Mr. Bush stressed his own resoluteness, which Mr. Kerry suggested included a dangerous tendency to be divorced from reality. Mr. Kerry stressed his commitment to alliances and patient leadership, which Mr. Bush suggested could mean weakness. Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.
Washington Times: President Bush and Sen. John Kerry essentially stuck to their scripts, landed few significant blows and fought to a draw in last night's opening presidential debate, political strategists from both parties said.
The strategists said the outcome probably will give a minor boost to Mr. Kerry who has been flagging in recent polls, but also will buffet Mr. Bush's reputation for steadfastness that has been credited with swaying undecided voters to his camp.
"I think that on points, on the issues, Senator Kerry won," said Mr. Tuman, who teaches classes on presidential rhetoric and debates. "But in terms of the realpolitik of the situation, the president did not lose. He went into the debate needing to avoid making a major mistake."
Deacon at Power Line: So what bounce, if any, does Kerry get? I have to think he'll get some. Whether he gets a lot may depend on how much credibility he had left going into the debate. Kerry's basic pitch was that he'll do better on every front -- kill more bad guys, win us more friends, win in Iraq through more effective training, etc. He sounded good saying this, but will swing voters believe these promises? To persuade them that they should, he referred several times to his service in Vietnam. But how much credibility does this give him, in light of the Swiftvet campaign? He kept saying he had only one position on Iraq, and Bush wasn't terribly effective in showing otherwise. But has the prior work of the Bush campaign already established this conclusively?
Captain Ed: I think there were enough highlights for each candidate to make a couple of political commercials, although I'm hearing that the Democrats are making one with nothing but George Bush's facial expressions ... as if they haven't tried belittling Bush enough in this electoral cycle. Republicans will certainly make one from the "global test" remark that John Kerry must wish he'd skipped.
And this one, from deep within the blogosphere, by my left-wing friend Phil at The Daily Grind: Since the majority of Americans are only going to sit through a single, hour and a half debate between the presidential candidates, it was important for Kerry to nail it, and he did just that. Bush looked and sounded completely incompetent, while Kerry proved to be the statesman that this country so desperately needs.
// posted by HunterByrd @ 4:46 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
HunterByrd, I'll start off by saying that I'm an undecided voter. I voted for Bush last time. I'm inclined to vote for him again, but I'm torn up on the war issue. I watched the debate last night and Kerry came off stronger in my eyes. I've never posted a comment on one of these pages, but I want to hear your response. You, like Bush, seem to be sure about your position.
To me, our situation in Iraq with all the insurgents seems similar to Israel's problem with the Palestinians. That is,Israel cannot get a hold on the Palestinians. It keeps going on and on. As for us,yesterday's bombing in Iraq that killed children will no doubt recur. How can our current course of action solve anything long term? I don't trust Kerry, especially on domestic issues, but maybe he's right and he can get more countries on board. It's clear that, apart from Poland,Europe doesn't like Bush and the war. Erin Samuelsen
To me, our situation in Iraq with all the insurgents seems similar to Israel's problem with the Palestinians. That is,Israel cannot get a hold on the Palestinians. It keeps going on and on. As for us,yesterday's bombing in Iraq that killed children will no doubt recur. How can our current course of action solve anything long term? I don't trust Kerry, especially on domestic issues, but maybe he's right and he can get more countries on board. It's clear that, apart from Poland,Europe doesn't like Bush and the war. Erin Samuelsen
# posted by 
: 7:16 AM
: 7:16 AM
HunterByrd,
A post script. I failed to include Great Britain as an ally along with Poland. I guess my point, though, is that the people of Europe don't like Bush. A poll I saw this week had Europeans from all the countries but Poland overwhelmingly favoring Kerry over Bush.
Erin Samuelsen
A post script. I failed to include Great Britain as an ally along with Poland. I guess my point, though, is that the people of Europe don't like Bush. A poll I saw this week had Europeans from all the countries but Poland overwhelmingly favoring Kerry over Bush.
Erin Samuelsen
# posted by : 7:21 AM
: 7:21 AM
Erin Samuelson, Thanks for posting! It is easy to tell that you think about these matters, and that they are of concern to you. As you are aware the deep answers to your questions would require a dissertation, but I will try to answer them in a few paragraphs.
I disagree a bit with your comparison of the situation in Israel with that of Iraq. Things may be changing a little for the better in Israel. Maybe. The Palestinian leadership simply refuses to come to a peaceful agreement with Israel -- they would rather have the Jews all driven into the sea, i.e., expelled. Israel will never give up its fight (Hitler steeled their resolve). Eventually, the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and elsewhere will come round.
The war in Iraq is a mess, but it is no Vietnam. It is a very uncomfortable situation. If our current course of action in Iraq had no end objective, I would agree with you, re the apparent hopelessness of what is going on over there. But we have goals, one tactical, the other strategic. Tactically, the US is hell-bent for leather that those elections occur in January. Strategically, a free Iraq is an Arab country that totally changes the cultural climate in the MidEast. Their example will change that part of the world, and put serious long-term pressure on the terrorist culture.
War has always been an ugly paradigm, but absolutely necessary. GWBush made the right and correct decision to finally, finally enforce the UN mandates that had gone unheeded for 12 years. The UN did not. Someone had to step up to the plate...that was us. If not US, then who?
I hope you comment again.
Post a Comment
I disagree a bit with your comparison of the situation in Israel with that of Iraq. Things may be changing a little for the better in Israel. Maybe. The Palestinian leadership simply refuses to come to a peaceful agreement with Israel -- they would rather have the Jews all driven into the sea, i.e., expelled. Israel will never give up its fight (Hitler steeled their resolve). Eventually, the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and elsewhere will come round.
The war in Iraq is a mess, but it is no Vietnam. It is a very uncomfortable situation. If our current course of action in Iraq had no end objective, I would agree with you, re the apparent hopelessness of what is going on over there. But we have goals, one tactical, the other strategic. Tactically, the US is hell-bent for leather that those elections occur in January. Strategically, a free Iraq is an Arab country that totally changes the cultural climate in the MidEast. Their example will change that part of the world, and put serious long-term pressure on the terrorist culture.
War has always been an ugly paradigm, but absolutely necessary. GWBush made the right and correct decision to finally, finally enforce the UN mandates that had gone unheeded for 12 years. The UN did not. Someone had to step up to the plate...that was us. If not US, then who?
I hope you comment again.
<< Home
