10.08.2004
Bush/Kerry II
Bush wins -- hands down.
This was a different debate from Coral Gables. Bush "came to play", and play he did. Kerry's demeanor was that portrayed in his first performance: Bush was far more in command of his answers than in the first debate. Bush thrived in the different venue; Kerry showed he wasn't the extraordinary player the liberal media portrayed him to be.
Charles Gibson, moderator, was better than Jim Lehrer in keeping the questions fair.
Kerry never revealed his plan on Iraq. I believe Kerry nailed himself when, toward the end of the debate he said, firmly and unequivocally, "[Bush] made a mistake in invading Iraq." No getting away from that.
My better half said "It was extraordinarily arrogant to assume that nobody else in that hall, except Bush, Kerry, and [moderator] Gibson, would make more than $200,000 a year. That is such arrogance. I would never say something like that. The middle class is huge...if the middle class tops out at $200,000...that is riduculous and unrealistic...That is nothing to [Kerry]. That is just bad manners...you don't look around in a room full of people and decide that. It just shows his way of thinking. We don't even assume that the poorest looking person in a crowd makes less than we do, because we know how people are. That just really upsets me."
W went far to expose Kerry's 20-year record of liberal, soft-on-defense voting. Kerry didn't have a strong response -- tried to say 'labels' were disingenuous. You can't hide from your record.
The MSM will call it a 'tie' -- but the polls will call it like it was, a Bush win.
I have the feeling that the 'blogosphere' will have much red meat to chew on when the parsing begins, which has begun.
UPDATE:
Hugh Hewitt: No way to call this other than a big Bush win, and no amount of spin can change that. Kerry's defending Kyoto and partial birth abortion, and still hoping to turn the war into a win. It will not work. A great forum for the president. Great delivery. "Saddam would still be in power," says Bush...."Not necessarily still be in power, " says Kerry. No fair card can score this any other way.
Focus on Kerry's record was great. "You can run, but you cannot hide," great. A couple of missed opportunities, but no mistakes, and an unexpectedly good showing on tough questions like the environment.
Hinderaker at Power Line: My main impressions: One, I had underestimated Kerry. I've always thought of him as a rather dull-witted stiff. But that's wrong. He is a demagogue of some genius, like Father Coughlin or Huey Long, with, I think, the psychopathology that that implies. Two, Bush was much better tonight, more animated and energetic. He had several good spontaneous moments, one or two of which were funny. Did he "win"? Beats me. But he did fine; he certainly didn't lose any ground tonight.
My only complaint: for the last question to be, What were President Bush's three biggest mistakes, was ridiculous. Still, it was an OK event for the President.
Rick Brady at Stones Cry Out: Disclosure: Where did I get the idea that this debate was only about domestic issues? I thought for sure this was a topic specific debate. Oh well. Just heard the domestic degate is the next one. Blew that one.
First impressions: Kerry is very tough. Wrong, so very wrong, but tough.
UPDATE:
DJ Drummond at PoliPundit: If this debate had been a boxing match, John Kerry would be on his way to the Hospital, with two cracked ribs, six lost teeth, a broken nose, and a herniated disc.
Bush scuffed his shoes. He might need a band-aid or two.
The ref would have stopped this fight.
ANOTHER UPDATE: (Gotta quote the giant, Prof. Reynolds)
SUM UP: Overall, a pretty good performance by both guys, neither of whom is a stellar orator. As I've said before, my judgment on these things isn't to be trusted -- I thought Carter beat Reagan -- but it looks to me like a pretty solid Bush win here for two reasons. First, the expectations were low, and he was drastically better than the previous debate, especially in the closing statement. Talk about beating the point spread. Second, he stayed focused and on-message, and looked firm instead of exasperated. As some talking head said, Bush came to play tonight. He wins the comeback prize.
That's my take, but as I've said my judgment is suspect. We'll see what others think.
On the debate as a whole, well, it was pretty good and pretty substantive. A high point in the campaign, I'd say.
Prof. Instapundit was tuned to the Fox News Network! Gives it away, sir! That was Fred Barnes's quote, BTW.
FINAL UPDATE OF THE EVENING:
Fair and balanced for any liberal readers who may stumble through.
Jeff Jarvis: Draw. Which is to say nobody wins, including us. More lively. Both were more in command.
Come to think of it, if it's a draw, then it's a Bush victory, since this time, he was coming up from behind.
Bush wins -- hands down.
This was a different debate from Coral Gables. Bush "came to play", and play he did. Kerry's demeanor was that portrayed in his first performance: Bush was far more in command of his answers than in the first debate. Bush thrived in the different venue; Kerry showed he wasn't the extraordinary player the liberal media portrayed him to be.
Charles Gibson, moderator, was better than Jim Lehrer in keeping the questions fair.
Kerry never revealed his plan on Iraq. I believe Kerry nailed himself when, toward the end of the debate he said, firmly and unequivocally, "[Bush] made a mistake in invading Iraq." No getting away from that.
My better half said "It was extraordinarily arrogant to assume that nobody else in that hall, except Bush, Kerry, and [moderator] Gibson, would make more than $200,000 a year. That is such arrogance. I would never say something like that. The middle class is huge...if the middle class tops out at $200,000...that is riduculous and unrealistic...That is nothing to [Kerry]. That is just bad manners...you don't look around in a room full of people and decide that. It just shows his way of thinking. We don't even assume that the poorest looking person in a crowd makes less than we do, because we know how people are. That just really upsets me."
W went far to expose Kerry's 20-year record of liberal, soft-on-defense voting. Kerry didn't have a strong response -- tried to say 'labels' were disingenuous. You can't hide from your record.
The MSM will call it a 'tie' -- but the polls will call it like it was, a Bush win.
I have the feeling that the 'blogosphere' will have much red meat to chew on when the parsing begins, which has begun.
UPDATE:
Hugh Hewitt: No way to call this other than a big Bush win, and no amount of spin can change that. Kerry's defending Kyoto and partial birth abortion, and still hoping to turn the war into a win. It will not work. A great forum for the president. Great delivery. "Saddam would still be in power," says Bush...."Not necessarily still be in power, " says Kerry. No fair card can score this any other way.
Focus on Kerry's record was great. "You can run, but you cannot hide," great. A couple of missed opportunities, but no mistakes, and an unexpectedly good showing on tough questions like the environment.
Hinderaker at Power Line: My main impressions: One, I had underestimated Kerry. I've always thought of him as a rather dull-witted stiff. But that's wrong. He is a demagogue of some genius, like Father Coughlin or Huey Long, with, I think, the psychopathology that that implies. Two, Bush was much better tonight, more animated and energetic. He had several good spontaneous moments, one or two of which were funny. Did he "win"? Beats me. But he did fine; he certainly didn't lose any ground tonight.
My only complaint: for the last question to be, What were President Bush's three biggest mistakes, was ridiculous. Still, it was an OK event for the President.
Rick Brady at Stones Cry Out: Disclosure: Where did I get the idea that this debate was only about domestic issues? I thought for sure this was a topic specific debate. Oh well. Just heard the domestic degate is the next one. Blew that one.
First impressions: Kerry is very tough. Wrong, so very wrong, but tough.
UPDATE:
DJ Drummond at PoliPundit: If this debate had been a boxing match, John Kerry would be on his way to the Hospital, with two cracked ribs, six lost teeth, a broken nose, and a herniated disc.
Bush scuffed his shoes. He might need a band-aid or two.
The ref would have stopped this fight.
ANOTHER UPDATE: (Gotta quote the giant, Prof. Reynolds)
SUM UP: Overall, a pretty good performance by both guys, neither of whom is a stellar orator. As I've said before, my judgment on these things isn't to be trusted -- I thought Carter beat Reagan -- but it looks to me like a pretty solid Bush win here for two reasons. First, the expectations were low, and he was drastically better than the previous debate, especially in the closing statement. Talk about beating the point spread. Second, he stayed focused and on-message, and looked firm instead of exasperated. As some talking head said, Bush came to play tonight. He wins the comeback prize.
That's my take, but as I've said my judgment is suspect. We'll see what others think.
On the debate as a whole, well, it was pretty good and pretty substantive. A high point in the campaign, I'd say.
Prof. Instapundit was tuned to the Fox News Network! Gives it away, sir! That was Fred Barnes's quote, BTW.
FINAL UPDATE OF THE EVENING:
Fair and balanced for any liberal readers who may stumble through.
Jeff Jarvis: Draw. Which is to say nobody wins, including us. More lively. Both were more in command.
Come to think of it, if it's a draw, then it's a Bush victory, since this time, he was coming up from behind.
// posted by HunterByrd @ 7:40 PM 
