10/8/2004
AFTER-WORD
The President clearly and easily won this debate. He was reassuring, seemingly forthright and knowledgeable, and he seemed on top and in control of his situations and events that affect the country.
President Bush was on top of the game and he spoke directly to the voter. Kerry was unable to speak directly to the camera when asked. He didn't seem prepared to lead the country in what is an era unlike those he experienced for most of his Senate career. He seemed uncomfortable with that Senate career, and he invented several things. He didn't negotiate the Kyoto Treaty and he and Clinton didn't balance the budget together.
This one will be fun to digest over the next several days. Please read my Debate Notes, taken as the debate was ongoing, in the posts below.
3 comments
3 Comments:
I have a theory. Big deal, you say? Well...I think it's a good one.
Karl Rove and George Bush knew the MSM's "Comeback Kerry" stories were written long before the first debate. Their own polls told them Zogby, AP, Ipso and the other alphabet pollsters had gone deep in the bag for Kerry in September, inflating Bush's numbers and setting up the "comeback".
My theory - they took the expectations game and turned it on its head. They designed a strategy for ALL the debates, not just each debate. My justification - Bush doesn't perform near expectations in the first debate, confirming the agitprop that's already written; but he eliminates any expectations for the second debate - he cna't go anywhere but up. For the second debate, where else can the polls go unless he shows up drunk and babbling? Even a slightly credible performance means the artificial inflation has to be washed out - and Bush has a guaranteed COMEBACK! The perceived momentum shifts, the story has to become how does Kerry catch up, or the MSM loses even more credibility. Kerry comes into the third debate angry and desperate to score.
Well...it's a theory.
By David L, at 10/9/2004 12:25:58 AM
I agree whole heartedly. Bush has always been about winning the war, not the battles. He's letting Kerry use up all his ammunition now, and, more importantly, forcing Kerry into a corner. Kerry has made specific comments during the debates in front of a national audience that he can't retract.
While I'm hoping for shock and awe during the 3rd debate, I'm not going to hold my breath. Bush's base is secure and a smackdown won't get him much. The other thing is that Bush is targeting female voters. During the debate they saw Bush attack an insult (Kerry's remark about the coalition) and then return to being the warm fuzzy guy again. And tehy saw Kerry sputter.
What counts now is getting fodder for the stump speeches and TV ads in swing states. After the next debate, I'm looking for the Bush campaign to rip into Kerry like a grizzly bear (in a gentle way of course). Kerry will no longer have a national audience and won't have a chance to refine or explain the nuances of his positions.
Bush's strategy has already forced Kerry to shore up his base, leave some states, and put him on the defensive. A defensive Kerry is a whining Kerry, and Americans hate whiners. Even when on the offensive, Kerry is doing nothing more than reacting to whatever it was Bush said the day before.
Kerry has lost out on the Vietnam war hero thing, is severly backpedaling from the "L" word, and to this day can't say anything about Iraq without adding a "but" to it. He got away with this before the debates, and now, when he is supposed to be re-introducing himself to America, is being harshly defined by Bush. During the last debate Kerry started in again about how [paraphrasing] "I will never subject American defence to a veto...". I thought to myself that he actually seems to mean it this time, let's see if says "but." Honestly, I didn't think he would. After a long pause Kerry continued, [exact quote] "but...".
Bush has Kerry's number and is playing him like a violin.
By Anonymous, at 10/10/2004 03:55:17 AM
Vive la France! Off with his head. I'm ready for my cake.
By Anonymous, at 10/10/2004 09:30:03 AM
