Torog
10-09-2004, 04:50 AM
Debate Analysis: President Bush Brings His ''A'' Game
www.crushkerry.com (http://www.crushkerry.com/) ^ | 10/8/04 | www.crushkerry.com (http://www.crushkerry.com/)
George Bush ate his Wheaties tonight. And it worked. That's not to say John Kerry was awful, but tonight George Bush came to play. And Kerry's "I have a plan" is going to be this week's "hard work" as the phrase of derision.
Even though nearly all the questions from this supposedly "non-partisan" group of people (they were all lefties) did not focus one bit on John Kerry's horrid 20 year record President Bush did a million times better defending his record than he did last week. And can anyone doubt our earlier report that liberal groups have scammed Gallup into thinking they're "swing voters". And while John Kerry did OK on debating "points" he seemed far more defensive and negative and offered platitudes, not plans.
We can already tell you the signature line you'll be hearing from the news media, and likely on GOP commercials probably already in production - John Kerry saying "??I??ve never changed my mind about Iraq.? Good God, he's going to regret that. And his big gaffe was treating the audience like "little people". He implied he could tell no one in the audience makes over $200K a year just by looking at them. And right there is the elitist John Kerry we have come to know and love.
Now let's move on to the examination of what went right and what went wrong.
JOHN KERRY - FOREIGN POLICY PLUSSES
There's really not a whole lot here to talk about except for one very good point. He hit back pretty well when he said that "Generals win the war, Presidents win the peace". That's exactly right, and a fair criticism of what is going wrong there. Although it doesn't take into account that no plan survives reality you face.
It was also obvious right from the start that Kerry was going to hammer the President on the Duelfer report, which given the way it has been spun in the press is a good strategy. He also did a good job on spreading the fear of a "backdoor draft" and played on the chattering classes talk of not having enough troops.
If you are one of those people that believes all we need to win the war is allies then Kerry did reasonably well on this issue. Most people don't realize that our "allies" are either useless or corrupt. Kerry clearly came in with a plan of action on what he wanted to talk about in this area and he stuck to it. He didn't get thrown off track by President's righteous attack on his record, because he's smart enough to know he's a loser there. He also did a great job of tying domestic points helpful to him into these answers.
JOHN KERRY - FOREIGN POLICY MINUSES
This is a simple one. To say that "I've never changed my mind on Iraq" is laughable. We won't go into all of the reasons why. Just watch this video.
Strategically his constant reference to trying to bring allies on board was bad, especially in light of the Duelfer report and the general feeling among most Americans about the corrupt and feckless French and Germans. Even worse was his insistence that "sanctions" worked in Iraq and those sanctions would have put Saddam either "dead or in jail". Oh really? How? If the MSM does its job it will point out that the sanctions were being skirted by Saddam, who was bribing people to end the sanctions and start up his WMD program. And bringing up the name Hans Blix to justify your point isn't a winner
Kerry almost seemed to be talking to the world and apologizing to Europe for the decisions we've made in Iraq and on things like Kyoto. There's John Kerry's foreign policy in a nutshell - "We're sorry, we'll be nicer". That may play well in the salons of the Upper East Side, but not in real America.
His worst answer was the one on Iran. Why? He said that "we couldn't rely on sanctions alone". Then why did he say earlier that we should have relied on sanctions in Iraq. And to say that he couldn't tell us why we haven't been attacked since 9/11 because it's "secret".
Kerry's lack of a foreign policy game plan got exposed tonight.
GEORGE BUSH- FOREIGN POLICY PLUSSES
Hard to point to just one big one because what was so good about the President's performance tonight was his forceful and sincere defense of his Iraq policy and doctrine of preemption. He was able to draw a sharp contrast between he and Senator Kerry on how best to defend America and supported his view by something more than a "flip-flop" argument. His command of facts and the articulate way in which he stated them tonight (far different than last week) that we think connected with the American people.
Perhaps the answer that made us cheer the most was his argument that a President cannot make decisions based on how popular the choice is in Europe. His weaving in of President Reagan's history with the Europeans. What he seemed to be saying was "Hey, we live in the real world, and this utopia Senator Kerry is talking about is pure fantasyland".
His attack on Senator Kerry for being "naive and dangerous" (at least twice by our count) on issues of national security made sense in light of the recent reports of Saddam corruption of the UN Oil For Food program, especially when Senator Kerry was going on about our "allies" not wanting to help us. Quite simply George Bush told us the truth that European countries are not really allies. The mention of not negotiating with Arafat also scored points with the Jewish voters. And his outlining of his North Korea policy and denunciation of the Clinton bilateral talks was done far better than last week.
Finally the President did a good job of tying the war in Iraq to the war on terror in letting us know that the war on terror is not just in Afghanistan. And he did a nice job on following up on VP Cheney's criticism of Kerry's ignoring the sacrifices of the allies and picking up on the Howard Dean/Kerry turns anti-war connection.
GEORGE BUSH- FOREIGN POLICY MINUSES
For the third debate in a row (including the one with the VP) there was not an effective response to the "you lost Osama in Tora Bora" argument. You would have thought they would have had a response on that. The lie about the President "retiring" General Shinseki also needs to be answered or else it will become believed like the "you attacked Max Cleland's patriotism". Guys, just read the Bob Novak column on this. He also didn't do as good a job as he could in laying out specifics for how we're going to succeed and then get out of Iraq. Finally, he also should have hammered Kerry for fanning the ridiculous "draft coming back" argument. But mostly these weaknesses are just things he should have done to rebut Kerry, not what he said in his own defense.
JOHN KERRY - DOMESITC POLICY PLUSSES
His answer on not wanting "conservative" or "liberal" judges was good. We all know he's going to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and Stephen Breyer, but he did sound reasonable and was able to belie his liberal beliefs. He also did well on the fertile ground of the deficit saying "We balanced the budget". Well, even though "he" didn't do it it does resonate with swing voters, especially at a time when the deficit is rising (although not as a percentage of GNP). The jobs issue was also handled well by Kerry, albeit in a manner that's the "same old, same old"
Kerry also did well on the issue of importation of Canadian drugs. This is an issue that even some conservatives (especially those with elderly parents on fixed incomes) can sympathize with. The Bush argument of drugs that "keep you safe" doesn't exactly cut it when mom or dad is in pretty bad shape already. He also did a good job of speaking to the "Granola people' on the environmental issues, but really, who cares?
JOHN KERRY - DOMESTIC POLICY MINUSES
Surprisingly there were a great deal here on what's supposed to be his best subject (and gives us hope for the next debate). The abortion answers are going to kill him with Catholic voters (the ones who go to church). The utter tortured logic of his position here was evident for all to see. It was the same stammering idiocy we heard from John Jr. the other night when asked about his qualifications to be VP. The constant name dropping on the stem cell issue was a phony and transparent attempt to get the audience to sympathize with him knowing that his answer wouldn't do.
And he really did stare into the camera and promise not to raise taxes, if you earn less than 200K a year. (We wonder if Kerry could look through the screen and tell us how much we make?) Please, does anyone buy that from a Massachusetts liberal? And he got way to wonkish with the facts and figures that no one is going to remember tomorrow. His drawing attention to the fact that he's a lawyer didn't win him many votes. How can he say he and John Edwards are for malpractice reform? Does he think we're as dumb as the idiots on juries who take millions from the tobacco companies?
What's really going to hurt Kerry bad in OH and PA is the culture issue, and that was on display tonight. Kerry is way to the left of America on partial birth abortion, gay marriage and judges. Tonight you saw his discomfort with the topics. Look for the Bush people to capitalize on that in the coming days leading up to the "domestic policy" debate. The "I'm a Catholic" plea and the phony "I respect your position, I really do" line was bogus for all to see.
GEORGE BUSH- DOMESTIC POLICY PLUSSES
"Do I own a timber company?...Want to buy some wood". The laugh line of the night and the symbol for Bush being much more comfortable tonight and get the audience to laugh with him (actually a very important stylistic point). That said, he did a fantastic job of defending his economic plan this evening. He also put Kerry on the defensive for being a "tax and spend" liberal. Guess the "shock and awe" has started. There certainly was no "2nd half letdown" as there was in the first debate. Bush stayed as fiery and confident at the end as he did at the beginning.
He also scored some points on the Patriot Act. He rightfully told the idiot questioner none of his rights were violated and neither were anyone else's. We like how he stuck firm on that, especially when it was clear that other than ACLU types, nobody's got a problem w/ the Patriot Act generally. His response on the environment was surprisingly good, especially in an area where the GOP has historically been on the defensive. And his attack on the trial lawyers was well done.
He also finally started drawing attention to Kerry's miserable record. "You can run but you can't hide" will be replayed over and over again. It's also the kind of plain spokenness people like. Bush's shining moment however, was his defense of the "culture of life". Not only did it come from the heart and correct policy wise, it will undoubtedly mobilize the conservative base who have been longing to hear more about these types of deeply personal and important issues. He's surely trying to ensure that his religious base does not abandon him like they did his father by staying home on Election Day. The contrast with Kerry's contortions was refreshing and obvious. Look for this to be a much larger theme in the stump speeches in the coming days.
GEORGE BUSH- DOMESTIC POLICY MINUSES
Boy, did the President flub a hanging curve on the question about Judges. We were cringing when he started discussing the nuances of "Dred Scott" and what the Constitution says. He had a golden opportunity to rail into Kerry about holding up appellate judges and he blew it. This was fertile ground that he didn't do well on. Sad, because this could have fired up the base as well as tied Kerry to the liberal judges he holds so dear.
The idiotic "3 mistakes" question goes in this category not because the answer given by President Bush was bad, but because of how the media will play it. First of all, it was a rotten question to have last in that it focused only on "his" mistakes and not Kerry's (and where did Kerry's 20 year Senate record go tonight?). But most of all this has become a darling issue for the media - President Bush won't admit mistakes. He handled it well, but not well enough for the press - if that's even possible.
CONCLUSION
The President stepped up to the plate "big time" tonight. Perhaps it was the hour earlier time difference, but perhaps it's because he knew he had to stand and deliver tonight to prevent a possible Kerry presidency. He didn't bury Kerry tonight, but he didn't lose ground, and possibly gained some. Tonight the people saw the George Bush they know and generally like. A plain spoken, honest man with deep convictions and an iron will. They didn't get that last week. They got it tonight. There was no mumbling and scowling - but rather they got a PRESIDENT who acted and delivered the part, mainly because he was obviously comfortable in his own skin.
We're not saying Kerry was bad tonight. He is a very skilled debater who did about as good as he did in the first debate. But tonight that wasn't near good enough, mainly because a different opponent took the field. And if the same opponent shows up next week, John Kerry won't be happy. Bravo Mr. President, you made us proud.
www.crushkerry.com (http://www.crushkerry.com/) ^ | 10/8/04 | www.crushkerry.com (http://www.crushkerry.com/)
George Bush ate his Wheaties tonight. And it worked. That's not to say John Kerry was awful, but tonight George Bush came to play. And Kerry's "I have a plan" is going to be this week's "hard work" as the phrase of derision.
Even though nearly all the questions from this supposedly "non-partisan" group of people (they were all lefties) did not focus one bit on John Kerry's horrid 20 year record President Bush did a million times better defending his record than he did last week. And can anyone doubt our earlier report that liberal groups have scammed Gallup into thinking they're "swing voters". And while John Kerry did OK on debating "points" he seemed far more defensive and negative and offered platitudes, not plans.
We can already tell you the signature line you'll be hearing from the news media, and likely on GOP commercials probably already in production - John Kerry saying "??I??ve never changed my mind about Iraq.? Good God, he's going to regret that. And his big gaffe was treating the audience like "little people". He implied he could tell no one in the audience makes over $200K a year just by looking at them. And right there is the elitist John Kerry we have come to know and love.
Now let's move on to the examination of what went right and what went wrong.
JOHN KERRY - FOREIGN POLICY PLUSSES
There's really not a whole lot here to talk about except for one very good point. He hit back pretty well when he said that "Generals win the war, Presidents win the peace". That's exactly right, and a fair criticism of what is going wrong there. Although it doesn't take into account that no plan survives reality you face.
It was also obvious right from the start that Kerry was going to hammer the President on the Duelfer report, which given the way it has been spun in the press is a good strategy. He also did a good job on spreading the fear of a "backdoor draft" and played on the chattering classes talk of not having enough troops.
If you are one of those people that believes all we need to win the war is allies then Kerry did reasonably well on this issue. Most people don't realize that our "allies" are either useless or corrupt. Kerry clearly came in with a plan of action on what he wanted to talk about in this area and he stuck to it. He didn't get thrown off track by President's righteous attack on his record, because he's smart enough to know he's a loser there. He also did a great job of tying domestic points helpful to him into these answers.
JOHN KERRY - FOREIGN POLICY MINUSES
This is a simple one. To say that "I've never changed my mind on Iraq" is laughable. We won't go into all of the reasons why. Just watch this video.
Strategically his constant reference to trying to bring allies on board was bad, especially in light of the Duelfer report and the general feeling among most Americans about the corrupt and feckless French and Germans. Even worse was his insistence that "sanctions" worked in Iraq and those sanctions would have put Saddam either "dead or in jail". Oh really? How? If the MSM does its job it will point out that the sanctions were being skirted by Saddam, who was bribing people to end the sanctions and start up his WMD program. And bringing up the name Hans Blix to justify your point isn't a winner
Kerry almost seemed to be talking to the world and apologizing to Europe for the decisions we've made in Iraq and on things like Kyoto. There's John Kerry's foreign policy in a nutshell - "We're sorry, we'll be nicer". That may play well in the salons of the Upper East Side, but not in real America.
His worst answer was the one on Iran. Why? He said that "we couldn't rely on sanctions alone". Then why did he say earlier that we should have relied on sanctions in Iraq. And to say that he couldn't tell us why we haven't been attacked since 9/11 because it's "secret".
Kerry's lack of a foreign policy game plan got exposed tonight.
GEORGE BUSH- FOREIGN POLICY PLUSSES
Hard to point to just one big one because what was so good about the President's performance tonight was his forceful and sincere defense of his Iraq policy and doctrine of preemption. He was able to draw a sharp contrast between he and Senator Kerry on how best to defend America and supported his view by something more than a "flip-flop" argument. His command of facts and the articulate way in which he stated them tonight (far different than last week) that we think connected with the American people.
Perhaps the answer that made us cheer the most was his argument that a President cannot make decisions based on how popular the choice is in Europe. His weaving in of President Reagan's history with the Europeans. What he seemed to be saying was "Hey, we live in the real world, and this utopia Senator Kerry is talking about is pure fantasyland".
His attack on Senator Kerry for being "naive and dangerous" (at least twice by our count) on issues of national security made sense in light of the recent reports of Saddam corruption of the UN Oil For Food program, especially when Senator Kerry was going on about our "allies" not wanting to help us. Quite simply George Bush told us the truth that European countries are not really allies. The mention of not negotiating with Arafat also scored points with the Jewish voters. And his outlining of his North Korea policy and denunciation of the Clinton bilateral talks was done far better than last week.
Finally the President did a good job of tying the war in Iraq to the war on terror in letting us know that the war on terror is not just in Afghanistan. And he did a nice job on following up on VP Cheney's criticism of Kerry's ignoring the sacrifices of the allies and picking up on the Howard Dean/Kerry turns anti-war connection.
GEORGE BUSH- FOREIGN POLICY MINUSES
For the third debate in a row (including the one with the VP) there was not an effective response to the "you lost Osama in Tora Bora" argument. You would have thought they would have had a response on that. The lie about the President "retiring" General Shinseki also needs to be answered or else it will become believed like the "you attacked Max Cleland's patriotism". Guys, just read the Bob Novak column on this. He also didn't do as good a job as he could in laying out specifics for how we're going to succeed and then get out of Iraq. Finally, he also should have hammered Kerry for fanning the ridiculous "draft coming back" argument. But mostly these weaknesses are just things he should have done to rebut Kerry, not what he said in his own defense.
JOHN KERRY - DOMESITC POLICY PLUSSES
His answer on not wanting "conservative" or "liberal" judges was good. We all know he's going to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and Stephen Breyer, but he did sound reasonable and was able to belie his liberal beliefs. He also did well on the fertile ground of the deficit saying "We balanced the budget". Well, even though "he" didn't do it it does resonate with swing voters, especially at a time when the deficit is rising (although not as a percentage of GNP). The jobs issue was also handled well by Kerry, albeit in a manner that's the "same old, same old"
Kerry also did well on the issue of importation of Canadian drugs. This is an issue that even some conservatives (especially those with elderly parents on fixed incomes) can sympathize with. The Bush argument of drugs that "keep you safe" doesn't exactly cut it when mom or dad is in pretty bad shape already. He also did a good job of speaking to the "Granola people' on the environmental issues, but really, who cares?
JOHN KERRY - DOMESTIC POLICY MINUSES
Surprisingly there were a great deal here on what's supposed to be his best subject (and gives us hope for the next debate). The abortion answers are going to kill him with Catholic voters (the ones who go to church). The utter tortured logic of his position here was evident for all to see. It was the same stammering idiocy we heard from John Jr. the other night when asked about his qualifications to be VP. The constant name dropping on the stem cell issue was a phony and transparent attempt to get the audience to sympathize with him knowing that his answer wouldn't do.
And he really did stare into the camera and promise not to raise taxes, if you earn less than 200K a year. (We wonder if Kerry could look through the screen and tell us how much we make?) Please, does anyone buy that from a Massachusetts liberal? And he got way to wonkish with the facts and figures that no one is going to remember tomorrow. His drawing attention to the fact that he's a lawyer didn't win him many votes. How can he say he and John Edwards are for malpractice reform? Does he think we're as dumb as the idiots on juries who take millions from the tobacco companies?
What's really going to hurt Kerry bad in OH and PA is the culture issue, and that was on display tonight. Kerry is way to the left of America on partial birth abortion, gay marriage and judges. Tonight you saw his discomfort with the topics. Look for the Bush people to capitalize on that in the coming days leading up to the "domestic policy" debate. The "I'm a Catholic" plea and the phony "I respect your position, I really do" line was bogus for all to see.
GEORGE BUSH- DOMESTIC POLICY PLUSSES
"Do I own a timber company?...Want to buy some wood". The laugh line of the night and the symbol for Bush being much more comfortable tonight and get the audience to laugh with him (actually a very important stylistic point). That said, he did a fantastic job of defending his economic plan this evening. He also put Kerry on the defensive for being a "tax and spend" liberal. Guess the "shock and awe" has started. There certainly was no "2nd half letdown" as there was in the first debate. Bush stayed as fiery and confident at the end as he did at the beginning.
He also scored some points on the Patriot Act. He rightfully told the idiot questioner none of his rights were violated and neither were anyone else's. We like how he stuck firm on that, especially when it was clear that other than ACLU types, nobody's got a problem w/ the Patriot Act generally. His response on the environment was surprisingly good, especially in an area where the GOP has historically been on the defensive. And his attack on the trial lawyers was well done.
He also finally started drawing attention to Kerry's miserable record. "You can run but you can't hide" will be replayed over and over again. It's also the kind of plain spokenness people like. Bush's shining moment however, was his defense of the "culture of life". Not only did it come from the heart and correct policy wise, it will undoubtedly mobilize the conservative base who have been longing to hear more about these types of deeply personal and important issues. He's surely trying to ensure that his religious base does not abandon him like they did his father by staying home on Election Day. The contrast with Kerry's contortions was refreshing and obvious. Look for this to be a much larger theme in the stump speeches in the coming days.
GEORGE BUSH- DOMESTIC POLICY MINUSES
Boy, did the President flub a hanging curve on the question about Judges. We were cringing when he started discussing the nuances of "Dred Scott" and what the Constitution says. He had a golden opportunity to rail into Kerry about holding up appellate judges and he blew it. This was fertile ground that he didn't do well on. Sad, because this could have fired up the base as well as tied Kerry to the liberal judges he holds so dear.
The idiotic "3 mistakes" question goes in this category not because the answer given by President Bush was bad, but because of how the media will play it. First of all, it was a rotten question to have last in that it focused only on "his" mistakes and not Kerry's (and where did Kerry's 20 year Senate record go tonight?). But most of all this has become a darling issue for the media - President Bush won't admit mistakes. He handled it well, but not well enough for the press - if that's even possible.
CONCLUSION
The President stepped up to the plate "big time" tonight. Perhaps it was the hour earlier time difference, but perhaps it's because he knew he had to stand and deliver tonight to prevent a possible Kerry presidency. He didn't bury Kerry tonight, but he didn't lose ground, and possibly gained some. Tonight the people saw the George Bush they know and generally like. A plain spoken, honest man with deep convictions and an iron will. They didn't get that last week. They got it tonight. There was no mumbling and scowling - but rather they got a PRESIDENT who acted and delivered the part, mainly because he was obviously comfortable in his own skin.
We're not saying Kerry was bad tonight. He is a very skilled debater who did about as good as he did in the first debate. But tonight that wasn't near good enough, mainly because a different opponent took the field. And if the same opponent shows up next week, John Kerry won't be happy. Bravo Mr. President, you made us proud.