Perhaps by Friday morning there will already be some flash poll showing John Kerry has gained points after tonight's first '04 presidential debate. He spoke more smoothly and looked more comfortable than George W. Bush, but that's where his advantage ended, in my view.
Kerry stumbled badly in several respects, mainly by reiterating untenable positions on foreign policy. This election is not a contest for Prom King of the Globe.
First, Kerry erred in insisting more meetings with allies would lead to solving the problems in Iraq. "We're safer leading strong alliances," he said, as part of his ongoing and brainless suck-up to the United Nations and Europe.
Bush pummeled him repeatedly: how can you entice allies into a war you've called a huge mistake, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Bush summed up his view of global opinion thusly: "Trying to be popular in the global sense makes no sense, if it's not in our best interests."
Second, Kerry repeated the canard that catching Osama bin Laden should be the centerpiece of the war on terrorism. What foolishness. We could collar Osama this weekend, and the dozens of terrorist cells worldwide, their fundraisers and recruits would keep at it. Bush said we've caught three-quarters of Al Qaeda's known leaders; 10 million voters are registered in Afghanistan, Libya's been brought to heel, and the global battle against terrorist organizations and individuals continues, with the U.S. in a leading role, "on offense."
Who you vote for depends on how comfortable you feel with America's strong leadership role in aggressively combatting the greatest threat to our national security.
Third, Kerry looked foolish on North Korea, calling for an end to the same multilateralism he endorses with respect to Iraq. Bush pointed out the presence of the Chinese in the talks with North Korea is especially important.
Bush lobbed one up over the rim for Kerry to dunk when he spoke about changing the culture of the FBI. You knew Kerry would come back right away with the recent news the agency has failed to translate hours and hours of taped conversations between suspected terrorists. And he did.
Kerry did a decent job of defending his controversial vote against funding the Iraq War after voting to authorize the president to go to war. A decent job in that it was succinct, and some swing voters might buy it. But it still amounted to, "I didn't like the WAY" we were moving toward the decision; and he had already voted to give the president the power to make the decision.
From there, back to that "war as a last resort" meme, and Kerry's lame insistence we should have continued the U.N. weapons inspection charade with an uncooperative Saddam.
Content-wise, very little played to his advantage. But of course, personal vibrations are the great intangible. Some related observations.
Words often did not come easily to Bush tonight. He paused a number of times, trying to come up with the right phrase. More generally, his hunched-over body language suggested he felt he was going through something unpleasant and trying.
Yet Kerry's scriptedness was as much a drawback as Bush's occasional discomfort. An example: Kerry said, "I believe in being strong, resolute and determined." Translation: "my consultants and polls indicate I'm doing very poorly in this respect, and I need to address this in the debate tonight. So there, I said it. Now, please believe me."
Kerry tells us he's strong, resolute and determined, Bush shows us.
Despite his painful pauses, Bush also had moments where the words came quickly, were well-composed and delivered with great sincerity, clarity, and - take a deep breath Democrats - moral force. He said what he came to say - made his positions clear.
Bush did utter at least two "Bush-isms. One, he called the Iranian mullahs "moolahs," twice; two, he spoke of his "good relation," as opposed to "good relationship," with Vladimir Putin. And he pronounced "nuclear" wrong, as he has before, and doubtless will again.
Another thing: eye contact. Kerry almost never looked the camera (and thus viewers) in the eye. He was always riveted to the right, presumably locked on moderator Jim Lehrer, (or the audience? it was hard to tell). Bush often turned to address the camera straight on, looking right at viewers as he spoke to them. An interesting, and perhaps important difference.
Hard to trust someone who won't look you in the eye. Could be he doesn't really believe what he's selling.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 30, 2004 09:48 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/534
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Advantage Bush:
» thailand from thailand
thailand [Read More]
Tracked on August 4, 2005 08:31 AM
Not voting for Prom King? Is that a way of saying that Bush looked weak? Isn't that what Gore supporters tried to say when Gore looked awful debating in 2000? Kerry solidified himself as presidential tonight in a debate that was supposed to be Bush's strength. The seeds for the Kerry comeback story have just been planted.
Posted by: Tony at September 30, 2004 10:50 PMTony, first of all, thanks for sharing your views, even if we don't agree.
To answer your question, Prom King is, to my view, a popularity contest. I use the phrase because I think Kerry is too worried about our country's global popularity....especially with respect to Iraq, the world criminal court...etc...
I agree, Kerry looked better than Bush tonight...as I wrote in the post, he spoke more smoothly and appeared more comfortable....(with a few stylistic gaffes of his own, however).
But there was no new ground broken on the content, and his positions haven't put him in a good place so far.
This debate, on foreign policy, is the one that content-wise, voters care about most. So sorry, I don't see how this "plants the seeds" for the "Kerry comeback story."
Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at September 30, 2004 11:03 PMKerry "comeback"? Wishful thinking.
As Susan Estrich (a noted Democratic operator) noted before the speech, Kerry's problem is that he has not specified any plan to out-do Bush in Iraq, in the war against terror and so forth.
He has said, simply, he'll do better. That always begs the question: how? "We have to create a strong alliance." How? How exactly are you going to bring France to send troops to Iraq? "With a fresh start and more credible leadership." And how are you going to achieve that credibility? So on and so forth.
Estrich noted that, in this debate, Kerry will need to provide specifics of how he'd do things better instead of simply stating that he will simply do them better. If, instead, he simply repeats "Trust me, I can just do it better," Estrich implied that the current polling ratio would not change, and he'd lose in the end.
Now I ask all of you. Did Kerry provide any specific plans? Did he explain just exactly how his administration would "train Iraqis better, faster"? Did he explain how he will bring France and Germany into the Iraq War (after calling it the wrong war as the President noted) and get them to send more than "a few thousand troops" or any number of troops other than, just maybe, a handful of "advisors"?
I think the answer is clear. That, more than any Bush pauses or word manglings, will set the final course for this election.
Posted by: James J. Na at October 1, 2004 01:11 AMQuite apart from the question of whether Senator Kerry is a flip-flopper, changing his position on Iraq to fit the electoral moment, his current stance on Iraq is fundamentally incoherent.
Senator Kerry now insists that the invasion of Iraq was a "colossal error in judgment" because it was an attack on the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet he also wants to claim that this opinion will not demoralize our troops, asking soldiers to die for a mistake. As the president noted repeatedly, one cannot hold both views simultaneously. If we are attacking the wrong enemy in the wrong place, the only logical course is to withdraw immediately and start fighting the right enemy in the right place. No doubt an immediate withdawal would add to the peril in Iraq, but how can continuing to fight the wrong enemy in the wrong place fail to do even more damage?
No president can cast doubt on the larger purposes of the war and expect the men and women under him to risk their lives fighting for them. That is a recipe for disaster that will cause the present difficulties in Iraq to pale in comparison. And that is the real consequence of Kerry's "plan." Iraq is not Vietnam, as Kerry's supporters imply, but his election will go a long way toward making it one.
Posted by: Tom Rekdal at October 1, 2004 10:05 AM