The View From Seattle
By Matt Rosenberg Posted in Elections — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
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.
Read on.
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. As Trevino notes, he did look "hunched" and "pinched," to me, as though he were going through something unpleasant and trying.
Yet Kerry's scriptedness was as much a drawback as Bush's tangle-tongue. 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.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The match race — Comments (7) »
The View From Seattle 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Substantively, he didn't make much sense. "I'll be more effective!" is not much of a selling point. But he was confident and looked competent and sufficiently presidential. Enough, I think, to have plausibly climbed back in this.
Bush, by the way, did about as well as we can expect from him. Good presence, strong principals, mostly poor delivery. He played a lot better on TV than on the radio.
It'll be interesting to see how Kerry goes on the offensive now. For his part, Bush needs to keep pressing it -- and the flip-flop attack should be retired for a more forceful "Kerry voted against every major weapons system" approach. Just like Connie Mack said in his Senate ads in 1988: "Face it Mike and Buddy: You're liberal!" Worked for Poppy.
Global test.
That sound you hear is the fat lady warming up her vocal cords.
"Bush did utter at least two "Bush-isms. One, he called the Iranian mullahs 'moolahs'..."
Dan Drezner looked this up, and apparently it's a legitimate pronunciation.
There were a number of opportunities for some really solid blows and/or knockout punches, and instead of landing them solidly, he gave glancing blows.
For example, the N. Korea thing. While Kerry did contradict his normal "lets do things through coalitions and the UN" stance, Bush didn't really point it out and connect the dots for the viewer.
I thought he could have been more disarming when Kerry did some of his fancy manuevering. Why not offer as an initial retort to some of the slip-sliding, "My opponent is good at debating and scoring rhetorical points. Unfortunately terrorists can't be debated into surrendering." or something like that...
He let Kerry slide on the 87 Billion. It wasn't his talk that was the problem. It was his vote.
He let the debate be framed in a defensive light too much. It is easy look defensive and shifty if you are constantly defending your actions. He should have finished his responses with some direct questions. For example, he could have asked Kerry if war with Iran or N. Korea would have been preferable (in response to the point about our troops being tied up in Iraq). He could have asked Kerry to explain remarks such as the 87 Billion remark (before the vote), or the coalition of the bribed, remark, etc.
I really thought Bush would bring some of Kerry's quotes back to haunt him. He did a little, but he could have done more, and been more specific with some of the quotes.
He could have scored a good hit with Kerry's insistence that another round of resolutions would have dealt with Sadam by saying something like "Yes, that is what France said too." It would have been a good way to frame that ludicrous stance without having to spend a lot of time deconstructing a tired argument.
Oh well, those are just some of my thoughts....
Maybe with all that, I am asking Bush to be something he is not: a great debater.
have hammered Kerry on his vote against the 1991 Gulf War while we supposedly had this archetypical coalition.
People said that Walter Mondale won the first debate against Reagan. Reagan cleaned his clock afterwards.
And just like Mondale (who at least stuck to one position), Kerry will only win his home state.
Substantively in isolation I think the debate was a wash. Both sides scored points at the other's expense and made distinctions on the big topics. But overall I think Kerry wins simply because he tied on the opponent's turf. Now Bush has two away games.
which I think is more significant. I half expected the attack-dog Kerry. Restraining that part of himself did more good than anything he could have said to win "points."
better debating his Cicero than Richard Perle did with his(Chomsky). Honestly, neither Bush or Kerry are very good debaters. It just comes down to the best bad presentation.
is unfortunately what the majority of the Left will vote for. It is also what many of those just reaching voting age will vote for. They want us "respected in the world"..
One thing I heard Kerry say last night, that I haven't heard again, was his explaination of how he would have gone about opening the Iraqi front. After talk of UN, inspections, he went on to say the he would have continued to talk with our "allies" and that all it would have taken to get them to join us was to find out just what it would take for them to join us.
This after calling the collition "bribed and coerced."
Also the opening up of contracts to lure others in. Maybe Kerry is just upset that we bribed the wrong allies.
To be fair most Right voters are just as shallow as the Left voters. They'll vote for Bush because they like Laura, or think the daughters are hotties, or some other grounds completely devoid of reason. And I say that only because I'm certain none of those type frequent RS.
who can really say what Kerry's views on Iraq are still? Nobody. He wasted his last chance.
Matt you nailed it. I posted my predictions stemming from the debate at http://hamiltonspamphlets.blogs.com/
AH