The View From Seattle By: Matt Rosenberg · Section: Election 2004
Redstate blog
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.
Posted On: Sep 30th, 2004: 22:23:52, Not Rated
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.
redstate.org |
