La Shawn Barber’s Corner » Bush 1, Kerry 0

10.01.04

Bush Addendum: What’s going on? My fellow conservatives disagree with me? I still love them.

Addendum II: I’m getting a mini “Bushalanche” from the good conservatives at Blogs for Bush.

Addendum III: I’ve got some cool commenters, including the ones who don’t agree with me. Thanks for your participation!

AmericanThinker-lanched? Nice

****

There’s plenty of buzz around the blogosphere to keep you busy, but here’s my brief assessment.

Let me say this for the record: I am a biased conservative. I went into the debate with the full expectation that PBS’s Jim Lehrer would throw softball questions at John Kerry and put George Bush on the defensive. As a public television liberal, he fulfilled his mandate!

I listened to the debate on the radio because I didn’t want “body language” distracting me, and my ears tell me that George Bush won the debate. While I wish my president were a more articulate, forceful and powerful speaker, he is definitely a man of substance, unlike John Kerry.

If Kerry believes he’s a better man for the job, he didn’t prove it last night. What do we really know of Kerry’s positions? Did anything change last night? He kept repeating ad nauseam that he’d do this differently or that differently, without going into specifics.

George Bush is a deeply disliked man among the liberal set, and we all know that Lehrer is a liberal, whether he believes so or not. Like it or not, detractors, that is a very important fact. I don’t have to know Lehrer personally to know that he was biased in favor of Kerry.

As I listened to the debate, I was neither surprised not upset that Kerry got all the easy, open-ended questions. In fact, it probably worked in Bush’s favor. Liberals are everywhere, and no one should have been surprised that the moderator would likely be a liberal. Bush had to answer tough questions, but he stayed on message, unlike Kerry, who tended to drift off into answering questions not asked.

To my ears, Kerry sounded pompous and condescending, especially when he talked about the troops and our allies. And the context in which he used the word “global” unnerved me. Unlike Bush, Kerry is the kind of man who’d put America’s national security in the hands of globalists. Only a raging leftist would think that’s a good thing, people.

One big factor in Bush’s favor is his support for our troops. He stressed over and over that mixed messages will not work and criticizing our allies, the people also sarcrificing their lives for freedom, is foolish.

This post will be updated with fresh links around the blogosphere (Did you ever notice that Instapundit links to the same bloggers over and over again?), and I look forward to reading your assessment of Debate #1. Some bloggers are really parsing the event and mining the debate transcript. See the transcript here.

Commenters, let the game begin!

For links, click here…. *******

News Media: Liberal Boston Globe says, “President’s armor undented.”

For the debate facts, visit GeorgeWBush.com.

Deacon at the Power Line blog thinks Kerry won the debate. Blogs for Bush is for Bush, of course. Daniel Drezner and Hugh Hewitt sound off. Check out Michael King’s assessment and Political Musings’s analysis

INDC Journal declares a draw. See Beldar’s take on the first debate. Captain’s Quarters says lefty magazine says Bush won.

Update: You simply must check out Dean’s assessment. Also see my blogbrother DC Thornton’s comments. Wizbang says free-form is Bush’s forte. More from INDC Journal. Power Line links to the scorecards. Slip of the Pen is mining the transcript. Blogicus has an excellent round-up of bloggers’ opinions.

Evangelical Outpost has a post up about the debate. Truth Laid Bear comments on Jim Lehrer’s performance. More from Blogs for Bush. Expertise is disappointed in Bush.

Allah speaks! Booker Rising calls it a draw.

Update II (12:08 p.m.): Ronald Wieck at The American Thinker says Kerry won the debate but lost the election, and Thomas Lifson tells Kerry, “No Sale.” Samantha says, “And Bush has facial expressions, who knew? I had a few facial expressions myself during the debate. I guess that’s something Bush and I have in common. Makes me like the man even more.”

Protein Wisdom’s verdict: “Senator Kerry will be having the cedar-smoked salmon salad with toasted walnuts and Buffalo mozzarella; President Bush will have the pork chops.”

Blogbrother Michael Bowen says: “[H]e gave me the impression of a man solidly and confidently in control. But he also gave me the impression that he just wishes he could curse Kerry out and show him what for.”

Crowhill: “And now, the important part of the debate.”

Posted by La Shawn @ 6:01 am Permalink
Filed under: Bush Good

120 Comments

La Shawn,

You’re right. You are a biased conservative.

Simply repeating that Kerry ‘changes positions’ and ’sends mixed messages’ doesn’t make it true.

Kerry was stalwart, forceful, and provided more specifics on his plans to win the war on terror that the President did last night. Pres. Bush started off the night bewildered, but found his voice and message later on. He did not find specific policy measures that proved his administration deserved four more years.

The random gaffe where Bush spoke “Saddam Hussein” where he meant “Osama bin Laden” couldn’t have happened at a worse time, as Kerry reminded voters that Saddam’s Iraq did not attack the US on 9-11. Since Pres. Bush believes so strongly in the notion that the Moslem countries of the world desire and should have Western-style freedom and democracy, he should provide the basic courtesy of being able to tell them apart!

At the end of the day, I’ll be surprised if many voters change their minds about either side, but I think its safe to assert that Sen. Kerry, on specificity in policy and overall presence, won the first debate. Sorry.

Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 10.01.04 @ 6:50 am

Why be sorry? Your opinion is your opinion. I’m not sorry about any of mine.

Comment by La Shawn — 10.01.04 @ 7:01 am

Realistically? I think (as I mentioned over at my place) that it was a draw. Neither candidate truly picked up any new supporters (from that all-important “undecided” category), but neither one bled any off either.

Though Kerry spouted off the first thing that came into his head — whether it was contradictory or not — Bush lost several opportunities to take those and put him away. Bush was much more deliberate with his delivery, and unfortunately seemed to be at a loss for words at more than one point.

Neither candidate truly was able to capitalize on the other’s shortcomings, and the tightly controlled format did not allow for much true give-and-take. I’m looking forward to next Friday’s “town hall” debate, and hoping that there will be more candor from both sides at that one.

Comment by Michael — 10.01.04 @ 7:20 am

Thank God someone else saw the same debate I did. After watching some of the after debate commentaries and reading some of the news this morning, I had to ask myself…”Were these people watching the same debate?” All I keep hearing is how Kerry was firm and explained what he would do and put down the naysayers regarding his flip flops. Huh? Did they miss the many times he said “Saddam was a grave threat; he needed to be removed BUT …”. I don’t get it.

I also was deeply concerned by Kerry’s continual comments about “getting Global support”. Although he tried to make the point that he would go after terrorist, he made more comments about “Global approval” and support. When he stated we needed to “gain” the respect of the UN and the other nations (i.e. France), I almost feel out my chair. Gain respect? Is he clueless to the Oil-for-Food fiasco? His beloved UN and possibly France and others helped Saddam make billions, while they made a few of their own and the Iraqi people suffered. Is there any question WHY the UN and the so called “real coalition members” didn’t want to go after Saddam?

Yet again…. Our media shows its “pro-Kerry” head.

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 7:20 am

So little was expected from Kerry, due to his negative
press leading up to the debates, that the fact he didn’t totally make a fool of himself was a positive.

Bush looked tired, and clearly annoyed by the continuing ankle biting by an unclear, confused, negative follower. As usual, Bush exuded clear, resolute, positive leadership, in contrast.

Like La Shawn said, Bush was the man of substance in the debate and common sensed Americans will see the difference.

There will be little or no poll number movement.

Comment by Jim R — 10.01.04 @ 7:24 am

“Global Test??!!”
Anyone else bothered by Kerry’s use of the term ‘global test’ and how Bush doesn’t pass it? Update: Dean Esmay, Jeff and Cox and Forkum are bothered, seems like no one else even heard Kerry utter the words. Updated Update:…

Trackback by She Who Will Be Obeyed! — 10.01.04 @ 8:01 am

Friday Morning Quarterbacking
As I savor my first cup of coffee and chew on all of the commentaries from last night, I think most pundits can agree that last night was a draw. Kerry had to step up last night, and he did.In…

Trackback by Ramblings' Journal — 10.01.04 @ 8:04 am

Yes She,
It bothered me, just like his comments about “gaining or earning” respect of the internation community. What sorta crap is that? That’s like saying I won’t fight drugs in my community until I gain the respect of the dealers…ummm…hello…what’s wrong with this picture. It makes you wonder what sort of concessions Kerry is willing to make to “pass” this Global Test or gain respect. Now that is SKERRY!

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 8:06 am

Renee, I agree with you on the bit about “Thank God someone else saw the same debate I did” - I’m not believing how some are declaring this a decisive victory for Kerry. I just don’t see that at all. Neither candidate ‘drew blood’ last night.

Comment by Sister Toldjah — 10.01.04 @ 8:15 am

My favorite comment was Kerry’s admission about the $87 billion and his subsequent lame attempt to throw stones at the President. I’m sorry, but what did his acknowledging that he made a mistake in how he spoke about the war actually mean? That doesn’t even make sense. The question was how did he actually manage to vote on both sides of an issue.

Comment by Michael Dixon — 10.01.04 @ 8:19 am

Dear LaShawn,

I couldn’t agree with you more. For me the debate was won and lost on the phrase “passing the global test.”

Comment by Mad Minerva — 10.01.04 @ 8:22 am

Kerry made a Big Mistake. (I only wish GWB had caught it._ See The Astute Blogger:
astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2004/09/treblinka-square.html

Comment by Anne Lieberman — 10.01.04 @ 8:28 am

Disagreeing
La Shawn Barber, who writes with ease due to her intellect, is one of my favorite bloggers. I look at her blog daily and usually find myself agreeing with what she puts down on…paper. This morning I cannot agree with her observation that George Bus…

Trackback by Right Journal — 10.01.04 @ 8:34 am

I tried using the trackback feature but apparently it is not working. I call it is draw but I don’t think it will have an impact in November.

Comment by J Thomas Lowry — 10.01.04 @ 8:36 am

It’s working. For some reason your comment was held up in the “holding area.” I know you don’t agree with me, but I like your assessment. Thanks for the link!

Comment by LB — 10.01.04 @ 8:39 am

Kerry’s performance was like that of a man on a first date. The man opens the door for the woman, pulls out her chair, compliments her, etc, etc. He put on his best “performance”, using scripted smiles, hand gestures, arm movements, an intonation. Any man that is coached on how to smile, however, can’t be trusted, “I’m sorry!”

Comment by bucktowndusty — 10.01.04 @ 8:40 am

Post-Debate Roundup
Here are few takes on the debates last night. I hope to post more today: —————————————- —————————————- Jared Bridges: True Pravda Elect Local, Ask Global The candidate of uncertainty’s “global test…

Trackback by ~Neophyte Pundit~ — 10.01.04 @ 8:51 am

La Shawn,
From a purely public speaking persepective, I think that Kerry probably came across better. I was disappointed that Bush passed up some golden opportunities to really take Kerry to task over some of the things he put forth in the debate. Kerry’s insistence that we should go it alone with regard to negotiating with North Korea, yet deal with all our other problems in “global” way just makes no sense.

His assertions that our trops went in without body armor is also an “urban myth”, It’s true that only frontline units had the absolute latest style, but all troops have body armor and are required to wear it. His assertions on the lack of armored Hummvees rings more true, but I think using these type of vehicles at all in the environment we are seeing in Iraq is foolish. An upgraded Hummvee is only protected against small arms and shrapnel, it is still far too fragile for this type of work (I’ll stop on this here, before I get on a rant).

Kerry still did not lay our exactly what he would do differently in Iraq, other than to have sat around waiting for the UN to act. I can assure you that if we had gone that route we’d still be waiting. When Kerry brought up Sudan, it was a prime moment for Bush to say “Well John, the genocide going on right now in the Sudan is a good example of what waiting for ‘global approval’ get you: a state of paralysis while the problem grows worse”.

I do wish that Bush hadn’t looked quite so annoyed while Kerry was talking, but then, I probably had the same expression on my face because I was certainly annoyed by many things the Senator had to say.

Comment by Montie — 10.01.04 @ 8:53 am

I love how liberals and conservatives both claim their man won decisively. I dont think its as black and white as this. I DO think however that it will put Kerry up in the polls, and, technically anyway it should end drivel that Kerry is ‘indecisive’ and ‘weak,’ as his plans are not only detailed, but a lot more so than Bush’s.

Comment by Omar — 10.01.04 @ 8:59 am

The morning after
La Shawn Barber gives her perspective this morning on the debates last night as someone who listened to them rather than watched (good idea - I may do that with the next debate). Her view? Bush 1, Kerry 0.

Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 10.01.04 @ 9:07 am

The following exchange says it all for me. John Kerry has said over and over again that Iraq was a hugh mistake. But when the question was put to him he changes his position again. Now I know who the media means when they talk about the undecided.

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put — that I’m offering.

Comment by Keith Harris — 10.01.04 @ 9:10 am

Lashawn,

All we need now is a little pixie dust and good directing, and we have a first rate fantasy movie.

Having watched Bush for many years, I had expected him to go toe to toe with Kerry. I was surprised by how poorly he did.
For example, he often seemed angry when Kerry was pointing out errors in his administration. We all know he is not big on admitting his mistakes, but it was not a pretty sight.
In addition, his attacks on Kerry appeared to pre-rehearsed and did not really fit the context or flow of the debates. I think he has been too insulated from real public opinion and has not had to build a case against Kerry. Repeating catch phrases and stump statements appeal to conservatoves - I see that they are quite pleased by some of his statements. I don’t think “mixed messages” came across as well as the whole “flip-flop” chant, but that was not polite as it were.
Third, the lights actually clearly backfired for the president and his team. There were several times where he had finished his pre-rehearsed respponses and did not appear comfortable stopping. It was almost as if he were praying for the yellow light to come on.
Fourth, perhaps his best ziinger came off flat and uninspired. I thought hey everyone,, why not join us in the grand diversion would have been a great comment, but he did not seem to possess the rhetorical gumption and gas to carry it off.
Fifth, contrary to what many believe, Bush needed to put Kerry away in this debate and did not seem focused enoug to do so. He could have clearly used Kerry’s unilateral talks statement with North Korea as a tool to uniwnd him, but failed that test. By letting Kerry use his rhetorical skill and many years of anecdotes and experience to seem presidential, Bush has lost his edge. I don’t think he made the “flip-flopper” image stick, as Kerry was clearly more resolute, focused, and articulate. But we’ll see what the people think.
His strongest moment was when he talked about “what global test”. I thik Kerry erred badly in not explaining that further, but he will still have a chance to do so.
I did not feel as bad for his deer in the headlights momentsb as I did in his first debate with Gore. I came away feeling sorry for him being placed in a position where he couldn’t hold his own. But the spin Drs. turned that one in their favor.

And my guess is that the masters of character assassination will be up to the task.

So, let’s roll out the pixie dust, cause the president sure is gonna need it.

Comment by scott — 10.01.04 @ 9:11 am

I was really annoyed when Kerry babbled on about bilateral talks with North Korea and the “Global Test”. I agree with Montie that the UN as an organization is completely useless and for America–a soverign nation–to wait for the UN to act is too dangerous for America.

How would John Kerry help the U.S. pass this so-called “Global Test” when in the eyes of the world, we have already failed miserably? New credibilty,what does that mean?

Comment by Marvin Watts — 10.01.04 @ 9:15 am

LB

I’ve just been reading you for a few days now, but I wondered last night if you were feeling pandered to by JFK as Mr. Neumayr suggests this AM? I expect we will hear a lot more of that sort of thing in the Domestic Issues debate from the man that thinks Treblinka is in Moscow.

By George Neumayr
Published 10/1/2004 12:47:36 AM

Notice how quickly Kerry is willing to use the American military when America’s security isn’t at stake. His “Darfur” babble was more than just pandering to the Jesse Jacksons of the Democratic party; it revealed Kerry’s view of the U.S. military as nothing more than a humanitarian errand boy for the United Nations.

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich — 10.01.04 @ 9:19 am

I didn’t read many ‘decisives’ from conservatives here. If you have an inside to Kerry that would give us details on a ‘plan’, other than “I will do it differently and better” of course, please don’t keep us holding our breath.

Comment by Jim R — 10.01.04 @ 9:21 am

Dean’s right - Kerry made major mistakes that are Bush campaign ad-ready and Bush did nothing of the sort. That’s the real bottom line.

Comment by Ian S. — 10.01.04 @ 9:23 am

Previous post directed to Omar comment.

Comment by Jim R — 10.01.04 @ 9:23 am

DEFINING MOMENT

With the ‘…global test..’ position held by Senator John Kerry, there is no way any Patriot can vote for him and I’ll tell you why. The President of the United States must, first and foremost, defend NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. With that one statement, the Senator revealed he believes the Sovereignty of the United States of America is not as important as world opinion, and that opinion dictates what we should and should not do.

No other nation comes first! No other body of nations comes first! National sovereignty means decisions are made to protect and defend YOUR nation regardless of what others think. That must be primary ESPECIALLY to the leader of that nation. That IS his purpose as the leader.

What ultimately defines these two men? President Bush will defend the sovereignty of the United States of America. Senator Kerry will not. President Bush has not and will never give up. Senator Kerry has and will surrender to populist opinion.

Comment by armond decker — 10.01.04 @ 9:26 am

I hate to admit my lack of public spirit to the entire blogosphere . . . but I neither watched nor listened to last night’s debate. It’s not thatI didn’t care who would win—I was (and am) pulling for W. It’s that, in my ‘umble opinion, the pre-election “debates” aren’t real debates. Instead of argument, we get scripted rhetorical potshots.

I admit that it may be unrealistic of me to expect argument. So let me say that I’d accept a little free-wheeling, hand-to-hand combat—the kind of stuff you would have seen and heard had you been in the audience during one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (which did contain some argument, too).

Why are the debates so un-debate like? I hate to sound like a broken record—or, to update, a scratched CD—but, amopng the many reasons why, surely one of them is TV, which by its very nature as a medium encourages politicans’ tendency to image-manipulation. I mean, TV is all about image-manipulation. And when TV becomes the one truly national “real-time” forum for political discussion . . . well, watch out.

Thanks for letting me rant a little.

Adrian

Comment by adrian — 10.01.04 @ 9:28 am

I think that Bush missed several opportunities to slam Kerry. he brought up his senate record but didn’t go into details - missed.
He could have mentioned more about the 87 million vote - once is not enough.
I heard Kerry talk about his plan but I still don’t know what it is.
Kerry did good - Bush could have done better.
I’m still for W…WWWW
sharon

Comment by sharon — 10.01.04 @ 9:29 am

” I was neither surprised not upset that Kerry got all the easy, open-ended questions. In fact, it probably worked in Bush’s favor.”

This does not make sense, each of them answered the same questions, one just got to go first. And seeing it on television made a difference, as Bush really looked to be struggling with what to say, he was often looking down through notecards like a kid who did not do his homework!!

Comment by Rollins — 10.01.04 @ 9:31 am

Bush missed the opportunity to nail sKerry when he said he would stand up two more divisions and 40K mor Special Forces. Do what? With what? By the time this fantasy calvary, along with the support infrastructure and equipment, comes to the “rescue”, we may well be winding down operations in Iraq.

The global approval, and Iraq needs to be multilateral, and North Korea needs to be bilateral, and his many contacts with foreign leaders over the years in senate, were all subjects that Bush could have bloodied him on. As far as MSM spin goes, I think its a draw — Fluff over substance.

Comment by Andy — 10.01.04 @ 9:32 am

I do have to agree that the President may have missed some key opportunities to hammer home some of Kerry’s major flip flops (there was more than one occasion that President Bush let the fact that Kerry voted against the 87 Billion, he only slammed him once on it). Kerry even flip flopped quite a few times when giving his response to his flip flops on Iraq (amazingly I don’t see that hammered home in the media).

Kerry didn’t say anything profound, he did not give a plan (except for to chase after the UN and the “global” community for permission) for how to handle the War on Terror or Iraq. He reaffirmed my belief that he is more concerned with popular opinion than he with our security.

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 9:33 am

Listening to the debate on the radio apparently left me with a different impression than watching it on TV. The reason I chose to listen only was to hear what these men had to say. John Kerry had no substance. He didn’t say anything we haven’t already heard, and he offered no solid or specific information about what he’d do differently or better than President Bush.

Comment by LB — 10.01.04 @ 9:49 am

“I DO think however that it will put Kerry up in the polls,”
The debates pretty much never yield more than a one or two point bounce for a candidate. I doubt that this time will be any different.

“and, technically anyway it should end drivel that Kerry is ‘indecisive’ and ‘weak,’ as his plans are not only detailed, but a lot more so than Bush’s.”
Yeah, his plans are *really* detailed. “I’m going to do things more effectively” and “I’m going to do things smarter” REALLY inspire my confidence that Kerry’s put a lot of thought into this. :/ And where he *has* revealed details, it serves to demonstrate how weak and indecisive a leader he is: ceding control of the operation to the bunglers at the UN, all as a means of paying lip service to “restoring US alliances around the globe” (and all the while denigrating our *actual* allies, who have been standing with us all the while). Kerry’s performance at the debates was, as Jerry Seinfeld once said in an episode of his TV series, “a show about nothing”.

Comment by AWG — 10.01.04 @ 10:05 am

“I love how liberals and conservatives both claim their man won decisively.”

Lots of conservatives aren’t saying that.

Comment by actus — 10.01.04 @ 10:07 am

Some think Kerry won the debate while others feel Bush did. One thing we must all look at is substance in what was said. Kerry talks about a plan to get th U.S. out of Iraq, yet we heard absolutely no specifics. We heard “pie in the sky” rhetoric from Kerry. Kerry was a little more articulate than Bush, but he still didn’t really say anything different than what we’ve already heard. Kerry didn’t deliver the one two knock out punch he needed. I don’t think he swayed any voters one way or the other.

On the other hand, Bush did okay. But, he could have been better prepared and didn’t jump on many of the things Kerry said. Bush was a little disappointing and had the opportunit to really clobber Kerry. At times, Bush really struggled for words in response to questions and allegations. This bothered me because I wanted to see him clearly win the debate.

Perhaps, Bush will be more together during the next debate. I certainly hope so.

Comment by JDA — 10.01.04 @ 10:14 am

Yay!! La Shawn.
This is why I have made you one of my top links (literally, see my blog). You are a great writer, and articulate your opinions clearly. You have made me a loyal reader.

God bless you. Keep up the good work!

Comment by Joshua — 10.01.04 @ 10:19 am

First Debate Round-Up Favors Kerry
Here is a wrap-up of the Bush-Kerry debate from various sources (including a few liberals). My opinion is that Kerry won style and presentation while Bush won substance. Since perception is the key to marketing it would be hard not…

Trackback by bLogicus — 10.01.04 @ 10:19 am

I could not help from thinking about the troops in the field doing the job and the debate made me sick. John Kerry is cheap and not worthy to lead, well any way I done my part and voted for Bush already via absentee.

Comment by Dex — 10.01.04 @ 10:19 am

Bush was repetitive, droll and lacked a single usable soundbyte. That means he didn’t win the debate. Kerry smacked him with the idea that he wasn’t a flip flopper because he has a single ongoing Iraq policy and described it rather well. Bush didn’t challenge him on details. So, that claim stood unchallenged, along with quips about Haliburton.

Comment by jason — 10.01.04 @ 10:21 am

(hate to be abstract here, but) Who won the debate? The federal government which will increase in size, taking more of our taxes, regardless of who is elected.

Comment by bucktowndusty — 10.01.04 @ 10:23 am

La Shawn, like you, I only heard the debate and Bush won the debate hands down. Kerry couldn’t stay on topic and Lehrer did not ask him questions about his senate record. Go figure.

Comment by RepJ — 10.01.04 @ 10:30 am

“Who won the debate? The federal government which will increase in size, taking more of our taxes, regardless of who is elected.”

To get abstract, I thought the debate commission won. It was a good debate. I thought the rules were goign to be too restrictive, but it did a good job of keeping the focus. There was substance (as much as can fit in 2 minute responses) for those who want that. There was style for those who want that. The 90 minutes flew by.

Comment by actus — 10.01.04 @ 10:40 am

‘Lots of conservatives aren’t saying that.’

True, but a lot are still….certainly here. A lot of liberals dont back Kerry’s stance either, mostly because hes not half as anti war as made out.

‘ceding control of the operation to the bunglers at the UN,’

Even though Bush and co have called for the same thing - for Iraq to be an International effort. Even Rumsfeld has said the burden should be shifted more in the direction of International troops and the fledging Iraqi force. Its a logical step, and actually one i back. Now that the deed has been done, i dont think pulling out is an option, however bad the war is going.

‘all as a means of paying lip service to “restoring US alliances around the globe” (and all the while denigrating our *actual* allies, who have been standing with us all the while). ‘

How is it denigrating them? Its a fact Bush has tarred US global relations all over the world. Kerry wants to fix them, and bring International respect back to the Whitehouse. Woo, what a bad thing!

Comment by Omar — 10.01.04 @ 10:41 am

It is amazing how our preconceptions skew things. You say Bush stayed on topic? He seemed to me to ramble and mumble, while Kerry was clear and concise. You complain Kerry said nothing new, but what did Bush other than his campaign slogans?

There is plenty for both campaigns to spin into new commercials, but I think what most people saw with their own two eyes was Kerry in command, and Bush mumbling.

Comment by Rollins — 10.01.04 @ 10:46 am

La Shawn I kept waiting on President Bush to get a jump on Kerry, President Bush is not a debater, like the polished Senator with 20 years experience, Kerry was quick to blame the President for his mistakes, but what has he done in the 20 years he’s been a Senator. I know television will make Kerry out to be a winner, but his own people were caught saying it was a draw. President Bush looked as if he wanted to just hog tie the Senator on some of his foolish answers, “group hug” answers, global help is not coming, the United States does not have the same view as France and Germany, or Russia. No matter who is in office, “we the people” still makes the vote. Senator Kerry looked well prepared on the television, but his words had no substance, checking the facts will prove this, but the media will not check the facts, they will only go by the polls. Hey, has anyone ever been called to answer any of these polls. I’ve never been called. Who are they polling? FactCheck.org has listed where Senator Kerry misspoke, I wonder if anyone will correct the well polished politician. President Bush has still got my vote, I know he’s not the debater everyone wants him to be, but he’s a good leader. Four more years, Mr President.

Comment by sergeantjones — 10.01.04 @ 10:46 am

Dear Lord, I am agreeing with Omar and Actus!!! Once again, it must be bizzaro Friday here at LBC!

Anyway, I’ll agree with Omar, in that many people saw the win go to their man, and the outcome for them was decided before the debate.
I’ll go with Actus, in that not all cons saw a Bush win, and add that I know libs that were very dissapointed with Kerry.

My take: Kerry talked the talk, but said alot of nothing. He said he would lead allies to the table, but never said who or how. And never answered the charges about dissing our allies in England, Australia and esp Poland. At one point, when Bush repeated the charge that Kerry puts down our allies while claiming to be an alliance builder, he said he never put down the troops in Iraq. But I expected side steps like that from Kerry. Mostly, I heard alot of exagerations, and not much substance of what he would do different, other than that he would do it differently.

For Bush. Deer in head lights… and the smirk. He got some good remarks off, and he recovered from some of the questions very well, like the first and last questions, that were very loaded (not that none of Kerry’s weren’t either [I like Lehrer for that]). But all too often, he did the ahhhhhh, um,… Just a shame to waste 20 of your 90 seconds with hemming and hawing.

Both of them were showing the strain. Both at one or more points confused Saddam and Osama, though both caught the mistake before concluding their answer or rebuttal.

For the tough questions, I think Bush got more fast and curve balls, but I can’t say Kerry only got slow pitches.

Most importantly, for W, is we have seen Kerry in a debate against Bush now. We know where he went, and where he might go from here. This gives Bush, Rowe and others more to work with for the next debate (and I think in the next debate, he will be keep the same strategy, but hit differnt data points). Bush was Bush, no surprises there. That means if W changes formula for the next debate, it may be more likely to catch Kerry off gaurd.

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 10:47 am

what nuke facilities was Kerry speaking about in Iraq…. “That’s exactly where we find ourselves today. There’s a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn’t guard the nuclear facilities.” Huh?

Comment by sharon — 10.01.04 @ 10:54 am

La Shawn,
I came across your blog quite by accident. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and critical thinking. I have never responded in writing like this, so please be patient.

I don’t think the “debate” (podium or town hall) will ever be in the Presidents best interest. He simply has too much information. He is still the President of the United States with plans and stratagies in place around the world.

The challenger, Kerry, can toss out accusations and false inuendo that the President cannot refute in detail, because of the sensitive nature of the topic. For example, Kerry tossed out the comment that he would “…increase the number of special operations”. Whether that was men or missions, he wasn’t clear. Nonetheless, the President can’t respond to those types of challenges in any detail without putting at risk those very lives and missions. So, general statements and sound bites get used.

I’ve read comments where people say the president wasn’t quick off the draw or stumbled on his words. I would be the same way if I was being careful in my responses and maintaining the dignity and responsibility, of the office of the President of The United States.

Comment by Srephen Schultz — 10.01.04 @ 10:57 am

Go Stephen, if we look at it in the area of sensitivity, President Bush did the correct thing. A sitting President is not going to let the press get a hold of classified material he has privy to. Democrats will release sensitive information by saying an anoynmous source has stated so and so. So good job, Stephen. FOIA and Privacy Act material is unknowingly and unfamiliar to the majority of our US civilians. Loose lips do sink ships.

Comment by sergeantjones — 10.01.04 @ 11:03 am

I have heard and read many people’s opinion the President didn’t “go for the throat” on many Kerry gaffs. Well, I for one, admire the president for not doing so. Everyone knows too well the gaffs and holes in Kerry’s platform. He even had the nerve to talk about his part in “that war” again last night. I respect the president for not taking the easy way, the cheap shot or even the oppportunity to tear Mr. Kerry apart. Discretion is the better part of valor anytime, anywhere. His participation in the debate will not lose this presidency.

President Bush was tired from a long day of touring the aftermath of recent hurricanes. Mr. Kerry was on top of his game due to the fact that he spent some time at the spa. While personal grooming is important, I’d rather see a president off his game because he’s been working. It is selfless sacrifice, not self indulgence that makes a good president.

Comment by cooper — 10.01.04 @ 11:07 am

Post-Debate Analysis
After having subjected myself to much of the punditocracy, both on-line and on television, I’m not certain that this is an entirely effective effort. But I think that it is still worth doing. Who won? Who lost?

I’m not convinced that there …

Trackback by :: Political Musings :: — 10.01.04 @ 11:13 am

The thing I heard Kerry say over and over….”I’ll do it better….smarter…..I have a better plan” without going into specifics. When Bush would nail him on the different positions…Kerry would just stand there and nod. It was amazing.

Comment by Rose — 10.01.04 @ 11:15 am

You guys work fast! Fifty-four comments already. Bush won that debate! Tell me why you think he didn’t.

Comment by LB — 10.01.04 @ 11:23 am

Good post

Comment by Joshua Claybourn — 10.01.04 @ 11:27 am

LaShawn,
All in all, I score it a draw. Bush didn’t perform well enough to call it a win, and Kerry said nothing of substance, just a repeat of “I would do it better, I would do it smarter, I would bring allies together” without saying how.
And for a man who says we were wrong to take on Iraq alone (though we didn’t) he’s pretty eager to go to North Korea alone.
Maybe one of his relatives has a business deal prepped for N Korea, ala Vietnam.

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 11:30 am

Bush had a solid second half in the debate, although the beginning questions by Lehrer were slanted against Bush.

Three observations:

1. Reduce the length of the debates. 90 minutes with John Kerry really increases the likelyhood of alcohol and substance abuse among the general population.

2. I thought terrorism was the greatest threat to the USA, not nukes spreading. Both guys dropped the ball on this question.

3. Bush reaffirmed his steadiness and leadership qualities but let pass many counterpunch openings that Kerry gave him. Bush could have worked in words such as ” defeatist,” “isolationist,” “tell the men in Specials Forces we let Osama go, Senator,” “Let’s examine the Senator’s voting record on defense measures to understand his true view on national defense and safety,” and finally, “We don’t need a permission slip to defend our country.”

Just some feedback ….

Comment by Michael — 10.01.04 @ 11:33 am

The bottom line from my point of view:

Nothing has changed…

Those who are for Bush are still for Bush, those who are for Kerry are still for Kerry…

The undecided’s well..

It all depends if they are for “all talk and no action” or “a little talk, a lot of action”

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 11:35 am

Oh yes…
Excellent posting LB. We can’t stay away.

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 11:41 am

“Kerry made major mistakes that are Bush campaign ad-ready and Bush did nothing of the sort. That’s the real bottom line.”

I agree Ian. Fox News did mention that the Democrats were planning an ad that showed the different facial expressions that Bush displayed during the debate. I guess they decided they can’t get him on the issues of the debate so they’ll get him on appearance. Figures.

Comment by Cool Tester — 10.01.04 @ 12:01 pm

The coup de grace of the entire debate was when Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Kerry were on stage together. Mrs. Bush latched on to Mrs. Kerry and thrice did not allow her to pull away, while John was pulling on Mrs. Kerry’s arm to lead her off stage. This presented a preception that Mrs. Bush was embracing, but Mrs. Kerry was shunning Mrs. Bush. Whoever gave Mrs. Bush her instructions on that is a genius.

Comment by Joel (No Pundit Intended) — 10.01.04 @ 12:02 pm

La Shawn,
I might not have this right, but I could have sworn Kerry said that his not voting for the 87 billion was a mistake, but in the next few sentences I think I heard him saying he stood by the vote and some blabbering about not apologizing for his position. I might have this wrong, so I’d appreciate your help if you (or anyone else) heard anything like it. I do remember the follow-up about only making a mistake in talking about the war, when in fact it was the vote to support the troops that was being discussed.

I couldn’t tell - was it a mistake to vote that way or not?

Comment by Mark Grimes — 10.01.04 @ 12:12 pm

Listening to the debate on the radio, rather than watching it on TV, was a great idea. However, for most people watching on TV, unfortunately, debates are judge 70% on presentation and only 30% on substance, so by that standard, I’d have to give the debate to Kerry. I also feel this debate will help Kerry with undecided voters, because, in my opinion, many of the undecided voters are less than informed on issues concerning North Korea or how bilateral discussions could be the dumbest thing a presidential candidate could suggest. Most undecided voters wouldn’t have cringed when Kerry mentioned “global approval” as a prerequisite for national security. I also don’t think many undecided voters are aware of the significance of the “mixed messages” Kerry has sent to our troops and to the world, even though Bush attempted to push this as an issue (in a less than articulate manner).

However, I think the worse outcome of this debate was the opportunities continuously missed by Bush. Example: When asked whether or not Bush felt going to war with Iraq was worth the amount of lives lost, Bush had a good opportunity to add perspective to this telling question. He could have mentioned how previous presidents may have been faced with the same question during WW1, the Korean War, WW2, and Desert Storm, but how these presidents were steadfast in their decisions and, subsequently, history tells us that those brave soldiers died as heroes and not in vain, as many of his opponents supporters would like to suggest. Then he could have rambled on about his visits with soldier’s family members and how this war will make future generations more secure around the world.

In conclusion, Kerry’s primary objective was to “look” presidential and in this debate he was successful doing so (even if it was in a plastic sort of way). I only hope Bush can elaborate more on his opponent’s positions, before the election.

Comment by blanko — 10.01.04 @ 12:19 pm

I didn’t watch the debate, but judging but what I’ve read in the comments it appears that John Kerry is now positing some sort of global test for America. I wonder if he gets elected it would mean that the French and Germans and the rest of our “allies” will get to vote in our elections.

The reason the global approach won’t work is because Europe doesn’t want it to. They’ve already said they are not going to support us even in their man (Kerry) is elected.

There is just a huge gulf between America and Europe and it’s not going away any time soon.

Comment by Phil Dillon — 10.01.04 @ 12:25 pm

Obligatory Presidential Debate Commentary
There are 3,576,342 other people on the internet right now, telling people what they though of last night’s “debate” so why should I be any different? Remind me not to go into journalism for this very reason. For what it’s…

Trackback by Nykola.com — 10.01.04 @ 1:06 pm

Which candidate do you think provided hope to the terrorists?

Comment by Gin — 10.01.04 @ 1:09 pm

I wished I would have been smart enough to LISTEN on the radio as well…

Comment by Jennifer — 10.01.04 @ 1:36 pm

La Shawn,

Wow, pretty good run of comments since I last checked in. I just thought I’d add a couple more items that I think Bush let slide that certainly deserved challenging.

1) Kerry’s claim that he will equip and deploy 2 more divisions for the Army. I’d like to know what lamp he’s going to rub to bring that wish about. He already claims we have spent too much, how does he intend to pay for 2 divisions worth of manpower and equipment (never mind the fact that it would take a year or more to get them up and running if you had that many standing at the recruiting center ready to sign up)? Kerry seems to be of the “promise ‘em the world to get elected, once you’re in they’ll never remember” school of politics.

2) Kerry’s statement that he would have given Iran nuclear material TO SEE WHAT THEY’D DO WITH IT! What was he thinking? Which incidentally would have been a good line for Bush on rebuttal: (Excuse me Senator did you say you would give Iran nuclear material too see what they would do with it? What are you thinking? We KNOW what they’d do with it!

3) The debate forum would have been a great place for Kerry to actually tell us what he plans are, that are so much better than what Bush is doing. Simply saying “I would have done things differently” is not enough. The only things I have heard him articulate on the campaign trail are things Bush is already doing!

4) Kerry keeps saying he would have brought in more allies, Bush should have pressed him on exactly who he might have brought on board that we did not try to get to help prior to going into Iraq. France, Germany, Russia? Not a chance (Although I think Putin may be a little more malleable if we need to go into another terrorist state, now that the’ve had it first hand).

Comment by Montie — 10.01.04 @ 1:38 pm

LB

I’ve heard a lot of commentary like this “While I wish my president were a more articulate, forceful and powerful speaker”
I go back to the old saying “If bullshit was music, John Kerry would be a brass band”

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich — 10.01.04 @ 1:40 pm

Post-Debate Wrap-Up… We Called It!
George W. Bush mopped the floor with John Kerry. Kerry did try to make it difficult for Bush to respond by simply not answering the questions asked. Bush showed he’s a straight-talking, no-nonsense leader who has core convictions and sticks to them, …

Trackback by Generation Why? — 10.01.04 @ 1:45 pm

The Presidential Debate: Bookeristas Comment
What do our black moderate and conservative peers say?

Trackback by Booker Rising — 10.01.04 @ 1:49 pm

I solidly agree BUSH won the debate..like the post above I thought I had been watching a different debate once I started listening to the post debate commentators and looking at the quick polls…in search of confirmation of my opinion I happened along a site…www.onlinepolitics.com..here lies the answer …the Kerry campaign not only had 170 rebuttals ready before the debate, they also had Media , supporters, ready to pounce..there are your polls…a DVD was also ready to go…the media has become so biased now they are aiding in hiding the truth..if it wasn’t for this site and others I would be actually scared how the media is trying to manipulate our votes…THANKS FOR THE GOOD WORK

Comment by Deb — 10.01.04 @ 1:55 pm

PS….I think we should all write into Sean Hannity and have him ask LaShawn on….She is becoming quite well known among the bloggers and she has undoubtly impressed many of us with her thoughtful insight………How about it…let’s write Hannity….

Comment by Deb — 10.01.04 @ 2:00 pm

Noooooooo…

Comment by LB — 10.01.04 @ 2:05 pm

I pretty much agree with the multitude of points pro & con and said what I’ve got to say about the debate.

I just want to second Deb’s comment about getting La Shawn on Hannity. For once, if not often, I’d like to hear, rather see her at her best.

Comment by Andy — 10.01.04 @ 2:08 pm

Wictory Wednesday 15 on Wriday: The Webate
Today is my 1st WICTORY WRIDAY. Well, actually it’s Wictory Wednesday 15, 2 days late.. This week, I’m gonna just comment on last nights Debate, and just suggest you check out the Friday Morning Quarterbacking of some…

Trackback by Sneakeasy's Joint — 10.01.04 @ 2:31 pm

Deb:
“I solidly agree BUSH won the debate”

You could say it was a “Mission Accomplished.”

Comment by actus — 10.01.04 @ 2:47 pm

Kerry - Good on appearance and delivery, a Debate Club President type performance. Will/got most of his high scores just for that since most cannot keep up or receive the words of the rather bland responses. But his words will live on and come to back to haunt him later, and that is when people, standing round the water fountain, chatting, trading observations, will finally recognize him for what he is, a tail-between-the-legs appeasing pro-UN waffling Euro-ist. Not really the American for America.
Bush - Weak delivery and perceived uncertainty. Bad for the short term. But if you got beyond the blandness of the delivery, the words were strong and certain. His vision grand and illuminating.

Time will prove this. I predict LANDSLIDE

Comment by Dave Clark — 10.01.04 @ 3:11 pm

Just cannot stand it. Must elaborate.
Here are my thoughts / Evaluation of Debate and Candidates:

1. Which candidate do you think provided hope to the terrorists? The candidate who says (among other negative things) “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”; John F. Kerry. … He is behaving much like he did in 1971: Say and do anything to get what he wants; all else be damned.
(More mistakes for Kerry: He again mentioned, more than once, “my service”, i.e. VietNam. Another display of arrogance and disrespect, particularly in light of his highly questionable, antiwar testimony in 1971.)

“Hope is on the way?” For the enemy, John Kerry???

2. The UN is corrupt. This is a fact, and the only unknown is just how much corruption is there within the UN. Yet, John Kerry seems obsessed with giving more power to the UN, for example in relation to U.S. security. … i.e , “outsourcing U.S. security”.
Another Kerry mistake.
(Note the oil-for-food scandal has been nowhere on Kerry’s radar screen. An effort to protect France?)

And a “global test”????…. What nonsense is that??

3. John Kerry seems obsessed with world opinion / “world consensus” / being liked. Foreign policy is NOT a popularity contest. … How old is Kerry, twelve?? Mistake for Kerry.

3a. It seems to me that John F. Kerry is really campaigning on behalf of the French, with more loyalty to France than to the United States. (e.g., See Kerry comment relating to Halliburton myths; myths that have been disproved by the way. And FYI: Clinton used Halliburton instead of a French company, too. In the Balkans. That was fine and dandy, John Kerry?)

Side notes: Additional Analysis of Kerry and European Foreign Policy.
Kerry has also criticized significant downsizing of the presence of U.S. troops in Europe (finally after 50+ years). Even though it is very unhealthy for the European continent to be so heavily reliant on the protection the U.S. provides, not to mention the unhealthy reliance on the U.S. for jobs and beaucoup U.S. dollars spent there ($billions), Kerry still protests.
What I see happening with Kerry: He understands that socialistic policies are failing; failing BADLY across old Europe. Kerry is adopting positions in reaction to this and on behalf of countries such as Germany and France in an effort to help prop them up, and thus help those countries “succeed” with socialistic policies. Kerry would then be able to use them as examples to convince Americans to adopt similar policies, even though the hoped for “success” of leftist policies would continue to be an illusion.

(Add to this the more “friendly”, excusatory and even cowardly posturing by some European leaders in regards to Islamo-fascists, the future looks even more bleak for Europe.)

4. Bush seemed preoccupied during the debate. … How I see this? Bush has more important things on his mind than debate-related attacks from John Kerry. (Perhaps the terrorist attack in Iraq, where many children were murdered? Perhaps the plight of hurricane victims?) John Kerry seemed to be interested only in taking liberal, hot-topic pot shots at George Bush and his administration. (Kyoto? ICC? Both VERY bad and flawed policies / ideas. Only good if you want to undermine the U.S.)
Predictable John Kerry behavior? Yes. … Wise? No.

To me, this says a great deal about the two men. Kerry is most interested in defiling the sitting President to gain power (often referring to democrat disinformation such as the draft lie), Bush is concerned about steadfastness and success in the war on terror (often repeating himself during the debate), an important war which Bush is conducting as a primary duty as President, while campaigning as well.
(Also note: How much time has Kerry spent doing his duty in the Senate? Little. Manicures and tanning treatments are more important, I guess.)

5. This year has been brutal as far as negative media, books, movies etc. From what I’ve witnessed, at least 90% of the negativity, hateful books, plays about assassinations, movies, slanted news casts, propaganda, Hollywood slandering, TV-show pot shots, billionaire-funded negative ad campaigns … are all directed at vilifying and destroying President Bush.

As for John Kerry, he gets a little heat from the Swift Vets’ ads (asking legitimate questions instead of propagating liberal-incited myths) and he kicks and screams and whines “not fair”. When Kerry is confronted with his inconsistencies and misinformation, he arrogantly snubs and then spins out yet another position.

Which man do you think will succeed (do right by the United States) as a consistent and reliable LEADER under intense pressures?

Which man is RIGHT NOW a positive, focused American leader, regardless of intense pressures? George W. Bush.

President Bush has displayed more backbone and courage than Kerry could ever dream of … and Bush has done so with dignity and respect. (And with little help from the main-stream media, aka the Kerry propaganda machine.)

George W. Bush, given all he has to deal with as the sitting President of the U.S., sadly including vile (and factually unfounded) hatred from HIS OWN FELLOW CiTIZENS, demonstrates grace under fire and steadfastness in resolve.

Bush gets my vote. Not even close.

The future of our country is on the line - President Bush is by far the better choice for all Americans, and for all who love freedom.

Comment by Gin — 10.01.04 @ 3:16 pm

Actus,
Great insightful commentary about the debate and the candidates over at your blog.

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 3:17 pm

LaShawn on H&C… I’d TiVo that.

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 3:18 pm

SCSIwuzzy:
Thanks. I try.

Comment by actus — 10.01.04 @ 3:25 pm

God bless you.
I find it refreshing when I can find conservative people. The libs don’t seem to know how to discuss anything without sparking hatred.
I think the debate was a draw, maybe slight advantage Bush. Kerry won style Bush won substance. I think the next few days will see the president evolve as the clear winner but we have to wait until they untwist all of Kerry’s words…
Big Dog

Comment by Jim Gerkin — 10.01.04 @ 3:30 pm

If Hannity isn’t reading La Shawn already, then he’s missing out.

Comment by RepJ — 10.01.04 @ 3:33 pm

Actus,
Not very hard. Your last article was on 9/28.

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 3:35 pm

Who cares which candidate “won” the debate? What is important is the character and the record of the individual. And these issues are quite clear.
Anyone who would base his/her vote on the person who is more glib or articulate is an idiot. That’s how you pick a salesman not a leader.

Comment by Rick Bridgeman — 10.01.04 @ 3:41 pm

SCSI:
Somehow the slinger of sarcasm can’t recognize it.

Comment by actus — 10.01.04 @ 3:51 pm

Let’s stay on the topic of the debate in this thread, please.

Comment by LB — 10.01.04 @ 3:53 pm

Someone above mentioned Kerry’s claim of bringing in two divisions as a way to solve the problems in Iraq. Something Kerry fails to remember is that under President Clinton, we got rid of TWO divisions…. all in the downsizing after the COLD WAR and all those great Generals that he claims support him said we didn’t need a BIG ARMY, all we need is an Air Force, a Navy… a Marine Force to clean up and maybe a little Army…

Some on your commenters, like myself, are former military and remember those days well.

Comment by Renee — 10.01.04 @ 5:21 pm

Kerry won the debate. But who cares he won’t win the election

Comment by HiRez — 10.01.04 @ 5:28 pm

DEBATE RECAP: KERRY DIDN’T GET NEEDED KNOCKOUT
Kerry is behind Bush in the polls. He needed a major effort to make an impression on the American people on why he should be commander-in-chief. He had to shake things up, dramtically. John Kerry failed in that mission.

Trackback by The Galvin Opinion — 10.01.04 @ 6:41 pm

Actus,
Don’t assume that it was meant for your benefit

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 9:52 pm

Darn it, now I am agreeing with HiRez!!!!
It is offically Bizarro Friday!

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.01.04 @ 9:53 pm

My Reaction to Debate One
The aristocrat vs the cowboy. Result: a wash.

Trackback by RIGHT ON RED >> — 10.01.04 @ 10:54 pm

I thought I was going to have to excuse myself to throw up if Kerry said one more time that he had been in the service and he knew how our service men felt.
1. he could never know how they feel, because he was not like them. He was a turn tail.
2. He voted not to fund them as an act of protest. What an
UnAmerican thing to do. Voting to send them to war and then, like a spoiled child, punshing them for going.
3. He is just a plain Jerk and doesn’t know how most people live.
Kathy

Comment by Kathy — 10.02.04 @ 12:01 am

Bush 1, Kerry 0 -by La Shawn of La Shawn Barber’s Corner
This great post comes from La Shawn Barber’s Corner. Go to her site and read the comments people have left in response to the following post.
I just discovered La Shawn’s blog. Man, I have been missing allot, and so have you if you don’t know who s

Trackback by biblegeek.blog-city.com — 10.02.04 @ 12:07 am

“Kerry was stalwart, forceful, and provided more specifics on his plans to win the war on terror that the President did last night.”

His specifics were right out of the fairy tale the Kerry has been living in his entire life. Those “specifics” work in Hollyweird movies and no where else.

Comment by Sharpshooter — 10.02.04 @ 12:16 am

Ok, this post has become addictive:-) I really wish I had listened to the debate as opposed to watching. (I still thought the President had the solid answers and was not impressed by Kerry’s manucure or slick talk). I’m used to how the President speaks in staged environments or when upset about something (hell I do it too, a great majority of us do). It’s one of the “normal” qualities I like about the President.

I printed out a copy of the transcript to review some of the comments based on what I have been reading on other blogs and the news. The President comes off so much more forceful, decisive, confident in his postion on Iraq. I know most of the media did not get that impression because they were to busy focusing on the visual and not listening to what either men were saying. Most people were so impressed by the visual that it almost seems they convinced themselves that Kerry actually said something meaningful. Reading the exchange about North Korea and pre-emptive strike really makes you relate to what the President was saying and clearly shows Kerry talked a lot but said nothing. It also highlights even more how pro “Global/International/If it’s popular I will do it” leaning Kerry is and how very “America First/Forget popular if it hurts the America” the President is.

Overall I have learned a lot today reading all the comments from all sides and I really hope the Presidents advisors are out surfing the blogs becasue there is a lot of good advice they could have used last night and can use in the future.

Comment by Renee — 10.02.04 @ 12:29 am

Wonderful comments!! I didn’t listen or watch the debates; I was on Blogs for Bush seeing the comments from Matt, Mark, and company. They picked up on Kerry’s fairytale propositions and miscues. They also pointed out where W missed many opportunities to skewer the Donk. W must have been exhausted and off his game. I thought he would really tear Kerry up. This leaves some heavy lifting for Cheney but he will nail Mr. Smarmy to the nearest tree. W should have practiced with William Weld if he didn’t. Kerry beat him soundly in debating. So, all of us should email the Whitehouse to read the blogs and practice like @$%& before the next debate; W just can’t lose two.

Comment by Judith — 10.02.04 @ 2:00 am

Okay, I’ll get this thing put in the right place, yet. Sorry for posting to the wrong article before, but my comments are in there proper home now(I hope).

Okaaaaaaayyyyyyy…Did anyone else pick up on this besides my husband and me? Let me just preface it with be afraid, be very, very afraid if Kerry wins the election.

He made a statement last night about how he would handle Iran and it’s possibly making nuclear weapons. I don’t have a direct quote, so I will give you the jist of the statement. Basically, he said that he would give Iran the tools to make nuclear weapons, then we would see if we can trust them with them. WHAT?? WHAT??!! Whee-Haw! I found the exact quote: “I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together.”

Let me put these in more practical everyday scenarios. Would you:

give 3 year old Johnny a gun, tell him not to shoot it to test him? Then when he does, take his favorite toy away?

tell 14 year old Susie that she can date Bobby, sleep over at his house in bed with him, but not have sex? And when she does, take away television privileges for a week?

give 16 year old Bubba Bill, Jr. a case of beer to drink at the prom, but don’t drive. Then, when he does, take away his Xbox for a month?

To make it worse, John Kerry flip-flops in the debate even on this issue. He then goes on to say at the end of the debate that his biggest global concern right now is Nuclear proliferation. Huh? But, he would give nuclear capabilities to Iran.

If Kerry gets elected get ready for a WHOLE, WHOLE, WHOLE lot of Americans to die.

Comment by Kiki B. — 10.01.04 @ 4:15 pm

Comment by Kiki B. — 10.02.04 @ 3:39 am

Our (long winded) analysis here … http://www.vandelay.com/2004/10/opportunity-missed.html

Comment by Mr. Buzzcut — 10.02.04 @ 4:27 am

Kerry Democrats In A Nutshell…
Sometimes you can tell a lot from the little things: Random Observations about the first presidential debate, Kerry and his crew, and their actions and reactions in a telling news article…

Trackback by Random Observations — 10.02.04 @ 5:06 am

Everyone at my house thought it was a slam dunk for Bush. Frankly we could not believe the pundits. Just goes to show you how removed the main stream media really is.

Comment by Sydney T — 10.02.04 @ 8:56 am

Election day is just 30 days away. Your local Republican office needs your spare time and the enthusiasm you are showing here.

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans only from a list provided by my local office.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices.

It is also a great opportunity to meet like minded people and meet new friends and neighbors. It is the first time I have done anything like this and I am glad I did. I am having fun.

Comment by Jim R — 10.02.04 @ 9:11 am

I too listened to the debates. The only dissatisfaction I had with the debate was that Lehrer allowed Kerry to wander off topic and to go back to something he had said a long time before. He was able to dodge a couple of questions to answer ones that were asked before. The President missed a couple of grand opportunities to throw some hard punches at Kerry, including the “global test” comments. On the radio, Kerry came off with little substance and a lot of style. Bush came off re-stating a lot of his convention speech. You could tell that Kerry was a lot more comfortable in that format, and he showed a lot of nuance in his words. The President missed a grand opportunity to nail him on it. We need to hear more than “I would do things differently,” and we definitely need to hear how Kerry would get more “allies” on board at a summit. It’s a waste to get France and Germany on board, they were “in the bed” with Saddam and the UN. I think Bush resonates with voters when he reminds us that there are several countries helping us, and that Kerry “denigrates” their contributions. Overall, I think it was a draw. Undecided voters will remain undecided. Till next week!

Comment by Chris Roberts — 10.02.04 @ 10:01 am

At the risk of being tiresome . . . I repeat:

Isn’t it worrying to people that so much rides—or is supposed to ride—on a “debate” that isn’t a debate but an image contest?

I just heard an NPR reporter claiming that Kerry is now triumphantly riding the crest of a “strong showing” in the debate. Now, this statement may presume a falsity—that Kerry “won” the debate. I don’t know, because I didn’t watch or hear it. (Of course, with liberal media bias . . . which, by the way, is there to see for them’s got eyes.) But I do know this: if he did “win,” it was because, as one of the commentators in this thread said, he managed to “look presidential.”

Once again: isn’t it frightening that so much rides on a “debate” whose object is . . . to “look more presidential” than the other guy? I know I’m exaggerating a bit, but only a bit.

On a related note, there’s an interesting letter to the editory in today’s Washington Post from a journalism prof. from Memphis who wants to reassure readers that TV news isn’t irrelevant. Why? Because the TV news doesn’t just tell you about events, it shows them to you. It’s more immediate than print.

Why is this interesting? Because the author is praising as a virtue what’s a vice of TV, esp. as a forum for political discussion: TV is all about immediate images, which means . . . it’s almost automatically propagandistic. And so I come back to the “debates”. . .

Adrian

Comment by adrian — 10.02.04 @ 10:31 am

La Shawn! Congratulations! You’ve passed the century mark in comments!

Comment by RepJ — 10.02.04 @ 6:27 pm

La Shawn I agree with you. The post debate focus groups tend to say Kerry won on style but bush gained on substance from anyone who watched or listened.

A campaign is one long debate. Kerry is playing checkers and Bush is playing chess (Dick Morris).

My take is actually fundamental to Morris. Bush has been debating a moving target. So his first task was just to get as much of Kerry on the record as he could. He did that. His next task was to sound strong, resolute, and caring. Finally he needed to nake it clearthat he is living in fantasy land. Hench he said “hard work” over and over. This plays on Kerry’s leisurely image.

Finally I think the strategery was to set up Kerry so Cheney can move in for the Kill in the VP debate.

Comment by vanyogan — 10.03.04 @ 11:52 am

You were on a roll Vanyogan, until you ‘did’ the last sentence.

Comment by Jim R — 10.03.04 @ 2:06 pm

Vanogan; spot on. Another analogy that I’ve heard is Bush is a master poker player, knowing when to hold, bluff or fold. Meanwhile Kerry just grabs at every card that comes up.

Whether Bush’s game is good will be revealed on 3 Nov. If he keeps the White House, gains 60 or more in the senate as well as any gains in the house, he will have effectively taken out cHillary in 08 and set back socialism for decades. Reason being, once Joe Q. Public gets a taste of the privatized social security, ownership, tort reform et al, he ain’t gonna give it up for cHillary or any moonbat for a looong time.

Comment by Andy — 10.03.04 @ 3:00 pm

Well, I can’t watch these debates anymore, I start worrying too much about how other people will perceive things as they look, rather than what is said, and I seem to be correct here. Judging by everything I’ve read, the “global test” comment is the more important thing said. Bush should, and will, jump all over that one.

Comment by Carl Schwartz — 10.03.04 @ 7:42 pm

Jim R,

My point on the VP debate is that Bush laid a good foundation of substabnce to build on while Kerry laid down a bunch of BS. The VP debate is not really about the VP guys but an opportunity to argue the POSITIONS of the Presidential candidates. Cheney has been so maligned with this Dr. Evil stuff that he can improve his favorability if he can just refrain from torturing cats or taking a bribe live on camera. He is the most experienced VP in history while Edwards is the least. Cheney has to defend consistent Bush positions and if Edwards can remeber Kerry’s positions he should BE President.

No I think Cheney will crack a few appearance jokes on himself and start carving up Kerry. Cheney has no real need to even debate Edwards. He will pretend Edwards isn’t even there.

Comment by Vanyogan — 10.03.04 @ 7:47 pm

Given the media’s innate focus on style over substance, it is not surprising that they cited Kerry’s presentation as the key to his “victory”.
The media talking heads no longer deal in facts or ideas, they promote the opinions, AKA spin, -both their own and those of their “guests” or “panelists”. Would it be too much to ask for a “news” program to stick to reporting?

Comment by Will D — 10.03.04 @ 11:23 pm

[…] had a hard time thinking of filler material. Anyway, here are some links: Michelle Malkin La Shawn Barber Powerline Hugh Hewitt

Comments […]

Pingback by The Truth Now — 10.04.04 @ 5:48 am

Media now ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for Kerry.

The left wing media has shifted from their already suspect “unbiased” REPORTING of the news to ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for Sen. Kerry. From the citing of polls with suspect methodologies and sample sizes to the ignoring of more robust polls indicating that President Bush has actually increased his lead in the polls. The Rasmussen Poll of 1,000 LIKELY voters actually shows 4-point over 3-day lead Bush has extended over John Kerry but nooooooooo, all we hear is how John Kerry all of a sudden has a statistically insignificant 2-point lead in heavily left leaning and heavily Democrat sampling polls like Newsweek and the Associated Press.

America was warned about John McCain and Russ Feingold’s stupid idea. The media knew full well that this would be their last minute unrestricted opportunity to keep a failing Democrat candidate like Kerry in the race. Since the candidates cannot advertise within 60 days out from the election, the liberal print and TV media take over as surrogates for John Kerry.

It is equally sickening that no one has the courage to call the so-called “swing” voter what it really is. Aside from a few truly conscientious members of this group, they are an unintelligent, superficial, shallow, poorly educated, infectious virus that is ill qualified to even cast a vote let alone participate constructively in our political processes. These kinds of voters will be the impetus for bringing back literacy and civics tests for qualifying to vote. Anyone who thinks Kerry won the debate because he looked better is a moron. President Bush clearly won the debate on substance. Alas for anyone to see that, they had to actually be listening rather than seeing which candidate looked better in his suit on TV.

I am still amazed why no one has mentioned that a man who has fought and is fighting two wars, trying to prevent another attack in this nation before election day, has had to watch the bodies of our brave fighting men come home in coffins, deal with the Democrat made mess that is North Korea and Iran and visit and console the victims of 4 major hurricanes in Florida and the Southeast HAS THE RIGHT TO LOOK AND BEHAVE ANGRILY in a debate with the traitorous vermin that is John Kerry. Why shouldn’t the President bristle at the troop killing rhetoric and lies spewing from mouth of the American hating Senator from Massachusetts? In fact, it may have been all the more appropriate for the President to walk over and deck the lowlife for his treasonous ways. John Kerry is killing my soldiers and I don’t like it one bit. He is working against the interests of the United States and offering nothing in the way of a positive future. I seem to recall in history where one American president even shot a man dead on the White House lawn for a much lesser offense.

I encourage black folk to think twice before voting for Kerry. No matter how you feel about President Bush now, it is in our best interest to take an even harder look at the Democrat Party and how they have kept us imprisoned on the plantation and locked in poverty and despair with their social handouts and vote buys. At the least we should be taking advantage of and crediting out President with starting programs that have seen the highest black home ownership in US HISTORY!

I encourage those of you out there who want fair and balanced coverage to do more research on your own, look at the other major polls like Rasmussen, and more importantly analyze the INTERNALS OF THE POLLS to see how the American people are being deceived by the Democrats and their surrogates in the media. Just like Dan Rather lied to the American people, so are Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, CNN and the other members of the 5th Column going after our president.

Kerry has not pulled even with president Bush when all of the polls are analyzed in the aggregate… America is not being told the truth, but I WILL TELL IT!

As for some other issue brought up in this e-mail thread, the nuclear issue that is North Korea was caused by none other than the weak presidency that defined Bill Clinton’s tenure. The spineless William Jefferson Clinton sent world renowned coward and pacifist Jimmy Carter to North Korea to ask them nicely to stop their nuclear weapons program and in typical appeasing weakling form, Jimmy doing Bill Clinton’s bidding gave a hostile, enemy, communist nation who WE ARE STILL AT WAR WITH two light-water nuclear reactors and $6 BILLION!!! Now what do you think North Korea did with those two gifts from the US? That’s right, they created nuclear weapons. Duuuuh. Other Clinton failures that President Bush is trying to fix now:

Not so bright people love to claim that George W. Bush lied about something, if so what EXACTLY is that lie and I would like someone to provide the EXACT quote that leads one to imply such. When and more importantly IF one finds such “lie” please be sure to add the quotes of all of the other parties including, France, Germany and John Kerry who received the EXACT same intelligence and voted to authorize force in Iraq. Did I mention that at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, SADDAM HIMSELF threatened to douse our troops with WMD?

When Clinton lied, no one died? Are you sure?

* Mogadishu, Somalia 1993 19 US Rangers DEAD (CLINTON)

* WTC bombing 1993 (CLINTON)

* US embassy bombing Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (CLINTON)

* TWO US Embassies bombed in Africa. Over 200 dead

(CLINTON)

* USS Cole 17 dead (CLINTON)

* Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia 34 dead (CLINTON)

* 1996 Clinton put Al Gore in charge of National Airport

Security (CLINTON)

* 1998 9/11 bombers enter the country and begin training

(CLINTON)

* WTC 9/11/01 3000 DEAD all due to CLINTON’s inaction

against the terrorists.

“Yes, he (Saddam) paid the families of the suicide bombers in Israel”

That fact alone is enough to destroy Iraq.

Kerry said in so many words that we needed the permission of other countries to go to war (his infamous “global test” quote), but I am having a hard time seeing how Kerry is going to back up his claim that his is a strong diplomat when he has a psycho wife who will make any moronic comment at the drop of a hat, has slapped and spit in the face of the very visiting dignitary (Allawi) whose country he says he THIS WEEK (it will change again soon) he wants to help, told China, South Korea and Japan that they have no place in talks with North Korea to disarm and who has dishonored the other members of the 40+ nation coalition that is fighting the battle in Iraq. Kerry is to diplomat as Jesse Jackson is to black leader……NO CREDIBILITY. Nothing in his 20 year Senate record that he has been hiding suggests anything but weakness on nation defense.

Attacking Iraq and any muslim nation where terrorists are harbored is ALWAYS a good idea IF you do it correctly. My only criticism with President Bush is that he has not fought the battle in Iraq like a real war as say a General George S. Patton would have fought it and killed enough people and that Fallujah and Najaf and Samarrah are still standing. The ultimate solution to teach the muslims to leave the US alone would be to take out a city for every American killed starting with MECCA!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that clearly John Kerry lost the debate on substance but won it in the left wing media on so called style. The media itself is cheering Kerry. Then again, saying Kerry won the so-called debate is what we expect from the idiots out there who have not decided after 4 DADGUM YEARS whom they should vote for.

Comment by Raymond C. Coleman — 10.04.04 @ 10:03 am

Re - Raymond Coleman, your last post. I’ve often wondered about these media polls, each 1% theoretically represents over 1 million voters. I’ve met very few people who change their political opinions over a lifetime, let alone several times in a month. For an 8% change (USA Today/CNN today’s poll) from Bush ahead to a tie,
that means that over 10 million people changed their mind due to a 90 minute debate. Hogwash!! It just doesn’t make sense. Tell me more about the Rasmussen poll, and how some of the methodology behind the media polls.

Comment by Carl Schwartz — 10.04.04 @ 4:18 pm

Carl,

I had the same concerns too and thus why I did my own research into the polling methodology of these camps. The Gallup poll for example counts newly registered 18 year olds as LIKELY voters with ..and get this…a VOTING HISTORY! LOL!! Go figure.

If you click on the “Methodology” link on some of these sites, you will see their flaws. The key is whether or not they are using a large enough sample size (should be at least 3,000 to be statisticaly significant) and whether or not they are likely vs. registered voters and finally, where is the region the poll was taken? For instance, the Newsweek results so highly publicized by Kerry’s surrogates in the media were garnered from the Pacific Northwestern states and included only registered voters. Hardly a mixed heterogeneous sampling of political ideology.

The math is just flawed.

Pay close attention to the internals and you will see that Bush will win in a landslide. So let not your heart be troubled as Hannity would say. The media is in full campaing for Kerry mode. but voters are seeing through their “ratheresque” BS.

Comment by Raymond C. Coleman — 10.04.04 @ 11:34 pm

Looks to me like Bush came in tired and ill-prepared. He said the right stuff, but the powdered and lipsticked Kerry looked better and sounded better. I imagine W suffered from a bit of overconfidence here, and a good opportunity to stuff Kerry down a hole got missed. Global Test? The non-explanation explanation of his Iraqi policy? Slamming Bush for Kyoto, which he voted against? Slamming Bush for Bunker Busters when he missed the funding vote for them? Come on….

As others have stated, these debates aren’t debates at all but quasi beauty pageants/parallel news conferences. The only question is will enough people value the substance over the style. Sure our W is a bit of a gomer, but Easter Island Statue Head seems to me much sound and fury, in the end signifying nothing.

Ah well, it’s on to the VP debates tonight. Have already caught the gist of the lamestream spin for this go around- because it’s anticipated that Cheney is going to beat Edwards like a dime store drum, they’ll focus on the “personalities” in this one…. Mr. Sunny vs. Dr. Evil. In typical tired fashion, the liberals try to portray Cheney as a puppy kicking mastermind, which is the fallback liberal position when the stupid Conservative label doesn’t stick. (Thanks to Ann Coulter for recognizing this phenomena)

And ABC as well as Pew are still showing Bush with a 5 point lead as of this morning….uh, what happened to the Kerry bounce? Reporting for duty, indeed.

Comment by Idler — 10.05.04 @ 9:38 am

Bush 1, Kerry 0 -by La Shawn of La Shawn Barber’s Corner
This great post comes from La Shawn Barber’s Corner. Go to her site and read the comments people have left in response to the following post.
I just discovered La Shawn’s blog. Man, I have been missing allot, and so have you if you don’t know who s

Trackback by biblegeek.blog-city.com — 11.21.04 @ 4:14 pm

Christian

A - F

G - P