Bush seemed on the defensive for most of it. He missed some big opportunities to go on the offensive. I thought he did a good job explaining why we need the Chinese putting pressure on North Korea, but that also would have been a wonderful time to remind Kerry that pre-emptive action against North Korea in 1994 in the style of 2003 action against Iraq would have solved the problem. He could have made an example of how trypical Democrat policy (sign agreements instead of action) result in bigger problems down the road. He could have made the point that Democrats talk tough to win elections, but they don't have the stones to follow through once a situation presents itself.
Bush also made some good points by quoting Kerry's various positions on the Iraq war as his personal political situation dictated. It reminds the attentive voter that Kerry's real plan is trying to find a majority to join. He doesn't have a heartfelt convinction about the matter.
Kerry did a good job explaining that he made a mistake saying about voting for the $87 Billion before voting against it. It pretty much quelled the issue even though he made up a story recently that he said it at the end of a long day that turned out to be untrue.
Kerry went on and on about getting our allies back on board but neither Bush nor Leaher reminded the audience that Germany and France say that a Kerry presidency won't change their involvement in Iraq. Bush hinted that we won't get allies to join us by saying "wrong war at the wrong time" but it would have been more effective to remind voters that Kerry doesn't have any world clout.
Kerry did a good job using the strong language that he needs to convince voters that he is tough enough to lead. Now how manny voters bought it? It was good politics to say that he would hunt down and kill terrorists, and Bush didn't do enough to remind voters that a Democrat in the 1990s pretty much ignored the terrorist threat (when he wasn't being impeached).
Kerry invoked Reagan and Bush didn't retort that Kerry opposed Reagan's plan from the get go. It allowed Kerry to co-opt Reagan and remind voters that Bush isn't as dynamic in debates. Bush needed to remind voters that Reagan's ideas were great and he shares them. Kerry has been on the wrong side of history too many times.
Bush's best moments were explaining the nonsense of the Hague World Court. It's good to remind voters that most of the world doesn't adhere to our constitution nor rights. Why should we give them jurisdiction over our citizens?
Had I not watched the conventions nor the stump speeches, I would have thought that Kerry would be every bit as tough as Bush as President. Hopefully the average voter has been paying better attention.
This was the one debate that Bush should have won handily. Bush's core and 1/3 of Kerry's support actually back the Bush position in foriegn policy. Kerry probably earned a draw last night and that's a victory since he holds the minority view on the subject.
GALLUP POST DEBATE POLL:
Key Factors
***Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job Bush 54/ Kerry 37
***Likable Bush 48/Kerry 41
***Believable Bush 48 / Kerry 45
***Agreed with you more on the issues you care about Bush 49/ Kerry 46
***Had a good understanding of the issues 41/41
***Expressed himself more clearly Bush 32/Kerry 60
Who won the first debate in historically?
Sept. 30, 2004: Kerry 53/ Bush 37 (-16)
Oct. 3, 2000: Gore 48/Bush 41 (-7)
Oct. 6, 1996 Clinton 51/Dole 32 (-19)
Oct. 11, 1992 Perot: 47/Clinton 30/ Bush 16 (-17, -31)
Sept. 28, 1998 Dukakis 38/ Bush 29 (-9)
Sept. 28-30, 1984 Mondale 54/Reagan 35 (-19)
No comments:
Post a Comment