I'm too impatient to dig up whether or not he was there, but he doesn't support Kyoto, except for when he does. I thought his point on renegotiating the treaty was disingenuous. I'm by no means a follower of environmental treaty-making, but I recall Kyoto being all nicely done and negotiated when Bush came to office. More or less at an "accept or reject but do not renegotiate" phase.

I thought Bush won.

Scoring it like a debate judge, Bush answered the questions he was asked. Kerry gave stump speech answers that were sort of related to the questions he was asked, sometimes.

Bush is not as against big government as I would like. Kerry's answer to EVERY question was either a government program, or alliances.

No suck up intended, but I agree with you entirely. It needs to be said that they were both fairly impressive. It's more fun to be cynical, but I think that would be inapposite tonite.

Well I must be rather fortunate that I missed the very opening of the debate... I was flipping back and forth between the Yankees game and the debate till the Yanks blew it open and I was able to concentrate on the debate. What I saw was a President in command, and while he did stumble at times, his comment mentioning that he thought he was out of time and had to refocus himself comes to mind, he clearly pointed out to people WHY people should elect him to stay the course.
I thought Kerry was confident and retained his cool rather well when Bush started hammering him on his Senate record. He really does look like he's had the decades of experience in politics that he has. Either way, I don't think this debate would cause someone to switch from one candidate to the other unless they really didn't know the issues beforehand.
Good debate for the President, he won't lose any ground on his lead. I greatly prefer this format to the standard moderator-debators format.

NJ Rob

Oh, and GO YANKEES!!!

Overall, I think it is a victory for Bush...he connected better with the common man.

Sure, Kerry is smoother...like a good demagogue. As Powerline writes:
He is a demagogue of some genius, like Father Coughlin or Huey Long, with, I think, the psychopathology that that implies.

Kerry looked awful...Bush won the battle of the appearance tonight.

Kerry came across as hopelessly repetitive tonight...how many times did he say "I have a plan"...and Kerry just repeated the same talking points from the last debate...

Bush is the one who scored tonight...he's re-energized his base, and taken the wind out of Kerry's momentum from the first debate...

This will drive Bush's poll numbers up and Kerry's down...

I also find it a bit humorous that the Kedwards ticket's stance seems tailored to the audience.

Kerry came across as a kind of automaton...he dropped too many names, went to too many sappy appeals...and Kerry came across as cold and snotty...kind of like Winchester on MASH...sure, the guy's smart, but do you really want this guy to defend your life?

One good thing: because we are going into the weekend, the MSM won't be able to spin this towards Kerry...because most people won't watch the news as much over the weekend...

Instead they will watch baseball...football...get outside...hang out with the family...

So they will be left with the gut feeling that Bush came across better...that Bush is the one they want in their living rooms for the next 4 years...

And the Bush campaign volunteers will now work harder and turn out more over the weekend...

Of course I think Kerry won. Got Wood?

Kerry: "I have a plan" = Bush: "It's hard work."

I think this debate will be judged not just on its own but in the context of the first debate, in which case the President was the clear victor.

The reference to Dred Scott was an indirect reference to Roe vs. Wade. Bush didn't want to say it too openly, and I think he connected with Dred Scott much better than if he had mentioned R. v. W.

Kerry's response that the supreme court should "interpret the constitution according to the law" was a telling mistake. After all, if that were the case, no law could be judged unconstitutional and Kerry's opposition to the limiting of rights by the Patriot Act rings rather hollow.

"A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.

And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody. "

-- Senator John Kerry (D-MA), one of 11 Democrats to vote to confirm Justice Scalia in 1986

I can't believe that Missouri has more folks in Iraq than either the Aussies or poles

While I agree that Bush came out a bit too forceful in the beginning, I do not agree that Kerry maintained his initial 'cool' throughout. He began stuttering and repeating himself about two thirds of the way through("contaminateded"?). And..he never did say what his "plan" is...for anything.

Bush won, and I don't believe that it was nearly as close as you do.

Personally, I think it was the voodoo doll I purchased a couple of days ago.

My personal favorites:

BUSH: "there's rumors on the Internets"

Every single one of them!

BUSH: "An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century"

I can't wait for all of the new wars of the 21st century. The media is already creating their 3D graphics!

BUSH: "I -- listen, I -- we've got a great country. I love our values."

Value lover!

Kerry had a few as well, but I'm sure you guys will point them out for me.

W needs to lose that Dred Scott reference or clean it up. Seemed to me it was a good "legal" decision at the time and the 14th Amendment was necessary to correct it. I'm glad Kerry didn't pounce all over it.

BUSH: "You can run, but you can't hide."

He used this same line for the terrorists. I think he was trying to create some sort of subliminal reference. Tricky.

That's subliminibal.

I have a blog?

That's news to me.

Want some opinions?

killer line from kerry: "None of you losers in the audience have to worry about the 200K tax increase, because you will never be in it. It is reserver for Bush, Gibson, and myself."

That might not have been an exact quote, but the message was crystal clear.

A. Scientist: KERRY: "Afghanistein"

I'm so glad that Bush didn't keep up the intensity that he was displaying in the beginning of the debate. Frankly, I believe he scared the crap out of the guy who asked the first question. I think it's safe to assume that Robin Dahle will not be voting for Bush.

"Afghanistein" : I think he meant to say "I'm Frankenstein".

Bill,

I'm surprised at your surprise with Bush being strong on domestic issues. I always thought it would help him in this debate. Maybe the last 3.5 years have erased a lot of memories. But this is a Tx. Gov who went to Washington with credibility on and significant interest in domestic issues. The book on Bush in the first election was his weakness on international affairs.

It's always amazed me how people have lost sight of that. He remolded himself and his Presidency post 9-11 because he was compelled to. To me, that has always been the single greatest sign that he really is a solid leader and President. Johnson, for instance, never was able to make that transition and Vietnam swallowed him whole.

I thought Kerry did better in the begining (I didn't really agree with him, but he handled himself better). I thought he didn't do so well in the domestic portions of the questions, and I thought Bush actually did well other than the evironmental question-he seemed very timid in his answer on that one.

I thought Kerry's answer on Stem Cell research was pretty awful though, but don't know that Bush did much better.

I think overall it was a draw, with an edge to Bush on this one.

"200K tax increase"

Rock: I think you are right, this did come off the wrong way. I cringed a bit on this one. I understand what Kerry was trying to express -- he just did a really awful job of it.

I think it was pretty much a draw by the end (slight edge to kerry is my leaning though). Bush was much better than last time. Kerry was pretty evenly strong throughout--he had to be ginger on the abortion/stem cell questions. That abortion questioner was intense.

I agree that Bush was a bit over the top in the first half, talking almost too forcefully and cutting off Gibson entirely on starting that one 30 second rejoinder. He did own some timber interest apparently, but his reaction was very funny. Probably some of his inherited wealth.

Completly as an aside: Did anyone notice the transexual(?) in the front row? Was a women in a white top who really looked like he/she had previously been a man. Not to be mean, was just wondering if anyone noticed. Also looks like she got her picture taken with bush after the debate was over. I was hoping she would be a questioner . . .

I wished Bush would've slammed Jackoff Kerry for his Gen. Shinseki lie he repeated again tonight. I can't believe out of all of the people around Bush, nobody tells him any of the fabulous and killer rebuttals that I read on the blogs. Tony Blair laid out the perfect "case for military action in Iraq for dummies" the other day. But I'd bet some of his audience still didn't get it.

I wonder how many people in that audience were small business owners. I am, and I can tell you that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the "rich" will directly effect me. My husband and I both work full time jobs and have a small business. All combined, annual income just over his benchmark for being "rich".

I also felt he was condecending to the people in the audience, insinuating that they could not possibly be earning over $200,000 a year. But then again, the Dems are quite known for looking down on those who do for themselves. Aren't we all looking to improve our situation? Why is it when we get there the Dems want to punish us?

Bush did a great job. So glad to see him on his game.

"I wished Bush would've slammed Jackoff Kerry"

Gary B: Bush wasn't wearing his earpiece tonight. He didn't want to get caught interrupting himself again. Ha, ha! This is a joke of course -- or is it?

Bush did quite well. Bush did well defending and explaining his position on everything from the environment to homeland security. Certainly an improvement from his performance at the first debate. He did seem, though, to have a uncomfort in his jaw. I realize that's me just being picky. He came across "cool" too. Not that cocky attitude that was on display last week. Good for him. You know what he believes in and he doesn't pander. I think Bush could've done a better job answering the final question about his mistakes. He should've been better prepared for that one.

Kerry, as expected, seemed comfortable (he's done plenty of these townhall meets) some of the time and stiff at other times. Surprisingly (he's been trained well), Kerry actually put some zest behind some of what he talked about. Still on certain questions he insisted that he "respects" a difference in opinion (eg, abortion) to the point that he comes across as pandering in an attempt to attract voters for the sake of doing just that. [Really, really, did you hear Kerry repeatedly say "really"?? Ok, enough, we gotcha Mr. Kerry.] And, that's problematic in that he doesn't seem genuine. Kerry enjoys to hear himself talk, doesn't he?!

Kerry's ongoing problem is that some of his past (eg, votes) doesn't quite gel with some of what he said (and continues to say on the trail). How do you believe someone who says one thing today, but did/said quite different in the past? Votes in the Senate to cut intel funding, while now he's all for mucho spending. (At one point during this debate, Kerry even admitted that he's going to have to cut back on some of his "favorite programs." As scary as it might seem, it begs the question about how many "favorite programs" he really has. Yikes. $$$$)

Yes, different circumstances, and yes things aren't always cut and dry, but it's still not clear who Kerry is and what he stands for. Kerry says things now, portraying himself as a moderate, but his nearly 20 years in the Senate clearly shows a different man. Hysterical how Kerry tries to wiggle out of it by complaining about how we shouldn't "label." Yah, but all your leftist surrogates can label your opponent, Senator? [Senator, in all fairness, you did refer to Bush as the "compassionate conservative" and mocked it.]

Wasn't it the nonpartisan National Journal that, after going through Kerry's voting record, placed the Senator left of the ideological center? If that's who he was for so long, how can it be that he's changed just in time for the presidential elections? Or, should we simply ignore Mr Kerry's voting record and fall for whatever he shovels our way?

Overall, no low blows or gaffes. Bush, 2; Kerry, 1.
###

Nobody: I can only speak for myself on this. I would have personally preferred to go without the first tax cut rather than have the economy in it's current state. The 200K+ rollback with effect me. I know plenty of people in the same boat as us who are ok with a slight increase for the sake of economic stability. It's not huge, you know?

"talking almost too forcefully"

Disagreed. I noticed that at one point, Bush made eye-contact with Kerry and addressed something he had said. Kerry would not return eye-contact as he got up to make his response. I think this helps Bush. He looked like *he* was the guy in charge of the room.

In the first debate, I found myself drawn to watch Kerry (even when Bush was speaking), but this time Bush held me captive.

My eyes don't lie.

Kerry's performance wasn't bad at all. Certainly not the poor showing GW had in debate number one. But I have never seen GW Bush appear as fluid, articulate and commanding as he did tonight. I was impressed. For God's sake, he wasn't halting after every third word. Did he finally get a speech coach or something?

Bush beats Kerry on the issues with the majority of the voters, and wins handily on "likeability." But if he can now actually articulate himself well?

This election could become a drubbing of Reaganesque proportions if tonight's performance wasn't an anomaly.

P.S. Before you accuse me of throwing out Republican party spin, I'll mention that I repeatedly described GW in debate #1 as a "punching bag."

Also, maybe one of you can help me with a link.

I have heard that Kerry's quote about General Shinsheski (the guy who was supposedly fired, because he thought we needed more toops) isn't really true.

Anyone with a link on this?

[quote]For God's sake, he wasn't halting after every third word. Did he finally get a speech coach or something?
[/quote]

HOnestly, I think Bush does very well in this forum, had he been able to ask questions back of the questioners, I bet he would have done better.

When I saw him speak at a town hall meeting here in New Hampshire, the one thing that really impressed me was how much he connects with the people he is giving his speech to.

I think Kerry really bombed in this aspect, the one joke he made, didn't get any laughs and made no sense. He was also patronizing at times.

textbook stupidity: your post doesn't sound like spin to me at all. it was very intelligent. subjectively, i thought bush was a bit strident in the beginning.

Thanks for the round up of opinions. Here in Japan I couldn't see either of the debates, so I appreciate the different perspectives. So many political blogs, so little time...

Just me, here is a starting point on the General.

just me: a quick search reveals many articles saying Shinseki had already been told by Rumsfield that he would not be reappointed BEFORE he publicly stated his views on troop needs in Iraq.

http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20040908162323375

http://www.calnews.com/archives/metcalf130.htm

there are articles out there suggesting Shinseki was fired for his troop estimates, but they must be wrong, I guess:

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2895593.php

I didn't see all of it, but in the parts I did see, I thought Bush did very well. He did come across as ticked off, but I saw that as energetic and passionate, not Nixonic. He looked even better when you watched (for part of the time, I just listened). We did learn that John Kerry has a plan, so that's new.

The reference to the Dred Scott case may have been pandering to the locals; the case was decided in St. Louis. (Or, at least, at one point it was.) Bush wasn't really clear on what part of the case he objected to (other than, of course, slavery=bad).

Thanks very much for the links. I wonder why Kerry keeps using it, or why the Bush people aren't calling him on it. Kerry has used it in both debates and Edwards used it in his, so it appears to be a regular talking point for the pair.

Also, I am wondering how many people really believed Kerry, when he said he was in favor of tort reform.

As for the Dredd Scott reference. Not great, but I am positive it was aimed at the pro life people. Roe v Wade is often viewed as the abortion version of Dredd Scott, not to mention that most pro lifers consider the fetus to have at least some level of personhood. The reference probably works for pro lifers, doubt it will work well with others.

The Dredd Scott reference aside, I think overall Bush won that round, Kerry's answer was pretty lame.

Kerry dropped the ball several times throughout. Now, I debated in HS, and have no idea re the pressures these two gents faced tonite. But, considering both have long careers in politics, me thinks all that practice on the Senate floor would've helped the Senator. The DNC's Terry McAuliffe must be upset tonite. [And, imagine all who are upset w/ McAuliffe, who's got a weak candidate in Kerry.]

Bush, on the other hand, shined brighter than ever. Bush certainly connected with audience members and rightfully continued the admin's message on the economy, foreign affairs and homeland security. And, the eye contact on Bush's part -- he controlled that room. He was CiC 110%.

Here's my humble prediction: America will choose to stay with Bush. He's offered a consistent message and provided leadership needed during these challenging times. Aside from needling Bush, Kerry doesn't have much to run on.

My only concern is that above runs against what Lawrence O'Donnell has predicted (on McLaughlin Hour) -- that Kerry will win. I like O'Donnell --especially when he guest appeared on WW-- and respect his views, but he's wrongo. Bush will win.

BTW, anyone else looking forward to frmr President Bill Clinton getting into the mix?? Word is that will happen later this month.

###

ps: what's up with the tapping of the feet when the other was speaking? and, will Kerry regret looking straight into the camera and making the I-won't-raise-taxes pledge? that was soooo H.W.ish!

pps: go Howard!!

Fair question or not, Bush's inability to admit to zero mistakes in 4 years was a misstep and will enable hard spin from the left. I would guess that this debate will be spun as a draw or perhaps a slight win for Kerry as Bush, while clearly better than his first performance, was not able to effectively draw blood (e.g., make Kerry look unpresidential).

Best moments: 1) Kerry noting that the serfs in the audience will not be enjoying post-debate champagne and caviar with >200k earning Chuck and Bush. 2) Bush's Dred Scott reference, WTF?

In watching the debate, and not grading on 'performance', Bush was clearly the winner. Kerry was stiff, he literally stumbled on some of his responses. He was guilty of name dropping....whoopededooo...and the inference that the tax roll back would not affect any of the audience was an outright insult.
Also the wild promises that came flying out of Kerry's mouth were insane. For someone wanting to be the CiC he sure isn't very effective at gaining confidence with such wild rhetoric.

Bill, all due respect, but how can you write
that Bush:

"blew my mind. He was comfortable, folksy, confident and brutally effective. What was really surprising was how he smacked Kerry around like a wiffle ball on healthcare, specifically tort reform. He also gave Kerry a drubbing on his liberal voting record in the Senate."

And then conclude the debate was a draw, or that Kerry had a slight edge.

You know Bush killed him, we know Bush killed him. Admit it.

Um, Kerry looked strong? Sorry, not close. There is a phenomenon within the chattering class...even in the conservative blogosphere. As much as we all know that Kerry only lies when his lips move, somehow he still impresses the pundits (old media and new media alike). It's almost as if they enjoy someone svengalizing them or are impressed by it somehow.

The second thing that is interesting as you listen to the analysis is that when the left's guy does good they pump it up to fever ptich and move the debate polls 20 points in 2 days. But, not the conservatives. First they look around and wonder if their guy won....they can't seem to tell. Second they utterly do not understand that they watch the debate caring about how their guy comes off to the uninformed, while their lefty counterparts could care less about what anyone thinks, Third, they become self-fulfilling prophets by letting the air out of their tires in their desire to prove to the left that they are more fair and balanced.

Seriously, how can anybody in conservative circles be so blind to this debate. Forget what you think people thought and tell us what you saw...from your own perspective.

Some hints; when the debate ended and they cut away to the MSNBC Hardball panel, you could hear a pin drop. Their boy had just been trounced....and they knew it. Second, Kerry actually seemed to become intimidated by the president as he realized that Bush was on his game and the senator became defensive, even resorting to his lame Halliburton line by the end. There was the body language of the two candidates after the debate. Bush exuberant....Kerry trying to seem pleased. And last, I don't know who caught Karl Rove on Hannity after the debates, but he was on fire and, with all due respect to the conservative pundits that are so shook from the first debate that they can't see a clear win when it drops on them, I think a political genius like Rove knows what Bush just handed himself tonight. And by the way, Rove's exuberance, much like Bush's after the debate, was real and not contrived.

Wake up folks...get a clue!

By the way:

Kerry looked like a freakin' corpse up there.

Where the hell are this guy's medical records.

He wants to be President but looks like he could die at any moment.

For crissakes, if we had even a halfway honest press corps they'd be hammering on the Kerry campaign for his med records.

Dang I sound good when you quote me like that. I'm so tired from dealing with my hosting problems that I read your excerpt of my post and thought to myself: "That's a good point. Who wrote that...Oh."

For crissakes, if we had even a halfway honest press corps they'd be hammering on the Kerry campaign for his med records.

Kerry's med records came out last week. Flying colors.

Bill, all due respect, but how can you write ...

Because Bush blew his gord in the first third, and verged on looking like Richard Nixon having a fit. He was yelling his answers. thank God he calmed down and came back strong.

jim (with a small j),

Although I don't want to get cocky, I find myself in my gut agreeing with pretty much everything you wrote. All of the pundits are saying "slight edge to Kerry" or "draw."

I trust my gut. I thought Bush was Reaganesque tonight. I have watched Bush *try* to communicate effectively since the 2000 campaign. The only time I have ever seen him even come close to having a presence like tonight was in 2001. That was when he was standing on the rubble of the WTC with a bullhorn.

Normally, he is so painful to watch, I just flip the channel. I didn't think he looked "tired" in the first debate, I thought he looked like himself.

The man who showed up to debate John Kerry tonight was not the same guy I've been watching for four-plus years. I was captivated by him tonight. I'm still in a state of what I can only consider "gleeful shock."

And yeah, I caught Karl Rove. He was apparently experiencing the same feeling. I thought he was going to burst out of his skin.

What was up with the "none of you guys are making $200k a year so your taxes won't be raised" garbage?

RNC commercial-- For a man with five multi-million dollar homes he certainly doesn't care one whit about the "little people" now does he?

Hey Bill:

Conservatives. Oh, they have to be the smartest and fairest kids in the class. Parisan yes, but always the intellectually honest ones, they say, even on the smallest and most petty of issues. It's like a disease. For example, it is absolutely unfathomable how many lines Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Powell and others have given the fraud to use against the president...But they, unlike their democratic counterparts, are just being honest with the American people. As if their self-aggrandizing comments couldn't wait a few more weeks till after the election.

Respectfully, Bush won...enjoy it, pump it up. You're plying into the lefty bloggers all over the net saying Bush yelled during the debate (it's all they have to hold on to, don't feed it). Your intellectual integrity will still be in tact, really Bill it will. It's not like you have to turn a blind eye to something substantive.

C'mon man, this politics, hard ball politics, and the clock's running out. It's no time to see who can be Beaver Cleaver.

Mr. Scientist? You could have given it back any time you chose, you could write a check now and put it in the mail later today. Nothing has ever stopped you from paying what you think you should owe.

The WSJ had an editorial in July, IIRC, about Kerry possibly raising wages subject to SS to $110K, anyone know anything about that? Of course I threw it away about weeks ago.

The Iran answer alone should make him lose the election, what/how are you going to do about Iran and her nukes? 2 minutes of drivel for those who have been actually paying attention these past few years, but he'll take care of it, he will.

I really didn't see last week's debate, but read most of the transcript. Just talking points, but he certainly has a plan for all, just wish we knew what it was other than telling Iraq to FO after 2008. If not before because things might get a little hot. Gee, we now have our General Giap moment, it's just going to take a little longer than a few weeks.

I really didn't enjoy the 70s the 1st time, and now I might have to relive them.

Got wood?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13063

Respectfully, Bush won...enjoy it, pump it up. You're plying into the lefty bloggers all over the net saying Bush yelled during the debate (it's all they have to hold on to, don't feed it). Your intellectual integrity will still be in tact, really Bill it will. It's not like you have to turn a blind eye to something substantive.

Respectfully aside, your read of my read is almost insulting. I didn't say that out of a desire to straddle some midline - being overly fair is intellectually dishonest - I thought Bush looked pretty damn bad in the first portion. His attempt to look strong seemed defensive, which made him look weak.

My real gut reaction? CALM THE HELL DOWN, Mr. President.

I'm serious about this problem in conservative circles. It's like they're clueless. My favorite was afer Zell Miller's speech. They weren't sure whether it was OK to like it. Over at NRO, where showing that you're smartest and fairest kid in the class is an epidemic, some of them agreed with howling liberals that the speech was "over the top". Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Miller's speech bumped Bush 5 points because it so desperately needed to be said.

Let's start a group; "Conservatives for Bush for Kerry".

It's stupefying.

Bill, all I'm saying is that Bush won big tonight. The only problem is that conservatives are gonna talk him out of the win by Monday at the rate they're going. The left moved Kerry's win 20 points in two days talking it up to almost fever pitch.

It was clear...Kerry knew it, watch his body language after the debate. It said "wow, Bush was tough".

I'm not trying to insult you. Forget the first five minutes....that's a meaningless point that the libs can choke on for the next two days.

Wow, Bill comes out swinging.

Interesting take on how Bush looked at the start of the debate. I thought Bush looked very good at the outset. I would contend that much like Zell Miller's *whateveryouwannacallit*, Bush's aggressive tone will play well with most folks outside the Beltway.

Then again, there is a reason you have about 4098309830983 loyal readers and I can't even find two.

Hey Textbook...I really pissed Bill off, huh? It's just a family squabble Bill...I'm a huge fan.

- Another debate result in the next one that equals Bush's performance tonight, coupled with Kerry's obvious discomfort at the even handed direct questions that were thrown at him, and the Dems will be pulling out the "Hillery is on the way-2008" bumper stickers. They were verging on throwing in the mental towel just before the first debate as it was, with lots of moderate Dems grumbling about "Wrong platform, wrong candidate, wrong time"....

- Going into election day with anything like a poll tie in the liberal press is the kiss of death if you're running against a sitting pres. with the country at war. I expect the press will spin it hard in favor of Kerry just to keep him in the game.....

- To beat an opponent with the circumstancial standing that Bush enjoys there is no margin of error. 25 days left and Kerry still isn't well known by a fair number of the electorate. It will be interesting to see if he can tap dance fast enough to find a speech that satisfies two diametric parts of his own base, and a viable way to woo undecideds at the same time....

- Bush for his part just has to present his ideas clearly and look presidential. If Kerry can perform such an act of ledger domain maybe he deserves it, but I would'nt bet the farm on it....

- Kerry sounds even more confusing when he tries to play a moderate. The answer on abortion was so twisted and modulated with irrelevant time usage that I don't think the lady questioner was sure he had heard the question right. Bush really killed him on that one.

- One point Bush fails to make about the embargo's on Iraq just before the war; Not only was saddam undermining them into essentially uselessness but he was systematically abusing and killing many 1000's of his people through undernourishment and lack of health car while pocketing the billions in kickbacks....

- In fact an Arab/Iraqi human relations official wrote that Hussein effectively turned the sanctions into a WMD. Since Kerry's core argument is that the sanctions were working Bush could destroy him on this point.....

Well, I can understand why Bill comes across as a bit miffed. There is a very real conservative/rightist phenomenon which you described:

Conservatives are vocally critical of their own in order to establish credibility with liberals. Mostly with the media and university types. I understand this mentality very well, because I (to my eternal shame) have indulged in it myself.

I often find myself saying "Vote Libertarian!" before jumping into a screed about why I am against the Democrats and their socialist policies. It's a defense mechanism I use to try to get certain folks to actually take me seriously.

Now, the problem arises when I do have legitimate concerns with one of our own, voice those concerns, and then get rebuked for it. Sometimes, our concerns are genuine. Bill's decision to come out and aggressively defend his opinion indicates to me that he isn't dicking around here to establish some liberal cred.

Just my $0.02. Off to bed with me.

There's a bit more to the timber thing than a joke: ...[timber thing comes from] FactCheck.org debunking Bush's claims that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the richest Americans would increase the tax burden on 900,000 small businesses... The analysis found that the Bush campaign is counting every rich person who has even $1 of outside business income as a small business owner, even if they have no employees... The analysis said even Bush qualifies under that definition because he reported $84 in income from his part-ownership of a timber enterprise on his 2001 federal tax return...

On factcheck.org; I don't know if they're right on the 900,000 issue. But I do know it strikes me wrong that they are the self-anointed font of the "actual facts". Also, during the Swiftvet controversy I would mark Factcheck.org with a failing grade. They did a terrible job analyzing the facts.

I mean the gravamen of the Swiftie charges were that Kerry submitted bogus reports that resulted in the Navy awarding him medals that he shouldn't get (forget whether you agree or not, that's the charge being made). Factcheck, in all its wisdom, simply quoted what the navy awarded Kerry and what the commendations said. I mean if that kind of circuitous nonsense is the best that Factcheck can offer...no thanks.

"Reynolds wrap:"? Talk about foiling someone!! Seriously, it sounds like the real President Bush, not his stand-in, made it to this debate.

I thought Kerry was typical Kerry from the first moment he spoke.

His *affect* is negative; the response from the audience to him was negative; his performance was negative. In short, I thought he hurt himself badly. But then, how could he not, when his ideas are so inferior?

Velvet delivery (if that's what you mean by "Calm, cool, collected") is empty and meaningless if the ideas are wrong. His ideas are wrong. I am unimpressed by his debating skills, because his thoughts are repugnant.

And I do not think he remained calm -- not at all. He was shaken most of the time. It was obvious to me that he knew he was getting creamed. But he is still stupid enough to think that insulting his audience (the income thing) will help him. That was quite revealing. He needed to stroke his ego because he knew he was losing, and so he tells his audience that they're outclassed by him and Bush and Charlie.

The audience loved Bush, and I am certain he won many votes last night -- both in St. Louis and around the country.

God bless George Bush!

One more thing. I was a bit taken aback by Bush's forcefulness in the beginning, but it took just 30 seconds to understand that it was NECESSARY and GOOD that he did it.

FactCheck.org debunking Bush's claims that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the richest Americans would increase the tax burden on 900,000 small businesses... The analysis found that the Bush campaign is counting every rich person who has even $1 of outside business income as a small business owner, even if they have no employees... The analysis said even Bush qualifies under that definition because he reported $84 in income from his part-ownership of a timber enterprise on his 2001 federal tax return...

Posted by The Lonewacko Blog at October 9, 2004 02:51 AM
****************************************
Lonewacko good buddy didn't you leave out the last of that bit?

A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used.
***************************************
There is one thing I did not totally agree with on factcheck, their statement

"Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution"

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
****************************************
Here is the TITLE of that Resolution

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Now exaclty what part of that do Kerry, Edwards and the Democrats NOT understand?

Unless what you really want is to support something BEFORE you don't support it?

I felt that Kerry as usual had great trouble deciding where he stood on a given issue. In fact, I disagree that this is "flip flopping". "Flipping" is when you reverse a position (Bush has done this some, but I would argue that shifting ones position over time is actually a sign of good mental health). "Flip-flopping" is when you repeatedly reverse your position. I would argue that Kerry does not flip-flop, since he never actually picks a position.

Actually a better title for Kerry is the indecisionator. After all this is the guy (according to the NY TImes) who spent four weeks trying to pick a font for his campaign's bumper stickers...

I wonder if Kerry even realizes what somebody who make 200k a year looks like.

I also have to point out that I think Bush was smart to refer to his Axis of Evil speech, where he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea. I remember all the liberals going nuts over the North Korea reference, not thinking they belonged there.

Now all the sudden, they seem to think North Korea should have been at the top, although they want more of the same, when it comes to dealing with them.

>>I wonder if Kerry even realizes what somebody who make 200k a year looks like

yeah, white and male for one thing!

Once again the President failed miserably! He again had a chance once and for all to respond to the old accusation of jumping to the war in Iraq too fast! Well what is too fast is what he should have said. Iraq had some 11 years to comply to U.N. Sanctions and weapons and did not. After 4 years of not allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq they decided to allow them in unhindered, but when the U.S. got an ammended resolution for Iraq stating specific punishments for non-compliance of sanctions Iraq voted against the new resolution. That with the multi-nation intelligence reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was enough to go to war. How much longer would you give them Senator Kerry? 11, 12, 16 years.
Mr. Kerry has only one agenda and that is to get elected. I don't know about you but I do not want a person to be president that will do anything, say anything to get elected.
Don't let two Johns PIMP my country!!!!!!

There is no other way to call this then a clear victory for Bush. He was better, had better answers and also looked better. If you noticed the audience at the end, they did not swarm Kerry, they went to Bush. That is very telling.

Textbook and Jim -

Hey Textbook...I really pissed Bill off, huh? It's just a family squabble Bill...I'm a huge fan.

Here's another reason why you guys are wrong - you think I was pissed? Ha. For pissed, go look at my treatment of "Antigona" under the "Listen America" thread. That will give you reference.

And as far as the tendency of conservatives to check themselves - I understand this sentiment, specifically with regard to the Zell Miller speech. But here's the thing - when Miller was ripping up the stage, my heart was singing, because in spirit I agreed with much of what he said, and his delivery was fierce.

My problem with Bush's performance was that there was a slightly exasperated tone in his voice which made him sound a bit weak to some people.

That's the difference.

Bill,

Initially, I was concerned about President Bush's demeanor, as well. But when he took the last question about Iraq, it made sense, it clicked. I think folks watching to that point would then understand why he was near-hysterical.

In his answer, he said that he was worried. He was worried about the terrorists, and their capacity to attack us again in our own home. It all made sense. Through that first part of the debate, his demeanor was of anxiety, concern, worry, that a truly patriotic president feels when the United States is under attack.

Suddenly, the entire preceeding 1/2 hour or whatever it was shifted in my mind. Suddenly, I saw, he's talking like this BECAUSE HE REALLY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, in a way that M. Kerry doesn't, in a way that M. Kerry couldn't even understand, or even recognize.

I think that a lot of folks got it, even if they don't express it quite like that.

"You could have given it back any time you chose, you could write a check now and put it in the mail later today. Nothing has ever stopped you from paying what you think you should owe."

Sandy P: My point is, we need to have a serious sit down conversation about the total cost of our long-term security agenda. If we all agree that we need to improve our security, then we all need to make concessions. We know that in our personal and family lives that we cannot call for new sacrifices or promise new benefits without considering the financial consequences. Why does anyone believe that things are different on a national scale. I realize that the numbers are abstract when we are talking billions and trillions, but the concept is the same.

The US cannot offer tax cuts while waging a war and funding homeland security. This is from Peter G. Peterson:

"Virtually none of the policy leaders, financial traders, and economists inverviewed by this author believes the U.S. current account deficit is sustainable at current levels for much longer that five more years. Many see a real risk of a crisis. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says the odds of this happening are around 75 percent within the next five years; former Treasure Secretary Robert Rubin talks of "a day of serious reckoning." What might trigger such a crisis? Almost anything: an act of terrorism, a bad day on Wall Street, a disappointing employment record, or even a test remark by a central banker."

Given that, I'm ok with the 200K rollback. I would rather have that than a complete loss and a real crisis in the U.S. But, that's just me talking.

The US cannot offer tax cuts while waging a war and funding homeland security.

Sure we can - if we cut the crap out of education or if we flatten the tax code.

david -

Perhaps a good point.

"Sure we can - if we cut the crap out of education or if we flatten the tax code."

Short of making drastic changes like this, I reiterate "The US cannot offer tax cuts while waging a war and funding homeland security." The money we are spending on tax cuts, war, and national defense is largely borrowed from other nations. It's just common sense that this cannot go on forever. We eventually need to pay these nations back with money from our pockets. The consequences of not doing this are serious. Bush is playing the financial "hot potato" right now -- he will toss this hot problem to the next president if he doesn't begin to deal with the reality of the situation.

I'm stunned by INDC's analysis. Even the Hardball crowd saw Bush as dominant. Bush articulated his worldview as well as he could, without a written speech. Either you like it or you don't; Bush satisfied his supporters and enraged his opponents. And he mollified the media, who can't say he was tongue-tied or confused.

For a seasoned politician, Kerry stumbled badly on domestic policy questions, especially partial birth abortion. That question was a big loser for Kerry, and he needed to side-step it and take refuge behind the Supreme Court; instead he launched into a self-indulgent exploration of his personal beliefs, which led nowhere. He appeared confused, bewildered, and shaky; I think that one question hurt him badly, because an overwhelming majority of Americans are hostile to partial birth abortion.

I'm stunned by INDC's analysis.

Everything in your opinion is in my analysis, it's just that I placed the missteps in different prioritization. Kerry's stumble on abortion was goofy, but so was Bush's anger on Iraq. Shrug.

"Here's another reason why you guys are wrong - you think I was pissed?"

Not at all. But you clearly seem miffed on the issue. IMO, that just gives you more credibility. If you weren't speaking from the heart, you wouldn't be getting annoyed with suggestions to the contrary. :)

This says it all...

debate summary photo

Here's my take. We're in a battle with a moonbat party that is willing to tear this country apart to get an empty suit elected. They're running a scampaign with George McGovern II at the top of the ticket, but having learned in '72 that that will not sell, they're trying to pass him off as George Patton. We live in a country where a growing percentage of the population, marinated in reality TV and intellectually curious only to the extent of a sound bite, can actually be duped into believeing that you can be anti-war / pro-war at the same time, supportive of the war, but against it, pro-high taxes and pro-low taxes at the same time, pro-abortion and anti-abortion, for it and against it, etc. etc.

So my response at this stage in a close and crucial campaign to this over-evaluated debate is as follows:

Bush was too loud - Kerry lost, he's a phony, condescending, doubletalker.

Bush seemed defensive at times - Kerry lost, he's a left wing kook that will leave us vulnerable.

Bush stumbled badly a few times - Kerry lost cause he contradicts himself within the same sentence, cause he can't keep his lies straight.

Bush missed some openings to nail Kerry - Kerry lost cause he's a pompous sonorous, ass.

Bush didn't explain his Iraq rationale well enough - Kerry lost cause he's been a left wing, soft on defense, big spending, high taxing, nuclear freezenik his entire public life.

Bush didn't seem to adequately answer the questions about how he'll keep the world from hating us - Kerry lost cause he's a bigger friend to America's enemies and quasi-allies then he is to the US, and he's been that way for his entire public life.

It's mantra time as far as I'm concerned. This fraud needs to be picked apart limb by limb or we may just have to entrust our national security to this kook.

"This fraud needs to be picked apart limb by limb or we may just have to entrust our national security to this kook."

jim: Your post is overly-dramatic BS that is not worth the space it took up on this page. Your'e not really saying anything -- it just comes off as desperate and angry. But that's just my opinion.

Gee Anonymous, sorry that I didn't vacuously drone on about deficits and who pays for them.

My post is simply an outline of what messages need to be pounded away on between now and the election by Bush supporters. They're Zell Milleresque talking points.

By the way, how did you view Miller's speech?

Bill,

'My real gut reaction? CALM THE HELL DOWN, Mr. President.'

I don't know that that hurt him all that much and realize you stress the recovery later in the debate.

What you may be missing is it's impact on people who are nervous about Kerry's fluid positions that change with the polls and the venue of the day. That portrait of Kerry is firmly entrenched in the electorate and it's Kerry's task to dispel it if he can (he can't, but that's another question).

What people saw in the first third of the was conviction. Exuberant, forceful, and emphatic belief in the positions he holds and the willingness to defend them. What they saw was a man of conviction exasperated with an opponent who displays none of the above. Anyone getting uncomfortable with Bush's level of intensity was reassured in the rest of the debate.

In short, I think you have that part wrong. The second 2/3s of the debate was not Bush recovering his cool. It was Bush knowing he'd made his point and relaxing.

Look for an MSM/DNC surprise assault in the next few days. Some resurrected meme along the lines of the forged memos. It may be disjointed because it will be prematurely floated without the groundwork necessary to give it enough legs to get through the week. The Kerry camps will have no choice but to try to draw the attention away from last night's debacle before Wednesday's debate. Otherwise people will listen to Wednesday's debate looking for that same conviction from Bush and not so much to hear Kerry. Bush will push Kerry's fluid record on domestic issues, expose the money pit 'Plans' of Kerry's for the vague BS they are, and above all accent Kerry's lack of any core beliefs.

I think the roles reversed last night. Unless the Kerry camps can skew the attention away from last night in the next few days with some October surprise, it will be Kerry on the defensive Wednesday night just as it was Bush on the defensive last week. Without conviction, Kerry's platitudes will defeat him in that role.

In short, very little Bush did or said last night taken in the context of the entire debate did not benefit him in ways that directly counterpointed Kerry. What you saw during the debate last night was Kerry and his campaign fail and start down the slope. What you saw after the debate in the old media spin rooms was the shocked realization of that fact.

"The US cannot offer tax cuts while waging a war and funding homeland security."

I can think of a whole slew of things that I would cut from the federal budget, maintain the tax cut, and still provide the one constitutional mandate the federal government does have, which is the security of the nation.

I don't think the only choice is defense or taxcuts-why don't we put some other crap on the table the federal government shouldn't be doing.

I have noticed on a message board I post at with lots of lunatic left members that they are trying to turn Bush's angry self from the first 1/3 into the equivalent of the Dean scream. If the MSM cooperates with this, they may succeed.

I do think Bush connected much better with the audience, I wonder if the did an exit poll of those people to see if any of them changed their minds.

Either you like it or you don't; Bush satisfied his supporters and enraged his opponents. And he mollified the media, who can't say he was tongue-tied or confused.

So GWB couldn't move the ball - no 1st down.

Remember this race is being fought over undecideds and turnout, democrats are more motivated than they have ever been and voter registration is skyrocketing whch bodes well for the Dems and bad for GWB on turnout. Remember this election is a referendum on the encumbent and traditionaly independants and undecideds break late for the challenger when the incumbent has such a poor position in the polls.

I will give John Kerry one critical point that is very important to me personally and that for what good it will do him in the long run makes him a man of far more character than Clinton.

During the debates in 1992, Bill Clinton never referred to Bush's father using any respectful title. It was always just "Bush". It's a debating trick used to avoid provide any honorific that would reinforce your opponents credibility. Some media advised Clinton to use that trick and Bill being a man of little or no character and in his first indication of how little he respected the office he wanted complied.

In 1996, Bob Dole always addressed Clinton directly or indirectly in the debates as the 'The president', or 'President Clinton'.

Kerry always addressed Bush directly and indirectly using as the 'The president' or 'President Bush' in both debates. I'm sure Terry's band of merry pranksters gave Kerry the same advice given Clinton. It's to Kerry's credit that he ignored them in favor of respect for the office.

It's a small matter I guess, but important to me.

BTW: In the 1992 debates, Bush always addressed Clinton as 'Governer Clinton' but his increasing annoyance at Clinton every time he said "Bush" was evident. In 1996, Clinton did use 'Senator Dole' but the debating trick applied the other way then. It was to Clinton's advantage that the relative positions of president and senator were reinforced at that point.

Again, a small matter, but kudos to Kerry for not taking that page from Clinton's book.

I was bothered by that last question too.

I'll tell you though, Kerry made himself look bad because he was so eager to jump on the Bush-mistakes opportunity.

He would have made points had he taken it upon himself to address some of his mistakes.

I thought it made Kerry look bad.

Bush won this beauty contest but he failed to capitalize on an opportunity to win the election. He needed to point out that Kerry's vote against the First Gulf War was completely inconsistent with his global test for legitimacy

"He needed to point out that Kerry's vote against the First Gulf War was completely inconsistent with his global test for legitimacy
"

I agree, and I don't understand why Bush has failed to point this out in two debates, you would think that would be one of the talking points at the top of his list, and wouldn't be one all that difficult to remember.

I saw speculation on another blog (do not remember which now) that maybe they want to save this for closer to the election to hammer Kerry with, but you would think the debates would garner them the best opportunity to expose it to a wider audience.

Don't know, but I can't help but think skipping that point was a poor move on Bush's part.

Main Entry: FLIP-FLOP
Pronunciation: 'flip-"fläp
Function: noun
1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely
2 : a backward handspring b : a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view)
3 : a democratic presidential or democratic vice-presidential candidate in the 2004 presidential elections.
- flip-flop intransitive verb

Main Entry: WAFFLE
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): waf•fled; waf•fling
Etymology: frequentative of obsolete woff to yelp, of imitative origin
1 : EQUIVOCATE, VACILLATE; also : YO-YO, FLIP-FLOP
2 : to talk or write foolishly : BLATHER (or RATHER of cBS)
3 : a democratic presidential and/or democratic vice-presidential candidate in the 2004 presidential elections.
waf•fler &r/ noun: John Kerry and/or John Edwards

Main Entry: WISHY-WASHY
Pronunciation: 'wi-shE-"wo-shE, -"wä-
Function: adjective
Etymology: reduplication of washy
1 : lacking in character or determination : INEFFECTUAL
2 : lacking in strength or flavor : WEAK
3 : a democratic presidential and/or democratic vice-presidential candidate in the 2004 presidential elections.
- wishy-wash•i•ness noun: see democrat

Main Entry: LI•AR
Pronunciation: 'lI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogere, from lEogan to lie -- more at LIE
: see democrat

Main Entry: LIE
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly•ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
3 : an act or action committed by a democrat
transitive senses : to bring about a false agenda by telling lies

Main Entry: DEM•O•CRAT
Pronunciation: 'de-m&-"krat
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent of a socialistic transition to communism b : one who practices transitional socialism with the final goal of communism
2 capitalized : a member of the U.S.S.R. (United States Socialist Republic)

Main Entry: WEDG•IE
Pronunciation: 'we-jE
Function: noun
1 : the condition of having one's clothing wedged between the buttocks especially from having one's pants or underpants yanked up from behind as a prank -- often used with get or give
2 : the democratic party's plan for the American people should John Kerry win the 2004 presidential election

Main Entry: PLAN
Pronunciation: 'plan
Function: noun
Etymology: French, plane, foundation, ground plan; partly from Latin planum level ground, from neuter of planus level; partly from French planter to plant, fix in place, from Late Latin plantare -- more at FLOOR, PLANT
1 : a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane: as a : a top or horizontal view of an object b : a large-scale map of a small area
2 a : a method for achieving an end b : an often customary method of doing something : PROCEDURE c : a detailed formulation of a program of action d : GOAL, AIM
3 : an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective
4 : a detailed program (as for payment or the provision of some service)
5 : something the democratic party falsely claims to have : see WEDGIE
- plan•less /-l&s/ adjective: see democrat
- plan•less•ly adverb: the actions of a democrat
- plan•less•ness noun: see democrat

Kerry appeared to stumble a couple of times, but overall was in far better command of facts. His arguments were better supported and articulated than Bush. In particular, Kerry's answer to the question about a supreme court nominee was very good, while Bush seemed to stuggle for words to a "non-answer".

It appeared that Bush listened to Rove and consequently did come across much better than in the first debate, but the damage is already done-much of the public have seen his true persona. He is not used to actually answering questions that have not been given to him in advance, so that may explain some of the trouble he has had in the debates.

It was shocking to me when the president acted rudely to the moderator. The inability to control himself in such a manner was suggestive of someone who is not used to having to answer cirtics without significant prep time.

Kerry was a bit confusing on the abortion issue, but he was correct about preserving freedom. The stem cell issue was misrepresented by Bush. He is aware that the lines are corrupt and not useful.

The bantering about "liberal" and "compassionate conservatism" was unfortunate and ironic. Bush is far more liberal on many traditionally convervative issues (especially fiscal responsibility) and Kerry has been more conservative than many in the Senate.

It was odd for Kerry to mention lunber industry as a Bush endeavor, but I suppose it is fair to say, since it was on the president's tax return.

Kerry definitly won the debate, but not by a large margin. It is a tight race, so let us hope that Kerry does even better in the third debate and that Bush displays his true character next time(as he did in the first debate). It is important for the public to understand the lack of competence in our president before more harm is done to our society.

truthful -

It is a tight race, so let us hope that Kerry does even better in the third debate and that Bush displays his true character next time

Let us hope? Let you hope. I'm rooting for Bush. Whatever Bush's "true character," he has character. Kerry is an empty husk of a man.

To people who for want of a better term are called political junkies, the debate looked closer than it was. These are people - myself included - already commited for some time to one candidate. We tend to stress the positives in our guy, and the negatives in the other guy.

We don't really matter in the campaign at this point except for any influence we have on people we know or connect to who are undecided. We aren't going to change our vote or decide how to vote based on the debates. They may straighten up the base, but to any degree that matters at this point, the debates will only effect the undecided vote.

So look at this from the viewpoint of someone still undecided and what is important to them. People vote personal security when they look at the presidental candidates. It may be putting food on the table, health care, defense, whatever. If they are worried about any particular personal security issue, they look very closely at how the candidates address it.

The economy that Clinton used against Bush 1 is off the table. That is not a concern for a politically significant number of undecided voters in this election no matter how Kerry tries to make it one. There were no compelling personal security issues in 1996, which favored the incumbent who presided over that comfortable state of affairs. The election of 2000 ended up being won by a whisker because there were no compelling personal security issues that either candidate could decisively address. They essentially looked the same except for party differences to most voters.

This election is about the WOT, the outcome of which is rightly perceived as personally affecting every voter. It's all about the WOT to the silent voter who is still listening and not yet advocating. These folks will come out in November for the candidate who they believe will address that most compelling personal security concern most effectively.

Put yourself in that silent voter's place Friday evening. That voter saw a contrast between conviction and confusion, confidence and dissembling, focus and disarray on the ONE issue that matters in this election.

Kerry did not win the debate no matter what the MSM spin is. Kerry did not draw the debate, no matter what the MSM spin is. Bush hammered him in the last debate on the issue that counts in this election. The parsing coming from the talking heads may reassure the person committed to one candidate or the other for reasons unrelated to that issue, but won't change the silent voter's perception of what happened Friday evening.

Look for polling outside the margin of error Monday favoring Bush. Keep in mind that it is only reflecting the movement of the silent voter block, not the real numbers yet.

That polling difference may or may not linger at that ratio until Wednesday's debate. That will depend on the Kerry camps being able to unveil some effective October surprise assault early in the week. There will be one, but it will probably fizzle. October surprises are usually character revelations. The quiver is empty of effective October surprises from the dems at this point. The examinations of Bush's character have all been made and won't hunt again. Every voter has made up his or her mind about Bush's character by now. That is not true about Kerry yet. People may not have completely decided about Kerry's character, but it isn't polling well right now. The republicans won't have to pull off some October character revelation about Kerry, just hammer away at the indecision.

There will be more attempts at October surprises by the dems later in the month, but they will probably fizzle also. Bush will have a double digit polling lead by the end of this week he won't lose again.

"how did you view Miller's speech?"

jim: Blatant appeals to emotion, pandering, and non sequitors never move me too much. But they work for many people, so I can see why many people found his speech to be brilliant.

Thanks Anonymous, for sanctimoniously acknowledging how the little (minded) people might find a speech like Zell Miller's inspiring.

Hey Bill, I know we traded some barbs the other night on your debate analysis (you know I was only trying to keep us fired up), but don't you have to agree at least a little with me that the only reason that Bush's debate performance is being shown as a draw is due to the fact that conservatives, unlike liberals after debate 1, did not appreciate that Bush had won more handily than they recognized.

Notwithstanding the snap polls, I felt Bush thumped Kerry. Forget the polls and left leaning pundits for a second and just look at two things if you want the answer. The candidate's demeanor after the debate and the crowd's reaction to the candidates. No fair minded person could watch the after-debate activity and conclude other than that Bush was far more upbeat and the crowd was far more exuberant towards him. I noticed many people avoiding eye contact with Kerry. Kerry looked beaten...and he did not after debate 1. (for the record, I thought Bush did poorly in #1)

What we know from the first debate is that as the punditry whipped themselves into an orgasmic frenzy cause their boy didn't reveal his pathologies on national TV the polls moved from "win for Kerry" to "landslide Kerry" (moved 20 points...the lemming affect). In contrast, on MSNBC you could hear a pin drop when they first cut away to "Hardball" after the debate cause their boy bombed. But they dutifully circled the wagons around Kerry and went into damage control. On Fox, the "conservative" panel, stupefyingly unaware that their boy had just triumphed, was so morose that, to paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, "if that crowd had been in a Blues Bar they would have been asked to leave for bringing everyone down." Kristol and Barnes seriously misapprehended what had just happened and damaged the enthusiasm that I think Bush's performance deserved, and which the town hall crowd recognized. So, the lemmings polled didn't know it was OK to go Bush big.

Draw for Bush means big win muted by overly critical conservative analysis. BUT, the good news is, that it is the voter's gut reaction (like in the hall), not the spun reaction, which will translate into votes.

"Kristol and Barnes seriously misapprehended what had just happened and damaged the enthusiasm that I think Bush's performance deserved, and which the town hall crowd recognized."

I agree that they weren't too enthusiastic, which surprised me. I think Bush was a bit over the top in the first portion, but he stayed focused, unlike Kerry and actually answered the questions unlike Kerry. I also think there was a huge difference in crowed reaction to him.

Barnes did correct his assessment on Beltway boys the following night, and said his initial reaction was wrong, but that was almost 24 hours too late.

I think conservatives tend to be harder on their own in these situations, while the liberals will rally around their guy, even if he totally flopped.

Actually, Bush never used "you can run, but you can't hide" in reference to terrorists.

"sanctimoniously acknowledging how the little (minded) people might find a speech like Zell Miller's inspiring."

Zell Miller is an asshole, how about that for my opinion. He stood up in front of the RNC -- claiming that he was (or is) a democrat -- and gave a speech that was littered with his interpretation of the truth. I'm not inspired by people who can stretch facts to fit around their stories -- sorry to be "sanctimonious". I like to think of it as ethics.

"http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=252.html"

"sorry that I didn't vacuously drone on about deficits and who pays for them."

jim: I forgot to mention. I was having a back-and-forth with somebody else here before you decided to butt in and add your two cents. Perhaps you should read the the previous posts before opening your trap. It was a relevant post and if you think it's vacuous droning then you don't know anything about the deficit or the proposed economic strategy. These are the kinds of things you should know before you decide to cast a vote for a president, don't you think?

Joe R: Still, my premise remains. Bush was trying to make an association with terrorists by using terminology that was previously used with terrorists.

Regan: "You can run, but you can't hide."

Scott McClellan: "But this is a clear reminder that terrorists can run, but they cannot hide."

7061 .Way to poker online.