THE GREAT DEBATE
Kerry Kicks Ass
It seems the Guy Who Never Lost A Debate has lost a debate.
Howard Kurtz, who covers the media for the Washington Post, "scoured the the Major Media coverage" after the contest ended Thursday night and found no one who claimed a Bush victory.
Jay Nordlinger, of the right-wing William F. Buckley organ National Review, said this:
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy -- not Joe Political Junkie -- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate."
And Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard -- the unimpeachably Republican puff paper owned by FOXNEWS owner Rupert Murdoch, a publication whose columnists still hold with Dick Cheney that there were WMDs in Iraq -- wrote:
"The good news for Kerry is that on the basis of his solid performance in the first nationally televised debate with President Bush, the griping among Democrats is likely to cease. But change the direction of the campaign, which Bush now leads by a small but significant margin? Probably not. Or affect the outcome? Not that either."
Which is not exactly high praise.
The best news, for us Kerry supporters, is that Karl Rove and his minions insisted that the debate on foreign policy and national security came first -- the idea being, Bush would put Kerry away, mooting the next two debates. Instead, Bush essentially lost a proverbial home game against heavy odds, and now has two tough road matches on the schedule (three, if you count John Edwards's impending annihilation of Cheney in the VP debate tonight).
Several notes of my own on the upset:
First, Kerry looked more presidential. Think of it this way: if you were a Hollywood casting director and had to pick one of the two candidates for the role of President in a movie you were making, the only way you'd pick Bush is if you were doing a Born Again Christian remake of Chris Rock's Head of State. Kerry looked like a president. Bush looked like a petulant monkey boy. Undecided voters in this image-obsessed nation care deeply about stuff like that.
To be fair, the debate made me -- read closely, this is a big concession -- not hate Bush so much. The times when Bush looked most comfortable is when he and Kerry were talking about their families...agreeing, in other words. I think deep down, Bush really is a uniter and not a divider. Unfortunately for him, he's in so thick with divisive far right partisans, and he's such a feeble leader and weakling, that this quality never got a chance to shine during his four years in office.
I've heard right-wing pundits break down Kerry's Iraq position, as expressed during the debate, as flip-floppy. That may be so, if you pay very close attention to every little word. But as I watched, I felt that he came across as consistent. His admission of misspeaking ("I made a mistake in speaking about Iraq; Bush made one in deciding to invade; which is worse?") scored points, yes, but mostly it seemed that he stressed a singular position and a defensive Bush hammered home tired Karl Rove one-liners.
Coming across as annoyed, petulant, agitated...that's what cost Gore the debate in 2000. A lot more people watched this one, many of them with an opinion about Bush but not about Kerry. Now they have seen what John Kerry can do.
Start packing, George. It's four and out for you, just like your daddy.
—Greg Olear
Editor, LARGEREGO
October 5, 2004
Editor, LARGEREGO
October 5, 2004
"We are a nation in danger." |