Instapundit liveblogged, with his first reaction here and the last here. Reading the posts, it appears the debate was more substantive than he believed it would be, and while opinions vary along the expected lines, he essentially calls it a draw:
"Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected. . . .that you never know what he'll say next time. If I hadn't been paying attention to the campaign, though, I'd be fairly impressed -- and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category. . . . Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well ("the transformative power of liberty"). Both did a pretty good job of sticking to issues and there weren't too many cheap rhetorical tricks. I don't think it'll change a lot of minds."
Here at home, Professor Yin agrees:
"I thought that President Bush did better in the first half, particularly when he showed how contradictory it was for Senator Kerry to talk about how he would bring allies into Iraq at the same time he was criticizing it as a "diversion" from the war on terror. Why, Bush asked, would the French or Germans want to join in a diversion?
However, Bush seemed to run out of gas in the second half, and he rambled and repeated himself, and seemed to rely more on authority than logic. That is, his answers seemed to keep coming back to variations of, I'm the President, I know how these things work.
Of course, the campaigns were spinning the debate after the fact, and I have a feeling that will be reflective of how the debate will be perceived. Pro-Kerry people will think he won and be able to point to the second half to bolster their view; pro-Bush people will think likewise, and point to the first half. I'm curious what my co-blogger thought of the debate."
Hugh Hewitt does a nice scorecard with his take on the answers each gave on the issues, and as expected, calls it for Bush:
"Bush gets a big win, by hitting all his messages over and over again. He wins on substance. Biggest mistake by Kerry: "The Global Test." Sorry, the American voters aren't interested in passing any global tests. Bush stresses steadfastness and resolve. Kerry firmed up the hard-left vote, but you can't win on this."
Matt Yglesias, also not surprisingly, calls Kerry the victor:
"The easygoing, somewhat charming Bush of the 2000 campaign is gone. So, too, is the moralistic, crusading Bush of the address to Congress after the September 11 attacks. We don’t even get the Bush of the catastrophic 9-11 attacks themselves, where a disoriented president at least seemed genuinely disturbed by the events of the day.
Last night’s Bush looked more like the victim of a psychopharmacological experiment gone awry -- the result of a botched effort to create the speechwriter’s dream candidate, the one who sticks to the professionally written script come what may, an effect achieved only by shutting down the neural pathways that might allow the outside world to impinge upon his psyche. He reminds me of Zack Braff’s character in Garden State, driving off from the gas station with the nozzle still stuck in his tank, presumably spilling fuel everywhere. Except that was funny. It was a gas station in a movie."
NZ Bear analyzes the questions for spin. A sample:
"1) Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
Bias: Neutral
2) Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Bias: Neutral
3) Colossal misjudgments. What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Bias: Against Bush. "Please elaborate on all the ways your opponent has screwed up, Senator." That's not a debate question, that's an open door."
His call: "So: 17 questions in all, 1 one of which I (generously) call as biased against Kerry, 10 neutral ones, and six biased against Bush. That's not a neutral playing field, folks, that's what we call in the biz, 'statistically significant.'"
Talk Left feels the split-screen format strongly favored Kerry:
Update: Forget the pundits. You be the pundit. What did you think? I thought Kerry Ace'd it. I thought Bush was a mess. His final scripted closing showed just how off he was during the actual debate. Bottom line: Kerry soared, Bush flailed around.
Update: John King on Aaron Brown: Bush's campaign is admitting he lost tonight--he's not a good debater. One aide told him the best thing about the debate is being able to check the box that it's over. Of course, his aides also said debating skills are not as important as Bush's message.
Candy Crowley on Aaron Brown: Aaron asked, "Where between 1 and 10, with 1 being totally depressed and 10 being off-the-charts giddy, is Kerry's campaign tonight?" Answer: between 8 and 9.
Update: The split-screen is a big topic. Even the Fox pundits are saying Bush's demeanor was poor--one called him sour-looking. CNN pundits said the same. On CNN, they also praised Kerry's demeanor and said his supporters will be happy tonight and he was as Presidential-looking as Bush.
The press is calling the debate for Kerry:
"Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry. Most of those surveyed said he did better than Bush. . . .
When Kerry leveled some of his charges, Bush appeared irritated and scowled at times and, at other moments, glanced away in apparent disgust. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke. The television networks offered a split screen to viewers so they could see both men at the same time and watch their reactions."
James Lileks has a d*mn articulate piece on the relevance of the debates from a hawkish point of view:
"But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I’ve been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. . . .
Perhaps the “ally” is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. It’s like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) . . . .
So no, I’m not enthused about a summit, unless we get to set the agenda. Item one: get over the frickin’ Jews, people. They’re not going anywhere, and if they do they’re taking all of you with them. Item two: You poke the hornet’s nest one more time and the skies of Tehran and Riyahd will darken with 747s, which will disgorge a fleet of Jeeps. We will ride around with bullhorns and announce that all women are free to leave, with their children, so they can live in a society where they get to show some shin without having some gynophobic wanker whip them with sticks. Your choice! Madrassas and no women, or a live-and-let-live world with women, and cable TV and the odd cold beer now and then, if you like. Beer will not be mandatory. We’re not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But you know, on 9/111 we recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day. Your choice. Item three: we’re going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we’ll have a discussion. We’re willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word “but,” you’re escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent’s night at our school in Park Slope. One’s an artist, the other’s a lawyer. . . .
Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well."
There's lots more, read the whole thing for a snarky but devestatingly well-written summation from that side of the fence. I know I quoted lots of it, but only because I wish I could write half as well.
My own point of view? Having read all this, I suspect I'd agree with Wonkette:
Gee, that was incredibly predictable. . . . Kerry managed to not contradict himself within the space of a single sentence. Bush succumbed to vapor lock a couple of times but everyone knows that just makes him seem like a normal guy. All in all, we don't know who won. We're going to wait for the media to tell us.
UPDATE
That teaches me to do a recap before I've finished reading my now-enhanced blogroll. Matt has a his thoughts up on Thoughts from the Oasis:
"Bush did come off as defensive and arrogant, I thought. His facial expressions while Kerry was speaking were just rude. Kerry dutifully took notes while Bush was speaking. Bush just looked pissed that anyone else was allowed to speak.
One of my favorite moments of the debate was when Kerry accused Bush of outsourcing the job of catching Osama Bin Laden. Pretty funny stuff. And Kerry had a great response to Bush's attack about Kerry first voting for the war and now calling it was a mistake."
Read the rest.
Jeff at Tusk and Talon thinks he and James Lileks share a brain.
Homercles is succinct:
"The candidates both seemed to operate under these principles:
1) Stay on message
2) Don't **** up
Kerry managed not to erupt spontaneously into pompous ass mode, and Bush refrained from his Beavis laugh."
Onstage echos a thought I think we've all got sometimes:
"I'll tell you, one of the main things I want to base my vote on I don't like the way either one of them thinks...so what do I do then?"
Moira at Inappropriate Response has a good point:
"If your vote depends on your impressions in these debates, you're a stupid schmuck who has no business going near a polling booth."
A nice place to end this, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment