1. The clear winner in the debate? The format. The Kerry camp may have been critical of it before it started but it worked to the advantage of both candidates. Think back to the last few presidential debates and most likely what you remember are the “gimmick” moments – George H.W. Bush looking at his watch in '92, Gore sighing and lurching toward Dubya in 2000. But this format caused them to tighten their answers and to rely on the effect of their responses rather than on their mannerisms.
2. During the Kennedy/Nixon debates, the people who listened to it on the radio believed that Nixon had won while those who watched the televised version thought Kennedy was the clear winner. I think the same could be said of this debate. I caught the first fifteen minutes on the radio and the remainder on television. Kerry seemed to come across better on the radio. His style of delivery can be rather dull, but when the audience is paying close attention, the cadence of his speech patterns work to his advantage in that medium. Bush, in contrast, is more difficult to listen to on the radio. His style of speaking works better visually, when we can almost see his thought processes in action. When I began watching it on TV, though, the advantage reversed. Bush was in his element and while Kerry managed (for the most part) to hold his own, his delivery wasn’t nearly as effective.
3. What was with Bush’s posture? Every time the camera would show him from behind it made him look like Nixon. The way he craned his neck and head forward made his shoulders rise up in an odd manner. Considering that he is already shorter than Kerry, you would think his staff would have stressed to him the need to stand as erect as possible.
4. Continually repeating Kerry’s “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” statement was a brilliant move. There aren’t many rhetorical tricks that can be used effectively in that style of debate so by repeating the same line, Bush was able to make it memorable. It also was a stunningly effective way to undercut Kerry’s claim that he'd bring in an international coalition to help with Iraq. But why would anyone want to follow anyone into what they admit is essentially a “quagmire.” Best line of the night -- every time he used it.
5. Bush made a mistake, though, in repeatedly claiming that Kerry had changed his position on Iraq. While his position is nearly incoherent it has remained basically unchanged. The mainstream press has spent the last week pointing out that fact and will no doubt continue to do so over the next week. This will give Kerry the advantage of being able to point out an error on Bush’s part rather than having to defend his position.
6. Kerry made a minor gaffe by bringing up the tax cuts. While it may have been a slight advantage to him, it certainly doesn’t help his party. Last week almost every one of the Democratic legislators in Congress voted to keep the tax breaks in place. As they hit the campaign trail they will have to defend a vote that was trashed by their own Presidential candidate.
7. Another Kerry gaffe was when he pointed out that after the invasion we secured the oil fields but not the “nuclear plants.” Most Americans have only the vaguest idea how nuclear weapons can be derived from the material found in power plants. Is it an easy process? Was it something Saddam was capable of doing? “Nuclear” was a word he did not need to have associated with Iraq.
8. The “how do you ask a man to die” question must have hit Kerry like a sucker punch. While I think it was a great question I can imagine how the Democrats are screaming foul over that one. That was not just the toughest question of the night but one that Kerry could not properly answer with the position he holds. I’m not surprised that he didn’t give an adequate response but he could have done better than bring up Halliburton. Bush’s rebuttal was solid but he could have used that question to better effect.
9. Kerry was aiming for a soundbite by using “outsourcing” in reference to the hunt for bin Laden. But when you’re entire position is that you want someone else to help carry the load, it loses its effect. His staff should have given him a better line to throw out.
10. The preemptive war question was a great opportunity for Kerry to show how he differs from the President. Unfortunately, his response included the horrific line about a “global test.” When it comes to the U.N., the majority of Americans have a deep distrust of its effectiveness and integrity (e.g., Oil-for-Food scandal). Putting so much emphasis on the need to get that organizations approval is a colossal mistake. The entire purpose of the U.N. is to provide a balance of power between nations. And when you’re the most powerful nation on earth that means you are the one that has to give up some of your own power and authority. That is not a winning platform for a Presidential candidate.
11. Why did Lehrer ask Bush if he had reservations about Kerry’s character? The veteran journalist could have easily used a less loaded word, such as “ability” or “leadership.” Simply bad form to ask such a question in this forum. Bush handled it graciously and Kerry returned in kind.
12. Kerry comes out against tactical nukes. Once again he is resorting to a balance of power ideal. Yes, we have nukes while we forbid other countries to acquire them. Anyone who doesn’t feel better about us having such weaponry while keeping it out of the reach of others is clearly insane. Most countries would gladly sell a nuke to the highest bidder if it allowed them gain an economic advantage. The U.S., in contrast, would never put our nuclear stockpiles for sale on eBay.
13. I’ll give credit where it’s due. Kerry was better than I expected. His behavior on the campain trail the past few weeks hampered his ability to show more of his personality. His Howard Dean-style rants were beginning to make him look like an angry and pessimistic candidate. He needed to present a calm and composed demeanor and did so quite effectively.
To my surprise, Bush did worse than I had expected. He wasn’t nearly as skilled and polished as he was when he faced Gore in 2000. Fortunately, he had the better message. Kerry’s position may have won the crowd over at a forensics contest but in the real world we want assurances that the President has a plan and a conviction. Kerry may have a plan (though he keeps it well hidden) but he certainly doesn’t inspire a sense of confidence that he’d be an effective leader.
Related: Hugh Hewitt has put together an excellent scorecard that lists each question and a summary of the candidate’s responses. Even if you don’t agree with his assessment you are likely to find the format useful.
Other views:
Dean Esmay providess some historical perspective:
In 2000, in the immediate hours after the first Gore/Bush debates, most pundits and most viewers and most pollsters agreed that Gore had won easily. Within two or three days, almost everyone agreed that Gore had made an ass of himself and had lost. In 1984, in the first hours after the first Reagan/Mondale debates, almost everyone agreed that Mondale had won, but in retrospect all anyone remembers is Mondale going down in flames. I also seem to be the only one who remembers that in 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen laid out his famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" line in his debate with Dan Quayle, which everyone today remembers as some kind of political knockout punch, what actually happened is that the vast majority of people in the following few days thought Bentsen had behaved like a complete jerk. The Democratic ticket took am immediate nosedive in the polls. As a Dukakis supporter that year, I was mortified. It still astounds me that anyone ever remembers that as a good moment for Democrats.
Deacon at Powerline give the win to Kerry but adds:
Usually, candidates tend to reveal their true colors towards the end of a long debate. Tonight, Kerry did so at least three times. First, when asked to identify the most serious threat we face, he said it was nuclear proliferation, not terrorism. And he mentioned that he wrote a book about the subject, pre-9/11. This illustrates how, deep down, Kerry filters the war against terrorism through his lifelong "no nukes" leftist prism.
La Shawn Barber heard it on the radio and gives the win to Bush.
Lapsus calami can't believe his ears:
Did I Hear Him Correctly? Did Kerry just say he would give nuclear materials to Iran? If so, the Bush team should pounce on that. Who in their right mind would do that?
Kris Tamerius makes an excellent point:
[I]f anyone watched the debate hoping to see a new President who miraculously had evolved into an eloquent public speaker, what were you thinking? We all know that President Bush isn't his strongest in a debate, but should that matter to thinking people? No. It would be nice if he had more of the Reagan delivery, but he doesn't, and no one should be surprised by that at this point. Just because someone can speak smoothly (saying something that sounds good at the right time), and look confident, doesn't mean anything; it doesn't mean that they mean what they say; actions speak much louder than words. I will judge President Bush by his actions, as will I judge Mr. Kerry by his.
Blogicus has an excellent round-up of debate related posts.
1
It's difficult to talk about who 'won' a debate in which there is no formal scoring. This was more like an interactive real time press conference with each candidate trying to stay as close to the scripted lines provided by handlers as possible.
But if 'winning' in this instance means who came away politically stronger than when they went in, as of now the polls on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AOL, and CNN give the 'win' to Kerry by a fairly substantial margin.
There is no point in crowing over that result. Poor sportsmanship will serve only to close minds, not open them. Despite the pick-up Kerry may have gained in this round, there is plenty of time left in the campaign. And this contest is an all out horse race.
2
12. Kerry comes out against tactical nukes. Once again he is resorting to a balance of power ideal. Yes, we have nukes while we forbid other countries to acquire them. Anyone who doesn’t feel better about us having such weaponry while keeping it out of the reach of others is clearly insane. Most countries would gladly sell a nuke to the highest bidder if it allowed them gain an economic advantage. The U.S., in contrast, would never put our nuclear stockpiles for sale on eBay.
Joe, I expect you'll have a few lengthy rants on this statement. REAL lengthy rants...
As to the debate, I think it was used for more precision sniping than bringing out the heavy guns. Everyone wanted their respective candidates to do a "Bring it on!' or wanted them to "break a rule." Something flashy. Both candidates did the exact opposite, choosing to try and snare each other in nuance while they kept their demeanors subdued.
Keeping that in mind, I don't think Bush was any worse or better than 2000. He simply let his message speak, as Kerry also tried to do. Trying to stir things up with more threatrics or increased emotion had more of a chance of back-firing that it did of helping them score points over their opponent. I don't think anyone wants to pull another Howard Dean...
posted on 10.01.2004 1:59 AM3
But if 'winning' in this instance means who came away politically stronger than when they went in, as of now the polls on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AOL, and CNN give the 'win' to Kerry by a fairly substantial margin.
The problem with most of those polls, with perhaps the exception of AOL, is that they are basically sampling groups where the majority are Kerry supporters, simply by virtue of the fact that the people participating in those polls are their viewers and the stations themselves are all left-leaning. I would like to see less biased polls from Gallup and the like. However, I do agree that most are probably putting too much stock in this debate.
posted on 10.01.2004 2:05 AM4
I am afraid that the majority of the people will give Kerry a win. Bush seemed as if he was groping for ideas, his delivery was amateurish, and his facial expressions and posture betrayed a nervous and scared angry man.
Kerry, meanwhile, came across much better than usual. His oratory could usually put a meth addict to sleep, but he managed to remain composed, focused and at times he was even (gasp!) charming.
Face to face, Mr. Bush came across as the poorly educated fellow he is, but that's worked well for him before. BTW, when is he going to stop calling terrorists and murderers "Those fellows" and "folks"? Am I the only one that finds it in poor taste?
5
I am afraid that the majority of the people will give Kerry a win. Bush seemed as if he was groping for ideas, his delivery was amateurish, and his facial expressions and posture betrayed a nervous and scared angry man.
And Kerry's scripted tone was any better? He sounded like he was coached, even if he was far more expressive than usual.
With Bush, you're taking one part at the end of the debate and applying across the board. And occasional fidgeting makes him amateurish?...
Kerry, meanwhile, came across much better than usual. His oratory could usually put a meth addict to sleep, but he managed to remain composed, focused and at times he was even (gasp!) charming.
Coming across much better than usual places him about even with Bush in presentation, which is where most analysis I've read had him. And I wouldn't quite call him charming.
Face to face, Mr. Bush came across as the poorly educated fellow he is, but that's worked well for him before.
A guy with a Yale MBA is poorly educated?...
Being down-home and colloquial is different than being poorly educated, skeptiko. Not to mention you just insulted millions of Americans with that statement...
BTW, when is he going to stop calling terrorists and murderers "Those fellows" and "folks"? Am I the only one that finds it in poor taste?
I think you only noticed it because you want to hate him. Your post wasn't so much an analysis as it was a piutch job for Kerry. Credit him with what he got right, but don't sit there and type such transparent and pandering statements.
posted on 10.01.2004 3:57 AM6
The AOL Poll shows a lower margin of victory for Kerry than the news polls. This morning when I signed on it was Kerry 54 % Bush 46 %.
AOL also had a number of questions along the lines of 'who do you think will be tougher on terrorism which Bush won handily. I believe about ~500,000 had responded last I checked.
One worrisome question on the AOL was:
Did it change the candidate you support?
No 72%; Yes, I now support Kerry 18%; Yes, I now support Bush 10%.
If that translated into actual numbers, which is highly dubious at this time, it would spell an eight point pick-up for Kerry.
Its going to be difficult for this to be spun into a victory for Bush given the on record comments of conservative Talk Show Hosts such as Joe Scarborough. My guess is we'll see new attack ads aimed at the Dems made out of various soundbites from the debate.
Some folks have raised the spectre of a politically motivated terror alert to take the lime light off this debate. What would be tragic is if we do see a high level alert which is for real this time; but is not taken seriously.
7
Kerry Stops The Bleeding
Flash polls are showing that viewers thought that Kerry won Thursday night’s debate by almost a 2 to 1 margin. CBS showed 44 percent for Kerry, 26 percent for Bush, and 30 percent said it was a tie. ABC showed 45 percent for Kerry, 36 percent for Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.
This is much need good news for the Kerry campaign. Going in to this week polls showed Bush with a 5 to 10 point lead over Kerry. Kerry was also having trouble in the battle ground states. Electoral College projections were predicting Bush victories in key states including Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. Bush was even competitive in traditional Democrat strong holds like Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey.
More Spinback.blogspot.com
posted on 10.01.2004 8:26 AM8
I like Hugh a lot, but I think he must've been smoking when he made his scorecard.
posted on 10.01.2004 8:48 AM9
I think Bush's strength, that of staying on message, actually worked against him this time.
Instead of looking focused, he looked as if he couldn't come up with good responses to Kerry and so just kept repeating himself.
I think Kerry took advantage of that to set himself up to appear as though he has more breadth of knowledge & experience than Bush.
Bush can't give an off-the-cuff multi-faceted opinion on foreign policy while at the same time continually repeating the same two paragraphs that he said moments before.
Kerry really gets on my nerves, but I think he did a lot better than people thought he was going to do. He looked focused, intelligent, and attentive. Bush's "folksy charm" didn't quite compare as well to Kerry's style as it did against Al Gore's droning rhetoric. It tended to make Bush look unprepared, rather than relaxed.
I think independents will take another look at Kerry. We will have to see at the next debate whether the President changes tactics.
Round 1 - Kerry
And regarding the nuclear proliferation discussion, it was a good point. What they ere actually talking about was not the creation of new standard nukes, but special small bunker-buster nukes. The science at the moment isn't really there right now either pro or against. Also, a missile defense isn't going to prevent another 9-11. In fact the obsession the Bush administration had with missile defense his first months in office was defiantly an example of "pre 9-11" thinking."
11
Was it President Bush's intent to avoid what would be perceived as "mean spirited" comments? There were many opportunities to bring up Kerry's voting record as a senator (esp. after the comment about President Bush funding nuclear bunker-busters), his conduct after the Viet Nam war, more of his contradictions, etc.
Most of the "Bush Base" I have talked to was very disappointed that the President didn't take those shots; the "Kerry Base" was unaware that there were shots passed up.
Was the 'kinder, gentler' tact the proper approach?
posted on 10.01.2004 11:17 AM12
Marcoe chastises someone else:
"Credit him with what he got right, but don't sit there and type such transparent and pandering statements."
but elsewhere Marcoe writes
"The problem with most of those polls, with perhaps the exception of AOL, is that they are basically sampling groups where the majority are Kerry supporters, simply by virtue of the fact that the people participating in those polls are their viewers and the stations themselves are all left-leaning"
CNN and MSNBC are left-leaning? On what planet?
posted on 10.01.2004 11:20 AM13
My advice to Kerry: next time Bush brings up the dead meme that Kerry voted against funding the troops, Kerry should hammer Bush. Kerry also should have brought that up as an example of Bush's untruthfulness.
I credit Bush with being more direct in his criticisms, a bit less namby-pamby, e.g., referring to one of Kerry's positions as "absurd." I wish Kerry had done more of that.
Bush's repetition of what "hard work" it is to be the President may come back to bite him. I think he was trying to get the country to empathize with him. But we all know he spends a lot of time riding his mountain bike and clearing brush at Crawford. And he goes to bed early and claims to sleep well at night. And what the hell did he think he was getting himself into, anyway? Of course it's hard work being the President. Especially when you've made the decision to do everything by yourself and to "stay the course" no matter how poorly planned that course turns out to be. I think in the end he came off as merely frustrated rather than tired but proud.
posted on 10.01.2004 11:31 AM14
Joe, I was nervous for days about this debate, since I realized that there are two people with different backgrounds involved here - a former prosecutor vs. a former businessman. William Weld had warned the Bush campaign about all the tricks Kerry pulls during debates. They might have heeded them, but now I wonder if Bush was effective in counteracting them. I have prayed quite a bit for this man, that God would give him wisdom to handle this situation. I am not a very happy camper today, but I wonder if there is a silver lining in this cloud. Any ideas?
posted on 10.01.2004 1:10 PM15
CNN and MSNBC are left-leaning? On what planet?
On planet Earth Larry. One planet Earth...
Most network and cable news stations are left-leaning, Larry. This isn't anything new, revolutionary, conspiratorial, or earth-shattering. It has been that way for decades. Its one of those sky-is-blue gravity-exists type things. Making a pretense of ignorance to that fact is trying to hide an elephant in the middle of the room.
And if that is all you can come up with to try and make me look like a hypocrite, you're doing a poor job Larry.
posted on 10.01.2004 1:13 PM16
Kerry supporters sound pretty happy. Bush supporters don't seem to be panicked. Most of the blogs and news sources are to be saying that Kerry did a better job in the debate. I wonder if the debate really changed any minds. It will be interesting to see if the next round of polls shows a decrease in the number of undecided voters.
My guess is that, by and large, people who went into last night with a choice did not change their minds and undecideds are going to decide until they get to the polling place. In the end, the outcome of the election will depend on who can turn out more of their supporters.
posted on 10.01.2004 1:19 PM17
It will be really interesting to see the Edwards-Cheney 'debate'. If we think of Bush and Kerry as being different kids of leaders, Edwards and Cheney might as well be different species. (Being pro-democratic for this election I'd like to think of them as Gollum and The Prince, but that's unrealistic) This is perhaps more accurate...
Edwards: Young Lion, photogenic, persuasive and charming.
Cheney: Solid Veteran of the Cold War, experienced, tough and smart.
Anyone know the format on that one? And who wants to go out on a limb and predict the outcome?
posted on 10.01.2004 1:26 PM18
I don't know-I sort of liked Bush's performance-he caught Kerry pulling things from nowhere-i.e. the Feds should support police and fire departments, oh and search every container shipped into the US and solve all of our problems with magic 'summits' and Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and a distraction from the war on terror, but Kerry would never say it was a 'mistake'.
But, Bush looked tired and his come backs are slow, and people may get hypnotised by Kerry's rhetoric and weird voice. Or, so the consensus seems to be.
posted on 10.01.2004 1:29 PM19
Marcoe
"This isn't anything new, revolutionary, conspiratorial, or earth-shattering. It has been that way for decades."
Horse hockey David. Wingnuts have been eating that meme up and swallowing it for decades. Meanwhile, conservatives who aren't afraid to take their tin foil hats off will admit (for example)
William Kristol: "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Got it, David?
It's a myth that you've bought into because it's a convenient rhetorical strategy. Anyone who wasn't brain dead back in 2000 knows exactly how "liberal" the "liberal media" is: not at all. Is Tom Brokaw liberal? Is Jim Lehrer liberal? How do you know? Where do you come up with your garbage, David?
It's so old, so tired, so lame, and so pathetic, David, that the only people who still bring it up are those desperate souls who can't keep their knees from jerking even four years after their candidate won. It's almost as if you are already thinking up excuses for Kerry's victory in November. Try to come up with some better ones, David. Or better yet, try to face reality and the fact that George Bush has incurred more than a few liabilities during his bloody, expensive and thoughtless four years as President.
posted on 10.01.2004 1:59 PM20
I found your take on point #2 to be very interesting. Conservative blogger The Smallest Minority had exactly the opposite impression you did. He felt that Kerry was more effective if you were watching, and Bush more effective if you were listening. Personally, I think neither was true. I think Bush mostly stuck to talking points, and seemed uncomfortable -- and often angry and flustered -- when he deviated from them. He didn't have much of substance to say, and most of what he did say was attempting to perpetuate the stereotypes about Kerry, rather than what he (Bush) has done / would do.
posted on 10.01.2004 2:01 PM21
Joe:
First, when asked to identify the most serious threat we face, he said it was nuclear proliferation, not terrorism.Unfortunately, if you listened, Bush agreed with him on this point, and even used it as an opportunity to plug his idiotic missile defense system. Only as an afterthought did he throw in a minor mention of terrorists -- in the 30 second re-rebuttal. posted on 10.01.2004 2:07 PM
22
DS asks
"Anyone know the format on that one? And who wants to go out on a limb and predict the outcome?"
Yeah. I'll predict the outcome. Edwards is going to make Cheney look and sound like a foul bloated greedy heartless pig and it'll signal the beginning of a Kerry/Edwards surge that will carry them to victory in November.
Cheney, the world's fattest dissembling creep (Condi Rice is the all around champ) is going to stink up the airwaves "big time." I am eagerly looking forward to watching that walking corpse self-destruct on national TV, spilling his oily phlegm and rancid bile over his podium and onto the floors of living rooms in homes where'd he'd never step for fear of contracting some "disease of the poor."
posted on 10.01.2004 2:08 PM23
One more for Marcoe
"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked . . . For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
-- Pat Buchanan
posted on 10.01.2004 2:12 PM24
skeptiko:
BTW, when is he going to stop calling terrorists and murderers "Those fellows" and "folks"? Am I the only one that finds it in poor taste?No, the Daily Show made fun of that. "We're fighting 'fellows?!?'"
David M:
And occasional fidgeting makes him amateurish?...Actually, yes. Worse, it made him look like he didn't really want to be there.
Coming across much better than usual places him about even with Bush in presentationAlso true, but this is national security, which is supposed to be Bush's strongest suit. A draw would have essentially been a win for Kerry, and by most accounts, Kerry actually won outright (or, depending on your perspective, Bush lost).
Most network and cable news stations are left-leaning, Larry.I hear this claim repeated time and again, and yet nobody ever bothers to come up with any evidence to back it up. Certainly no network is biased to the left to anywhere near the extent that Fox News is biased to the right. And a while back, FAIR did a survey of journalists that showed that despite most journalists self-identifying as "centrist" or "liberal," their views on the issues are generally to the right of the average American.
Patrick:
I think Bush's strength, that of staying on message, actually worked against him this time.I would tend to agree, because the "message" Bush was trying to stay on often had nothing to do with the question that had been asked of him.
All:
I'm curious if anyone else got this impression, but here's the impression that I got. It seemed to me that Kerry was primarily trying to woo the undecideds and the swing voters, whereas Bush was primarily trying to solidify his base. Much of what Bush said was unlikely to impress or convince anyone not already inclined to support him. Much of what Kerry said was intended to address GOP attacks against his character (most notably the consistency of his positions and that he has no plan -- he did a decent [but not slam dunk] job of refuting both).
It's unlikely that there are any undecideds here who could weigh in on that observation, but I could always hope.
Also, most of the polls I looked at showed Kerry winning the debate (in the eyes of those who watched it), but this having little effect on whom people were going to vote for.
posted on 10.01.2004 2:24 PM25
Larry:
I agree with you that the "liberal media" is a myth, but aren't those quotes four or five years old? Mind you, even if they are that old, they actually underscore the point, because nobody can argue with a straight face that the media is now more liberal than it was five years ago. Faux News Channel has had the effect of pushing nearly everyone somewhat to the right.
posted on 10.01.2004 2:26 PM26
Newton: I am not a very happy camper today, but I wonder if there is a silver lining in this cloud. Any ideas?
As Dean Esmay points out, initially people thought that in previous debates that Carter beat Reagan and Gore beat Bush. I suspect the same thing will happen here. People had such low expectations of Kerry that the simple fact that he didn’t pull a Howard Dean made him appear Presidential. He was polished and low key but when people start really looking at what he said this debate will be seen as a plus for Bush.
Before my liberal friends disagree, I think you need to answer one question: What is Kerry’s plan for Iraq? (And no using references from JohnKerry.com either use the transcript.) We still don’t know the details. All he talked about were summits (which Bush points out are already planned) and reaching out to “allies.” In the heartland of America, when people hear the word “ally” they don’t immediately think of France and Germany like Kerry does. The Bush campaign has 30 more days to hammer home the point that Kerry really has no plan. I doubt that even he believes that he is going to persuade F and G to join the cause.
DS: And who wants to go out on a limb and predict the outcome?
I predict the outcome will be much the same as in the Bush/Kerry debate. Edwards will win the style points but everyone will remember that Cheney’s responses were more substantive. I also think many people are overestimating Edwards. I heard him speak last night and it underscored the point that he should be a character in a John Grisham novel rather than a VP candidate. Heck, I live in the South and I find his accent off-putting. And since I think he will be the hot-head to Cheney’s Cool Hand Luke, he will come across as a petulant boy-man to the VP’s elder statesman.
Tgirsch He didn't have much of substance to say, and most of what he did say was attempting to perpetuate the stereotypes about Kerry, rather than what he (Bush) has done / would do.
I think that is why Bush had the advantage. Most everyone has a fairly clear idea of what Bush’s plan is for Iraq – stay the course and build a democracy. Kerry, on the other hand, played the enigma in order to let people read into his position what they want to believe. Some people will be thinking he will pull the troops out soon. Others will think he will be like Bush -- only better. Most of us, though, recognize that he really has no plan at all. He’s hoping to bluff his way until Nov. 2nd and hope no one notices.
Unfortunately, if you listened, Bush agreed with him on this point, and even used it as an opportunity to plug his idiotic missile defense system.
You have a point. I don’t think Bush was prepared for some of the weird stuff that Kerry was going to throw at him. Dubya could have batted that out of the ballpark but didn’t. It was a serious error on the President’s part.
Kerry was primarily trying to woo the undecideds and the swing voters…
If so, I don't think it will work. “Undecideds and swing voters” are code words for people too ignorant or lazy to be informed about politics. I think it is a moniker people claim for themselves to keep from appearing completely stupid. Anyone who is still undecided this close to the election simply hasn’t been paying attention and is unlikely to have spent 90 minutes listening to a dry debate on foreign policy. I think you’re right that Kerry was aiming for that audience but I think he was wasting his time. He should have played to his base like W did.
posted on 10.01.2004 2:57 PM27
Joe recites Bush's "plan" as follows:
"stay the course and build a democracy."
My question is: how?
Imagine I hire an architect to build my house. He says he can do it in a month. Each week I stop by and each week I see a pile of rubble. I ask him what's happening and he says "The ground isn't as firm as we thought, we didn't think we need so many nails, and it rained more than we hoped so the boards are too wet." I ask him how he's going to get the job done and he says, "Well, we're just going to stay the course and build your house."
That such vapid statements can be accepted at face value by a portion of the population of this country is a testament to how Republicans have succeeded at keeping Americans ignorant and afraid to look under the roof to see the rotten beams underneath.
posted on 10.01.2004 3:17 PM29
Horse hockey David. Wingnuts have been eating that meme up and swallowing it for decades. Meanwhile, conservatives who aren't afraid to take their tin foil hats off will admit (for example)
William Kristol: "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
All that quote talks about is the overall influence of liberal media and how it is over-emphasized by conservative pundits. It isn't refuting the idea that they are liberal...
Which is also what I said. There aren't some massive cabal out to squash the oppressed conservatives. They're left-leaning, like the campuses of many major universities, and like much of academia. It isn't a conspiracy or "tinfoil hat" issue. It is a matter of demographics. Fox is a more right-wing station that caters to more right-wing viewers. I catch Fox News on occasion. I get most of my news on blogs. Ironically, I watch CNBC on a regular basis because I like Dennis Miller.
It's a myth that you've bought into because it's a convenient rhetorical strategy. Anyone who wasn't brain dead back in 2000 knows exactly how "liberal" the "liberal media" is: not at all. Is Tom Brokaw liberal? Is Jim Lehrer liberal? How do you know? Where do you come up with your garbage, David?
So far you have miracuoulsly read my mind and tell me I believe this stuff in some desparate and vain attempt to justify the existence of my beliefs. All with out asking me as to why I assert it.
Did it ever occur to you that I assert because the slant is fairly obvious in their broadcasts? And it doesn't even have to be a dramatic difference: Simply the way a story is edited is enough to slant in one way or the other. I think they are more subtle than something like Fox News, which is right-wing. I won't make any pretense that it isn't.
It's so old, so tired, so lame, and so pathetic, David, that the only people who still bring it up are those desperate souls who can't keep their knees from jerking even four years after their candidate won. It's almost as if you are already thinking up excuses for Kerry's victory in November. Try to come up with some better ones, David. Or better yet, try to face reality and the fact that George Bush has incurred more than a few liabilities during his bloody, expensive and thoughtless four years as President.
Yes, let us face up to reality:
If Bush looses, he lost by his own actions. if Kerry wins, his campaign got something(s) right at a vital point(s). No left-wing conspiracy or any other deus ex machina involved. It is a fairly tight race and the swing vote is narrow. The actions of either candidate can throw it either way.
Could Bush have done some things better? Yes. Could he hae opened his mouth more often and explained himself? Yes. Could he have stayed more consistent on domestic spending policies? Yes. Is he by any means a perfect President. Hell no. But in choosing between a man I believe to be of far substantial character and a man I believe to be a traitor to this country, I'll choose the man i blieve has character, which happens to be Bush. You see it completely oppositely, Larry, and that is your right.
I'm not a libertarian, but I agree with many tennets of their ideology. I'm a Christian, but I hate Christian contemporary music. I'm not registered with any political party. I am voting for Bush more on my opinion of his character than on his policies. I agree with Alan Keyes on many things, but think some times he can sound like a nut-job. I don't think there was second gun man on the grassy knoll and I don't have any particular love of conspiracy theories.
You took one statement of mine and painted a picture of me that is larglely inaccurate. You may disagree with my statement and ask me to back it up, but don't sit there and paint a picture of my character when you have very little idea of who I am or what all my opinions are. Get it, Larry?
Tgisrch
I hear this claim repeated time and again, and yet nobody ever bothers to come up with any evidence to back it up. Certainly no network is biased to the left to anywhere near the extent that Fox News is biased to the right.
Granted, Fox News is very biased. You won't get any argument here.
I think the best evidence for media bias is the mini-scandals they get themselves in to, Rathergate. Print news seems more baised than broadcast news.
And a while back, FAIR did a survey of journalists that showed that despite most journalists self-identifying as "centrist" or "liberal," their views on the issues are generally to the right of the average American.
Could you point me in the direction of that study? If i need to revise my opinion, seems like a good place tos start.
And occasional fidgeting makes him amateurish?...
Actually, yes. Worse, it made him look like he didn't really want to be there.
Point granted.
I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked . . . For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.
-- Pat Buchanan
Larry, this is what I ask for. It is a good start at refuting my assertion. Now give me more, instead of the straw men and ad hominem attacks.
In contrast to Pat Buchanan, I've seen the presentation to be more slanted. He's refering to the coverage of events.
posted on 10.01.2004 3:18 PM30
I would take issue with those who don't think Kerry was playing to his base, which seems to be the appeasement left:
1. give nuclear fuel to Iran;
2. unilaterally disarm;
3. give up pursuit of bunker-busting bombs;
4. turn decision-making authority over to the United Nations under the auspices of some kind of "global sniff test"
5. pander to our enemies
6. criticize our allies
I thought Bush's strongest moment was when he said, and I quote from memory:
"If you want to see your Commander-in-Chief in drag, and turned into Jacques Chicac's Love Bitch, then John Kerry is your candidate. If you want to see your President in chains and stirrups getting spanked by Kofi Annan in stilletto heels, John Kerry is your man, so to speak."
31
Marcoe
A couple comments
First, I note that on one hand you claim that the bias is "subtle" but on the other hand apparently it is enough to cause you to dismiss the polls from taken from most of the major TV news media.
And you're still way out in wingutland if you want me to believe that CNN and MSNBC are "left leaning."
Moreover, it now appears that Fox News has made a total ass out of itself.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003551
Just fyi: Fox News is not merely "biased" to the right. It is a mouthpiece for conservative ideology. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. It's transparent to anyone with a brain. What's wrong is lying and perpetuating lies, which Fox does regularly.
posted on 10.01.2004 4:09 PM32
First, I note that on one hand you claim that the bias is "subtle" but on the other hand apparently it is enough to cause you to dismiss the polls from taken from most of the major TV news media.
Subtle andd polished. But my opinion is that they still cater to a more left leaning audience. So, following that line, if the audience is the one responding to those polls and the audience is made up of more people on the left side of the aisle, then what will the results show?
If you think that they aren't left leaning, then you can dismiss my argument.
Waiting for what I believe a more unbiased poll like Gallup, which tries to sample a more accurate cross-section, is not nutty. It is simply that I want what I percieve to be more accurate results. If it still shows more people approved of Kerry, then I'll take it like a man and admit that Kerry came off that debate, in public perception, better than Bush.
Thinking back on it, the sheer of polls showing the same result is not te be dismissed either, so let me retract part of my statement and say I take them with a grain of salt.
And you're still way out in wingutland if you want me to believe that CNN and MSNBC are "left leaning."
Did I say they were hardcore cabals of leftist ideology that are a mout piece for the Left? No, I said, quite moderately, they are "left leaning," which some how magically places me "wingnut land." I'm getting the feeling than anyone to the right of Clinton is in your "wingnut land."
Moreover, it now appears that Fox News has made a total ass out of itself.
Yet they completely restracted it, completely admitted the error of their correspondent, and gave reasonable explanation (whether or not it is the truth will be borne out eventually), which is more than CBS has done. And yet that adds nothing to a point that I already agreed with: Fox news is right-wing and doesn't do much to hide it.
Just fyi: Fox News is not merely "biased" to the right. It is a mouthpiece for conservative ideology. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. It's transparent to anyone with a brain. What's wrong is lying and perpetuating lies, which Fox does regularly.
You have every right to hold that opinion and seek information where you want.
And guess what, I stopped watching Fox news so much because of the very reason to cite Larry. Some of their material can be decent, but I get better analysis and less rhetoric from blogs than anywhere else.
posted on 10.01.2004 4:43 PM33
Joe:
I think that is why Bush had the advantage. Most everyone has a fairly clear idea of what Bush’s plan is for Iraq – stay the course and build a democracy.Except that thus far, whether true or not, in the eyes of most Americans Bush's plan isn't working. And as I've commented here and elsewhere, Kerry gave about as detailed an answer as to his plan moving forward as I could ever want or expect given a two minute time limit. Get other countries involved, to take some of the burden off of us. How would you convince them to do that? By relinquishing some control. Get better equipment to our troops, and increase the number of troops we have available for deployment. How are you going to pay for that? (An odd question for any Bush supporter to ask, I might add.) By rolling back the tax cuts on the top tax bracket. If we "stay the course," then can we expect American casualties to continue to increase, as they've done for at least the past two months?
If so, I don't think it will work. “Undecideds and swing voters” are code words for people too ignorant or lazy to be informed about politics. I think it is a moniker people claim for themselves to keep from appearing completely stupid.I don't expect this sort of cynicism from you, but in any case I think it oversimplifies the case. Kerry's base isn't going anywhere (what are they going to do, vote Bush? Make the Nader mistake again? I don't think so...) so it makes sense to try to sway the undecideds. And the post-debate polls show that while Kerry didn't win over any Bush supporters, he did gain a couple of points from the undecided pool.
David M:
I am voting for Bush more on my opinion of his character than on his policies.That kind of thing scares me. Hey, I might not like what he does, but he seems like a stand-up guy, so I'll vote for him. Whu?
As for the media bias study, it's six years old, but it's here. As I said, it's difficult to argue that the media has become more liberal since then. Even most "liberal media" believers say the landscape has shifted since Faux News entered the scene. Even CNN (the Clinton News Network) has shifted right over the last several years. (Section C of the report is the "payoff.")
Kevin W:
#1, I've heard a few people talk about this, but I must have missed where Kerry suggested he would do this.
- give nuclear fuel to Iran;
- unilaterally disarm;
- give up pursuit of bunker-busting bombs;
- turn decision-making authority over to the United Nations under the auspices of some kind of "global sniff test"
- pander to our enemies
- criticize our allies
#2, Where precisely did Kerry suggest we would "unilaterally" disarm? Where did he suggest we would disarm at all? There's a big difference between not producing new weapons and giving up the ones we've already got...
#3, In what way does this make us weaker? And in any case, he never said he would give up on all bunker busters; just nuclear bunker busters. I don't recall him saying anything about getting rid of conventional ones.
#4, This is probably the biggest BS of all. Imagine your wife is out of town, and you need to make a key decision in her absence. Do you wait for her permission to make it? Or do you just make damn sure you're going to be able to justify your decision to her after the fact? It's the latter that Kerry was talking about when he mentioned the global test. He was very clear about not waiting for permission and not allowing others to veto our security concerns. He was just saying that he wouldn't do anything that he couldn't justify to our allies after we did it. It troubles me that people on the right can do no better than to mischaracterize what he said.
#5, How do you figure? I'm not sure how hunting bin Laden (remember him? The guy who actually attacked us? The guy who Bush hasn't cared much about in over a year?) amounts to pandering to the enemy.
#6, Here, finally, you have a bit of a point. But even there, Kerry did not directly criticize our allies; he merely pointed out that we haven't got very many any more, and the ones we do have aren't contributing much in the way of manpower. Do you dispute these claims?
posted on 10.01.2004 4:50 PM34
For everyone's edification, here's FactCheck.org's take on the debate. All in all, I think it's a fair assessment, and they don't seem to play favorites.
posted on 10.01.2004 4:57 PM35
For everyone's edification, here's FactCheck.org's take on the debate. All in all, I think it's a fair assessment, and they don't seem to play favorites.
posted on 10.01.2004 4:57 PM37
David
"Media services are also business. At that time, the opinion was for the Iraq war nation-wide, so what ever the in-house bias might be, they still have to respond to the demands of consumers."
So what are you saying here, David? Consumers watch the news not in order to learn facts but ... to hear conclusions that support their opinions? That news outlets with full knowledge of the facts report falsehoods to gain market share? Any evidence to support this (besides Fox)?
I know that's why people watch Fox. But Fox isn't news nor does it pretend to be (or if is pretending, it does an awful job).
posted on 10.01.2004 5:23 PM38
So what are you saying here, David? Consumers watch the news not in order to learn facts but ... to hear conclusions that support their opinions? That news outlets with full knowledge of the facts report falsehoods to gain market share? Any evidence to support this (besides Fox)?
It isn't a matter of changing the facts so much as it is catering to a a particular market share with a particular slant on the facts. When you're dealing with a medium of images and sound, you can edit and present things in one of many potential ways and no one presentation is technically inaccurate. The recent controversey over how documentaries are produced and edited, in the wake of Fahrenheit 9/11, is a perfect example.
Now what ever it says about human nature, human beings will tend to filter sources through their biases. And the source that comes closest to their bias will curry their favor. Considering that a business has to respond, as an economic reality, to the general public's demands, they are going to tailor their presentation, in some fashion, to general public opinion, but it is still going to be along the lines of the primary audience. In other words, CNN hasn't become as Fox News, even though the slant has changed with Fox News coming in to the market.
I know that's why people watch Fox. But Fox isn't news nor does it pretend to be (or if is pretending, it does an awful job).
Didn't you just say this in your previous post?
posted on 10.01.2004 5:54 PM39
"The recent controversey over how documentaries are produced and edited, in the wake of Fahrenheit 9/11, is a perfect example."
What "controversy" are you talking about? The only possible "controversy" I know of is the one imagined by the right wingnuts and debated ad nauseum by the "left leaning" press. You know, the "controversy" about whether it's okay to criticize George Bush for his policy on Iraq. That has nothing to do with "how documentaries are produced and edited."
Try to find some blogs, David, that don't just cater to your preconceived opinions. Because if the blogs you are reading seriously find Moore's methods "controversial," then you are knee deep in it.
"When you're dealing with a medium of images and sound, you can edit and present things in one of many potential ways and no one presentation is technically inaccurate."
"Technically accurate" David? Is that the standard? How about just plain accurate. Is it possible for a medium of images and sound to present information accurately David? Yes or no. It's that simple.
"Considering that a business has to respond, as an economic reality, to the general public's demands, they are going to tailor their presentation, in some fashion, to general public opinion, but it is still going to be along the lines of the primary audience."
Let me rephrase my question David to see if it's possible to get you to answer it in a straightforward manner without spinning and dissembling: do you think there is a demand among TV viewers for the accurate reporting of facts by news stations?
posted on 10.01.2004 6:19 PM40
Tgirsch,
Except that thus far, whether true or not, in the eyes of most Americans Bush's plan isn't working.
Actually his approval rating on Iraq is about 50% approve, 50% disapprove. Of course, I would say that 90% of the people on both sides of the answer have no idea what is really going on in Iraq.
Get other countries involved, to take some of the burden off of us.
That won’t happen. The other countries have already made that clear. I don’t think Kerry even believes they will.
How would you convince them to do that? By relinquishing some control.
Control over what? We’ve already relinquished as much control as possible to the Iraqi interim government. By the time the next inauguration rolls around the Iraqi elections will already be taking place.
Get better equipment to our troops, and increase the number of troops we have available for deployment.
Our equipment is fine and we have enough troops already. The problem is the troop are in the wrong service. (For example, we need to transfer some of the numbers from the Air Force to the Army.)
How are you going to pay for that? (An odd question for any Bush supporter to ask, I might add.) By rolling back the tax cuts on the top tax bracket.
Even his own Party admits that rolling back the top bracket isn’t going to be enough.
If we "stay the course," then can we expect American casualties to continue to increase, as they've done for at least the past two months?
You are a prime example of what I’m talking about. Kerry has no plan for bringing the troops back home. Will the terrorists stop attacking our people simply because Kerry is the President?
I don't expect this sort of cynicism from you, but in any case I think it oversimplifies the case.
I don’t think it is either cynical or overly simple. I think it’s simply a fact. Think about all the people you know. Can you really tell me that there are not people in your acquaintance who are too dumb to understand the intricacies of politics?
Kerry's base isn't going anywhere (what are they going to do, vote Bush? Make the Nader mistake again? I don't think so...) so it makes sense to try to sway the undecideds.
Yeah, many will make the “Nader mistake” simply because they don’t think he can win anyway.
And the post-debate polls show that while Kerry didn't win over any Bush supporters, he did gain a couple of points from the undecided pool.
That will fade tomorrow when they go back to watching “The O.C.” and “North Shore.”
#1, I've heard a few people talk about this, but I must have missed where Kerry suggested he would do this.
Quote from the transcript: “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.”
#6, Here, finally, you have a bit of a point. But even there, Kerry did not directly criticize our allies; he merely pointed out that we haven't got very many any more, and the ones we do have aren't contributing much in the way of manpower. Do you dispute these claims?
I would dispute the claim that Germany and France are really our allies.
posted on 10.01.2004 6:36 PM41
I'm not sure how anyone can with a straight face discount a liberal bias in much of the media. Compare the skepticism with which mainstream media outlets treated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the credulity with which CBS greeted 30 year-old memos created on Microsoft Word. Regardless of the positions they take in the report tgirsch linked to above, this page provides a good summary of how members of the media have actually voted in recent elections, which seems more relevant to me.
I agree with tgirsch that the factcheck.org analysis is well-done. They also do a pretty good job of fact-checking the campaign ads, for those interested.
posted on 10.01.2004 6:46 PM42
Joe:
Of course, I would say that 90% of the people on both sides of the answer have no idea what is really going on in Iraq.On this, at least, you are probably correct.
That won’t happen. The other countries have already made that clear.Well they certainly won't be bailing Bush out, after he collectively gave them the raspberry. But it's not farfetched to think that new leadership could change that. Rather like new leadership in Iraq has changed our relationship with them (of course, in the case of Iraq, it's a new leader that we installed, but still... ).
We’ve already relinquished as much control as possible to the Iraqi interim government.And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Our equipment is fine and we have enough troops already.So body armor is a waste of money? As far as "enough troops," I suspect there are plenty of military strategists on both sides of the aisle who would strongly disagree with you.
Even his own Party admits that rolling back the top bracket isn’t going to be enough.Probably true, but at least it's a start. It's certainly a helluva lot more than Bush has done to raise the necessary funds. Rather than specify where the money's going to come from, he'd rather go further into hock and let your kids pay for it than worry about it himself.
Will the terrorists stop attacking our people simply because Kerry is the President?Of course not, but nobody has made any claims to the contrary, so put the straw away. And your implication (and that of others) that the terrorists will stop attacking our people here because "we're keeping them busy" elsewhere is equally foolish.
Think about all the people you know. Can you really tell me that there are not people in your acquaintance who are too dumb to understand the intricacies of politics?Of course not. But it's a long damn stretch to apply that label to all (or even most) undecideds and swing voters, as you did in your initial claim. Everyone knows a few dolts, but that doesn't make all fence-sitters like that.
“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.”OK, thanks. Of course, done correctly, this still could have been okay (although I wouldn't be comforatble with it), and haven't we done this before?
I would dispute the claim that Germany and France are really our allies.Okay, fine. Umm, where did I ever make that claim? (They ought to be our allies, but that's a different discussion.)
Kent:
CBS vs. Swift Boats is apples-to-oranges. The Swift Boat claims were mostly demonstrably untrue (in some cases contradicted by their own personnel records), and they went around for a week or two unchallenged running their ads before the media even picked up on them. And even then, most of the media sources gave them a free ride for a while before asking them the tough questions. Only after the Washington Post did their homework did SBVT get harsh treatment.
The CBS claims, on the other hand, were not parroted by any other major media outlet besides CBS. Hardly equivalence there.
how members of the media have actually voted in recent elections, which seems more relevant to me.I disagree about the relevance. It's only relevant to the extent that it comes through in their reporting. If their reporting treats the sides unfairly, or prejudices the viewer, then it's relevant. If they are registered Democrats but report even-handedly, where's the foul? posted on 10.01.2004 7:14 PM
43
Tgirsch,
So body armor is a waste of money?
Of course it’s not a waste of money. But then again, all the combat troops had body armor. The stories about parents having to send their kids body armor were all about rear area personnel who didn’t really require state of the art equipment. Money wasn’t the problem, anyway. The problem was the Army’s prioritization of its funding.
As far as "enough troops," I suspect there are plenty of military strategists on both sides of the aisle who would strongly disagree with you.
True. The attrition warfare types will certainly disagree with my assessment. But if you want to appear as a “liberating” rather than an “occupying” force then you need to leave a smaller footprint. More troops sitting around can also make for more unnecessary targets.
Probably true, but at least it's a start. It's certainly a helluva lot more than Bush has done to raise the necessary funds. Rather than specify where the money's going to come from, he'd rather go further into hock and let your kids pay for it than worry about it himself.
So I guess you would probably want all of the legislators who voted to extend the tax cuts thrown out of office, right?
Of course not, but nobody has made any claims to the contrary, so put the straw away.
Well, then what will change? If Kerry is not going to bring the troops home how will it prevent them from being targets in Iraq?
And your implication (and that of others) that the terrorists will stop attacking our people here because "we're keeping them busy" elsewhere is equally foolish.
Maybe. But have we been attacked on our soil since the war began?
Of course not. But it's a long damn stretch to apply that label to all (or even most) undecideds and swing voters, as you did in your initial claim. Everyone knows a few dolts, but that doesn't make all fence-sitters like that.
There may be 2-3% who are genuinely “undecideds.” But think about everyone you know who is intelligent and informed and count how many are “fence-sitters” because they can’t decide who should be President. I bet you could count them on one hand and still have enough left over to give me the finger. ; )
OK, thanks. Of course, done correctly, this still could have been okay (although I wouldn't be comforatble with it), and haven't we done this before?
I don’t know. But I think it would be silly to test the theory.
Okay, fine. Umm, where did I ever make that claim? (They ought to be our allies, but that's a different discussion.)
We agree on that then.
posted on 10.01.2004 7:32 PM44
Here's a review from Salon Magazine:
It's the IQ Stupid
By Tim Grieve
Salon.com
Friday 01 October 2004
Kerry outsmarts Bush in the crucial first debate.
Coral Gables, Fla. - John Kerry didn't destroy George W. Bush in the presidential debate Thursday night. John Kerry didn't turn water into wine, and he might not have turned any red states blue. But for 90 minutes, John Kerry put George W. Bush on the defensive. For 90 minutes, John Kerry looked like he could be president. And for the moment - for the moment - a race that once seemed lost suddenly seems alive again.
John Kerry won.
It happened slowly, and sometimes it seemed that it wasn't happening at all. Kerry opened in fits and starts. He answered moderator Jim Lehrer's first question with the sort of strong, clear, declarative sentence that seems to evade him - Lehrer asked Kerry if he thought he could make America safer, and Kerry said, "Yes, I do" - but then interrupted himself to offer expressions of gratitude to the hosts of the debate. Later, Kerry waited way too long to respond to Bush's "flip-flop" charge, and his first few swings at it were ineffective. "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined," Kerry said at one point. "We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am," he said at another.
But as the night went on - as Bush smirked and stumbled and even seemed to sigh - Kerry hit his stride and found his strength. The moment came about half an hour in, when Lehrer asked Bush about his policy of preemptive war. Bush said he had "never dreamt" of starting a war before Sept. 11 - "but the enemy attacked us, Jim."
Kerry was on it, and his response was devastating. "The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate," Kerry said. "In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist ... That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains."
Bush had no response, at least no intelligent one. "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us," he said. "I know that." But it wasn't so clear sometimes that Bush did know that. Earlier in the debate, he had mixed up Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and had to stop to correct himself.
It wasn't Bush's only low point. Bush's message discipline has served him well in this campaign - every man, woman and child in America knows that John Kerry is a "flip-flopper" - but Thursday night, message discipline looked like mindless repetition. Bush used the words "mixed signals" or "mixes messages" nearly a dozen times, and it seemed like a lot more. He accused Kerry of changing positions eight times. And he complained seven times about Kerry's calling Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong time."
Again and again, Bush jumped on the end of Kerry's answers, asking Lehrer for time to respond, then found himself with nothing to say. The president sputtered, stared off into the distance - invoking nothing more than that footage of him listening to "The Pet Goat" - then inevitably returned to the riff he repeated all night long. In case you hadn't heard, Kerry changes his positions and sends "mixed messages."
And when Kerry turned the tables on Bush - when he challenged him on Iraq or North Korea - Bush seemed to have little to say beyond his first line of defense. The president seemed either unwilling or unable to deal with the tragedy of Iraq. On a day when 41 Iraqis were killed in car bombings - 34 of them children getting candy from U.S. troops - Bush said nothing at all about the suffering of the Iraqi people. He described Iraq in the way that some people talk of losing weight: "It's hard work."
It's really hard work, so hard that Bush used the phrase 11 times. And Bush said he understands it's hard. "I get the casualty reports every day," he said. "I see on the TV screens how hard it is." Bush seemed to save himself from the emotion-free zone a few minutes later, when he got choked up talking about his meeting with a woman who had lost a son in Iraq. But then he bungled it with another "hard work" and a little Bushism to boot. "You know," he said, "it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way."
But it wasn't Bush's stumbles that mattered Thursday night. Bush has bumbled and fumbled in a million other speeches and press conferences and interviews, and it hasn't done a thing to undercut his support with his half of the electorate. People - some people - even find it endearing.
What mattered Thursday was Kerry's performance. Kerry had the chance to share the stage with the president, and he had to look like he belonged there. Just before the debate, Kerry advisor Mike McCurry acknowledged that voters "don't put Kerry in the context right now of commander in chief." McCurry wrote it off to the "usual life cycle" of a presidential election, but it was more than that. Whether in the caricature the Republicans have drawn for him or in his own meandering style, Kerry had failed to come across as fully presidential. When he'd say something like, "When I'm president," it seemed, well, off.
In the run-up to the debate, it was unclear that Kerry would be able to change that. First, Matt Drudge and Lynne Cheney suggested that Kerry had taken on some kind of artificial orangey glow. Then, on "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning, Kerry flubbed a question he should have been ready to nail. Asked about his infamous "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" comment, Kerry said he'd made it in "one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired." Kerry was wrong; he'd made the comment early one afternoon.
And Thursday, the Kerry campaign managed to get into a spat over the timing lights. The two campaigns had agreed that the lights would be visible to the television audience; the Kerry campaign hadn't contemplated that they'd be mounted on the lecterns. In the view of reporters, Mike McCurry and a team of Kerry aides fought it out with a handful of Bush advisors. The lights stayed, and Kerry looked both hyper-technical and weak for raising the issue.
But all that disappeared as Kerry found his stride - his presidential style - Thursday night. As Bush got angry, Kerry got stronger. With Bush deep in heavy-repetition mode on North Korea and Iran, Kerry stepped back and explained the crises in the two countries calmly, methodically and with a confidence that came from knowledge. And somehow, he did it without devolving into Gore-ian condescension. While Kerry didn't score any ha-ha one-liners - it's not his style, and he looks goofy when he tries - he nailed Bush a couple of times with simple, clear condemnations. Going after Bush's budget priorities, Kerry said: "We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe."
Kerry advisor Tad Devine said that Kerry "looked and acted like a president," that he had counteracted in 90 minutes the $150 million in Republican advertising. While Karl Rove would never go that far, he clearly understood that John Kerry had kept himself in - or put himself back in - the race Thursday night. "This is going to be a close, hard-fought race right down to the end," a subdued Rove told Salon. "I think people are going to look at each one of these and sort of draw an opinion from each one. There's going to be very little movement one way or the other."
That's not so clear. While polling in the presidential race won't be available for a few days, the networks' instant polls held considerable promise for Kerry. CNN polled 615 registered voters right after the debate; they said Kerry won, 53-37. And the pundits seem to be on board, too. All through the day, Kerry's team talked of the importance of the post-debate spin, a lesson learned four years ago when Gore won the debate but lost in the war of the talking heads. But by the time Team Kerry rolled into Spin Alley, their candidate had made their job easy. Devine pronounced Kerry's debate as "the best wire-to-wire performance I've ever seen in a debate." Even John McCain, on hand as a Bush surrogate, conceded that Kerry had done a good job.
Karl Rove and the Republicans will certainly fire back Friday. They'll call Kerry on a factual flub or two - when Kerry said he'd never called Bush a liar, you knew that the Republicans would find a time that he did, and they did - and they'll get back on their flip-flop talking points. But for one night, at least, John Kerry has taken control.
posted on 10.01.2004 7:38 PM45
tgirsch:
I won't debate the validity of the Swift Boat Veterans' claims ... not because I agree that they're "mostly demonstrably untrue" but because it's beside the point. Let's say for the sake of argument that John O'Neill is a bald-faced liar, and none of the claims are true, and CBS ignored them because they investigated their story and found it to be poppycock. The question still remains ... why did CBS not bring that same level of scrutiny to the TANG memos?
You introduced a study purporting to show that despite most journalists self-identifying as "centrist" or "liberal," their views on the issues are generally to the right of the average American to refute the notion of liberal media bias. I introduced further data that their behavior ... voting ... more closely matches with their self-identification, regardless of their "views on the issues." Does that prove media bias? No. But if a person is going to skew a news report, it would more likely lean in the direction that he self-identifies and votes, rather than in the direction of the "conservative views" that he's somehow managed to conceal from himself.
posted on 10.01.2004 8:57 PM46
"The recent controversey over how documentaries are produced and edited, in the wake of Fahrenheit 9/11, is a perfect example."
What "controversy" are you talking about? The only possible "controversy" I know of is the one imagined by the right wingnuts and debated ad nauseum by the "left leaning" press. You know, the "controversy" about whether it's okay to criticize George Bush for his policy on Iraq. That has nothing to do with "how documentaries are produced and edited."
Whyen did we go from talking about whether some networks are left-leaning to criticzing Bush's policy on Iraq? Go ahead and criticize if you want to. I'm not stopping you and no one stopped Moore either. But don't expect everyone to agree with you or Moore, Larry.
And Moore didn't get slammed for his criticism. He got slammed for dishonest film-making. Now again, you can diasgree with that all you want and you are perfectly free to do that, but when someone calls BS and gives an earful of their opinion, like you do to everyone else, you complain that their surpressing your opinion (speaking in the collective "your" of the Left). Yet here you are posting this stuff and no one is stopping.
And it doesn't matter if it is Moore, some other documentary director , or a news anchor, and whether or not it is conciously there, but bias can find its way in to the editing of non-fiction film and television.
Try to find some blogs, David, that don't just cater to your preconceived opinions. Because if the blogs you are reading seriously find Moore's methods "controversial," then you are knee deep in it.
Larry, you don't know what blogs I read, so don't presume to know anything about my reading habits. Thank you.
"When you're dealing with a medium of images and sound, you can edit and present things in one of many potential ways and no one presentation is technically inaccurate."
"Technically accurate" David? Is that the standard? How about just plain accurate. Is it possible for a medium of images and sound to present information accurately David? Yes or no. It's that simple.
To some extent, bias will find its way in to television and flim. No stopping that. Can bais be sufficiently checked so that the message comes across accurately? Yes. Do those producing non-fiction television and film do that as often as they should? No. So, "technicallly accurate" is often the standard.
"Considering that a business has to respond, as an economic reality, to the general public's demands, they are going to tailor their presentation, in some fashion, to general public opinion, but it is still going to be along the lines of the primary audience."
Let me rephrase my question David to see if it's possible to get you to answer it in a straightforward manner without spinning and dissembling: do you think there is a demand among TV viewers for the accurate reporting of facts by news stations?
You never asked the question previously, in any form. You extracted something from my statement I didn't say and you're asking different question. But, I'll answer it. Yes, there is a demand for accurate reporting, but beyond reporting basic facts, what people think is accurate or not varies. What you and I think are accurate is worlds apart. Because we don't just look for reporting of straight. We look for commentary and we look for analysis and while parts of that can be done relatively bias free, by its very nature, you can't keep all bias out of it.
If you think my answers are spin and absolutely garbage, you don't have to respond. I know that I am finally spent on this subject and I am moving on. I think we've pretty much come to the end, where there is no common ground left between us, not that there was much to begin with. Feel free to respond or not. This thread is now dead to me.
posted on 10.01.2004 10:29 PM47
Joe:
So I guess you would probably want all of the legislators who voted to extend the tax cuts thrown out of office, right?First, it's not the entire tax cut that got extended, just the middle-class' portion. Kerry has talked about revoking the cuts for the top bracket, which that vote did not address. And honestly, considering the gargantuan deficits we're running up, I'd rather they didn't even do that, although kicking them all out is a bit harsh. It's certainly irresponsible, no matter which party they're from.
If Kerry is not going to bring the troops home how will it prevent them from being targets in Iraq?I'm not sure where you're going here, but I never said it would prevent this. My sole claim was that the morally bankrupt "flypaper tactic" is wholly without merit. Rather like building a really dirty hospital to attract all the germs, so that every other hospital will be clean. It doesn't work that way.
But have we been attacked on our soil since the war began?That proves nothing and you know it. Prior to 9/11, the last al-Qaeda attack on US soil was more than eight years earlier. By the standard you've just set, any al-Qaeda attack on US soil before late March of 2010 proves that Bush's tactic has failed.
There may be 2-3% who are genuinely “undecideds.”Which undermines your previous point. That 2-3% is enough to swing several key states. And yet it's still a waste of time to try to woo them, in your mind? Hardly.
But think about everyone you know who is intelligent and informed and count how many are “fence-sitters” because they can’t decide who should be President.Actually, most of these that I know (and I need more than one hand, by the way) have the problem that they don't like either candidate. They have to decide whether to vote against Bush, against Kerry, or say "screw it" and vote for a third-party candidate. One such friend is leaning toward Badnarik right now.
But I think it would be silly to test the theory.Probably so, but then it would seem silly to sell weapons to that state, too, and that didn't stop Reagan's boys. And for their trouble, Ollie North gets a cushy gig on Fox News. :)
Kent:
At best your logic still would not demonstrate that "the media" is biased. It would simply demonstrate that CBS News is biased. And for what it's worth, O'Neill is a bald-faced liar (as one exampe, the Cambodia thing: "We were never anywhere near Cambodia" until somebody dug up old footage of O'Neill himself telling Nixon that he personally had been in Cambodia...), and he's been on an anti-Kerry witch hunt for decades.
The other interesting thing here is that the "star witness" who claimed that the documents were fake also claimed that they accurately reflected what Killian was saying at the time; and nobody really disputes any of the allegations made in the fake memos, they only dispute the authenticity of the memos themselves. It would be as if I drafted fake memos accusing president Nixon of corruption; the fact that my memos were fake would make Nixon no less guilty.
But if a person is going to skew a news report, it would more likely lean in the direction that he self-identifies and votes, rather than in the direction of the "conservative views" that he's somehow managed to conceal from himself.Not necessarily true. What often happens (at somewhat-conservative FactCheck and somewhat-liberal Spinsanity, for example) is that they overcompensate for their known personal biases. Suppose John Kerry says something that clearly isn't true. A self-identified conservative reporter may, in the interests of appearing "balanced" go out of his way to also find something bad to say about a conservative to "balance" the story, even if the conservative violation is nowhere near as egregious. He treats unequal things as equivalent to try to appear fair and balanced. This sort of thing happens all the time, and it's sad.
David M:
Tgirsch, I want thank you again for being even-handed in your discussion. We completely disagree on almost everything, but I do have respect for the way you post arguments.Thanks. I've found that any debate that can't maintain a civil, rational tone isn't worth having. :) posted on 10.02.2004 12:06 AM
48
The other interesting thing here is that the "star witness" who claimed that the documents were fake also claimed that they accurately reflected what Killian was saying at the time; and nobody really disputes any of the allegations made in the fake memos, they only dispute the authenticity of the memos themselves. It would be as if I drafted fake memos accusing president Nixon of corruption; the fact that my memos were fake would make Nixon no less guilty.
Fake but accurate? tgirsch, I'm disappointed.
Our discussion is not about the merit of the Swifties' claims, or Bush's National Guard Service, or Nixon's guilt. It's about the media. The fact is that CBS did not bring the same level of scrutiny to the TANG story that they did to the Swift Boat Veterans story...even though Mapes spent FIVE YEARS on the story. That doesn't prove there's bias, but I've not yet been convinced by any other explanation for the obvious difference.
There is a greater willingness on the part of many in the media to accept the leftist spin. Here's yet another example. If you'll scroll up, you'll see that the media apparently took at face value a press release from the ACLU that the courts struck down a major part of the Patriot Act. Is that because of bias? Could be laziness, I suppose. But I don't think press releases from John Ashcroft's Justice Department, for example, or the Landmark Legal Foundation, are accepted with the same credulity.
posted on 10.02.2004 8:20 AM49
Kent:
You're going to be dropping a lot of onesy-twosy examples like those before you can even start to make up for the way the press uncritically accepted virtually everything the Bush administration told them ("accepted the rightist spin") for the first two or three years of the administration. Why, after all, should the media question the Bush Administration's assertion that we could afford the massive tax cuts without eliminating the budget surplus? (Remember that? The budget surplus?) Why should they question the administration's insistence that the Iraqis were going to welcome us as liberators by throwing flowers at us? Or the assertion of Cheney and others that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
Another counterexample: left vs. right can be viewed as labor vs. capital. We get stock reports (capital) every day. How often do we get labor reports? (Wage statistics, working conditions, etc.) At most once a month.
The point is this: to establish a "leftist bias," you have to show that when spin like this comes through in stories, it's leftist spin far more often than it's rightist spin.
A while back, I issued an open challenge to provide specific examples of the purportedly "pervasive leftist bias" on NPR's Morning Edition or All Things Considered. I have to say, the responses I got were less than compelling.
posted on 10.02.2004 11:19 AM50
Marcoe writes
"I would like to see less biased polls from Gallup and the like."
So is the most recent Gallup poll which showed an 8% shift in Kerry's favor after the debate accurate? A shift would require (as Steve Soto wrote) a "16% swing in party self-identification in one week, with 8% fewer likely voters self-identifying as Republicans and 8% more self-identifying as Democrats" in one week?
If Marcoe believes the Gallup poll is accurate, he probably thinks Glenn Reynolds is a man of integrity. Scary.
posted on 10.04.2004 5:04 PM51
Kent wrote
"The question still remains ... why did CBS not bring that same level of scrutiny to the TANG memos [that it brought to the Swift Boat allegations]?"
and again Kent wrote
"The fact is that CBS did not bring the same level of scrutiny to the TANG story that they did to the Swift Boat Veterans story"
Since the ever-polite Tgirsch won't ask, I'll have to do it myself: Kent, what the hell are you talking about? Why do you claim that CBS used different "levels of scrutiny" for the two stories? Any moron who looked at the Swift Boaters could see they were a pack of vile liars who couldn't be trusted to tell you the time of day if Kerry's bid for election depended on it.
If CBS and other media outlets had reasonably scrutinized the Swift Boaters, the Swift Boaters bogus sick claims would never have amounted to anything but a footnote. Instead, the SBVLiars were given more press attention than those stupid CBS memos would ever have received.
Again Kent: why do you claim that CBS used different "levels of scrutiny" for the two stories? Did major pundits and network anchors read the Swift Boat Veterans book cover to cover to determine whether its authors were honest and straightforward before inviting them onto their programs to spew their propaganda? If not, what "level of scrutiny" would you say was applied?
posted on 10.04.2004 5:20 PM52
Kent, please help me understand what "level of scrutiny" the "left-leaning" MSNBC applied when it first announced that Luntz was going to be doing debate coverage for MSNBC. And then let me know the same info wrt to the Kurtz' recent editorial in the Washington Post. Thanks.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040008
"Reporting Republican pollster Frank Luntz's complaints about MSNBC's decision to drop him from its debate coverage after a letter from Media Matters for America, as well as criticism from progressive weblogs and their readers, Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz reported that Luntz "says he's done no GOP work since 2001" but didn't bother to look into whether Luntz's statement was true."
posted on 10.04.2004 6:45 PM53
Larry:
If you can't see the differences between how the two stories were approached, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer, but I'll try.
NO mainstream media outlet uncritically accepted the allegations of the SBVT. Most network news and major newspaper coverage focused on their funding, their alleged partisan motives, and the alleged tie with the Bush-Cheney campaign because a lawyer had both groups as clients. Name call all you want, but most of the Swifties' assertions are unassailable...Kerry DID call his fellow soldiers war criminals and admitted to being one himself, those comments were used as propaganda by the enemy, and Kerry DID meet with the enemy during the Paris Peace Talks. But most of the mainstream coverage has not talked about those issues ... it has been aimed at the difficult to prove (or disprove) allegations about what happened in Vietnam. And at least one of those allegations HAS been verified (no Christmas in Cambodia), and the Kerry campaign has had to concede that at least one other may be true (the unintentional self-inflicted wound that resulted in his first Purple Heart).
CBS News (and the Boston Globe and I believe USA Today) DID uncritically accept the phony TANG memos...despite the fact that they were obvious fakes. As I said above, that's not definitive proof of bias ... but I still have heard no logical explanation for the difference.
I don't know what role MSNBC had in mind for Luntz. Certainly, television news outlets hire partisans of all stripes as analysts (i.e. Alan Colmes at Fox). It's interesting that MSNBC backed off in the face of criticism from Media Matters and "progressive weblogs." ABC certainly didn't show that same sensitivity to conservative protests over the hiring of George Stephanapolous (sp?).
posted on 10.05.2004 5:17 PM