Much Better
Whew.
George W Bush did what he had to do in last night's debate. He looked and sounded confident. He didn't "um", or hesitate before speaking, or stumble over his words like he did in the first debate. No he didn't "win" every point or engagement with John Kerry. But then, it is a mistake to score these things as if we were watching a college debate among students.
Bush was fired up. He also looked comforable with the format and audience. Kerry looked aristocratic and condescenting.
Bush also kept his body language under control, and the smirks I saw were from Kerry. Granted, I was typing or following some blogs much of the time so I didn't see all of it, but I didn't hear of any problems either.
Bottom Line: The President won. Not decisively, but he didn't need to. Kerry needed another decisive victory and he didn't get it.
I don't have time this morning to go through all of the details of the debate, so I'll save that post for another time. For now I'll let you know my general impressions.
The biggest temptation among those of us who follow politics so intently is to grade every exchange, and wish Bush had said this or that. If you followed the commentary at National Review's The Corner blog, some of them did just that.
Bush also kept his body language under control, and the smirks I saw were from Kerry. Granted, I was typing most of the time so I didn't see all of it, but neither did I hear from any commentator that it was a problem.
Perhaps the biggest problem among those of us who follow politics so intently and then write about is that we "grade" every exchange on what Bush should or should not have said. "He did't adequately counter Kerry's Tora Bora attack!" is all too easy.
It was interesting to follow the debate at National Review's The Corner blog, and compare their comments to those left at Little Green Footballs. The NR commentators are professionals, and those at LGF average people sitting at home. The former overanalyzed every comment, the latter looked at the "big picture" of how the debate was going in general.
Kerry looked like a whiner. He's saying bad things about me! He's calling me wishy washy! I am not! Really! And I have a plan!
After the Democratic primary it seemed that Kerry was running for platoon leader. Now it seems like he's running for president of the student government association: He kept listing people who support him as if it's a popularity contest. "See? All the cool people like me!"
Did anyone believe Kerry when he said that he and Edwards would push for tort reform? Or that he would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year? What howlers.
We conservatives have reason to be happy this morning.
More Good News
John Howard wins in Australia!
George W Bush did what he had to do in last night's debate. He looked and sounded confident. He didn't "um", or hesitate before speaking, or stumble over his words like he did in the first debate. No he didn't "win" every point or engagement with John Kerry. But then, it is a mistake to score these things as if we were watching a college debate among students.
Bush was fired up. He also looked comforable with the format and audience. Kerry looked aristocratic and condescenting.
Bush also kept his body language under control, and the smirks I saw were from Kerry. Granted, I was typing or following some blogs much of the time so I didn't see all of it, but I didn't hear of any problems either.
Bottom Line: The President won. Not decisively, but he didn't need to. Kerry needed another decisive victory and he didn't get it.
I don't have time this morning to go through all of the details of the debate, so I'll save that post for another time. For now I'll let you know my general impressions.
The biggest temptation among those of us who follow politics so intently is to grade every exchange, and wish Bush had said this or that. If you followed the commentary at National Review's The Corner blog, some of them did just that.
Bush also kept his body language under control, and the smirks I saw were from Kerry. Granted, I was typing most of the time so I didn't see all of it, but neither did I hear from any commentator that it was a problem.
Perhaps the biggest problem among those of us who follow politics so intently and then write about is that we "grade" every exchange on what Bush should or should not have said. "He did't adequately counter Kerry's Tora Bora attack!" is all too easy.
It was interesting to follow the debate at National Review's The Corner blog, and compare their comments to those left at Little Green Footballs. The NR commentators are professionals, and those at LGF average people sitting at home. The former overanalyzed every comment, the latter looked at the "big picture" of how the debate was going in general.
Kerry looked like a whiner. He's saying bad things about me! He's calling me wishy washy! I am not! Really! And I have a plan!
After the Democratic primary it seemed that Kerry was running for platoon leader. Now it seems like he's running for president of the student government association: He kept listing people who support him as if it's a popularity contest. "See? All the cool people like me!"
Did anyone believe Kerry when he said that he and Edwards would push for tort reform? Or that he would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year? What howlers.
We conservatives have reason to be happy this morning.
More Good News
John Howard wins in Australia!
posted by Tom the Redhunter at 10/09/2004 08:52:00 AM
<< Home