From The Cook Report:
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Why Kerry Will Lose
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers:
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Mark Steyn on Golda's Balcony
From The New Criterion:
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
John LeBoutillier on the Debate
From Boot's Blasts:
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
CNN: No Clear Victor in Debate
From CNN.com:
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
An Australian on the Debate
From The Command Post:
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
Jay Nordlinger on the Debate
From National Review :
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
Guardian: TV Networks Broke Rules to Make Bush Look Bad
From The Guardian :
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
Hugh Hewitt on the Debate
From HughHewitt.com:
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
Diplomad on the Debate
From The Diplomad:
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
Tim Blair on the Debate
From Tim Blair:
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
Kerry Wins French Poll
From Reuters.com:
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
Jonathan Last on the Debate
From The Weekly Standard:
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
Andrew Sullivan on the Debate
Andrew Sullivan says Kerry seemed "bigger"--a Presidential Height Index effect? The quote:
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
NY Post Cover Shows Height Gap
John Kerry stands 6'4", Bush officially 6' even (does that include his cowboy boots?). According to the Presidential Height Index, in American politics, the taller candidate in a TV debate usually wins the election. Two exceptions prove the rule: Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford, but Ford had not been elected in the first place. Nixon was shorter than McGovern, but there was no TV debate. There's more on the height effect in this Fox News story. Will this affect President Bush's chances?
Bush-Kerry Debate A Tie
And that's in Kerry's favor, since he went the distance with the President. Although he didn't score any knockouts, Kerry may end his own slide in public opinion polls...
Thursday, September 30, 2004
What Is Going On In Russia?
From Nezavisimaya Gazeta:
"I have already written, and I'll venture to say it again that the power struggle between Gusinsky's empire and the Kremlin is not a conflict between an authoritarian state and a media group opposed to that regime. Nor, so far, has any evidence of the Kremlin's intentions to curb the freedom of speech, or coral Russia's-already obsequious-mass media, been produced. Up to now, all the evidence has been that this is a conflict between two oligarchic clans-the Kremlin's, which includes many top officials, including elected ones-and thus has at least a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of Russians, and that of Gusinsky-which does not."
"I have already written, and I'll venture to say it again that the power struggle between Gusinsky's empire and the Kremlin is not a conflict between an authoritarian state and a media group opposed to that regime. Nor, so far, has any evidence of the Kremlin's intentions to curb the freedom of speech, or coral Russia's-already obsequious-mass media, been produced. Up to now, all the evidence has been that this is a conflict between two oligarchic clans-the Kremlin's, which includes many top officials, including elected ones-and thus has at least a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of Russians, and that of Gusinsky-which does not."
Have the Palestinians Lost their Intifada?
From Haaretz :
"If, in a political conflict, victory is perception, then in some quarters the war the Palestinians couldn't lose is already over. Some seasoned observers have begun speaking of a Palestinian defeat in the past tense. Remarked Laura King of the Los Angeles Times this week, 'many Palestinians fear that what has been, in effect, their military defeat at the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has left them without leverage to extract political and territorial concessions that would help lay the groundwork for their hoped-for state.' Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post observed in a column this week that it is 'now undeniable that the 'military solution' that so manybelieved could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace.'"
"If, in a political conflict, victory is perception, then in some quarters the war the Palestinians couldn't lose is already over. Some seasoned observers have begun speaking of a Palestinian defeat in the past tense. Remarked Laura King of the Los Angeles Times this week, 'many Palestinians fear that what has been, in effect, their military defeat at the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has left them without leverage to extract political and territorial concessions that would help lay the groundwork for their hoped-for state.' Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post observed in a column this week that it is 'now undeniable that the 'military solution' that so manybelieved could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace.'"
Absolutely Majnoon
From Athena's Terrorism Unveiled, a blog written by an American student living in Amman, Jordan [link from WindsofChange.net]:
"Out of the blue, my host mother asks, 'Who do you think was behind 9-11?' And of course I knew she was expecting me to say 'Osama bin Laden,' so instead I responded, 'Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a lot to do with the operational planning.' She gave me a quizzical look so I gave her the, 'of course he was one of the top people in Al-Qaida under Bin Laden.' To this she told me that was all a lie and that 'the Israelis are behind this, it's all the Israeli Mossad who did this.' "
"Out of the blue, my host mother asks, 'Who do you think was behind 9-11?' And of course I knew she was expecting me to say 'Osama bin Laden,' so instead I responded, 'Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a lot to do with the operational planning.' She gave me a quizzical look so I gave her the, 'of course he was one of the top people in Al-Qaida under Bin Laden.' To this she told me that was all a lie and that 'the Israelis are behind this, it's all the Israeli Mossad who did this.' "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)