The Washington Post in its Editoral page today clear agrees that the President took the first debate. This is by no means a conservative paper:
Mr. Bush was skillful and relentless in underlining these "mixed messages," and in arguing that a president who sent them could not effectively lead U.S. forces or recruit allies. "So what's the message going to be? Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion?" he demanded at one point. Mr. Kerry seemed not to have an answer to this challenge; his argument that "the real war on terrorism [is] in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden" seemed to us unconvincing alongside Mr. Bush's repeated insistence that success in Iraq and on other fronts is equally vital to U.S. security. After all, not so long ago Mr. Kerry said he, too, believed that Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat that the United States could not afford to ignore.
This from the Las Vegas Review Journal and what a great headline:
EDITORIAL: Tone-deaf Kerry loses crucial debate
Fails to lay a glove with talk of 'global tests,' and 'bringing in' the Europeans
Democratic challenger John Kerry entered the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday night running behind. He needed to win this debate. Many pundits proclaimed that he did so, simply by making no major mistakes while arguing a subject -- foreign policy -- considered to be his greatest weakness. They are wrong. He lost.
President Bush won the debate at precisely the midpoint. He did it with a reminiscence of an Iraq War widow named Misty Bryan visiting with him after losing her husband, P.J., in that war.
The very fact that George W. Bush is not a glib man made it obvious his emotion was sincere, as he said of the young war widow, "It's hard work to love her the best I can. I told her after we prayed together, and teared up and laughed some ... that her husband's sacrifice was noble."
THATS GONNA LEAVE A MARK!
Dick Morris, former Clinton Guru:
PRESIDENT Bush's positions on the issues aired in the debate last night are so sound and John Kerry's so contradictory that the Republican could not help but win the debate.
BO SCHEMBECHLER: Bush has proved himself a leader thats right Woody's old nemisis Bo Schembechler:
I like to think most people would agree that I know football. I also know a little something about character, commitment and leadership. The past three years, President George W. Bush has dealt with situations no president has ever faced, and he has emerged as one of the most principled leaders our country has ever seen. What I find remarkable and admirable is that the president has risen to the challenge every time: confronting unprecedented threats to national security and displaying the resolve to carry America through the tough times.
He is dedicated to defending our nation at home and abroad. And he defends through smart offense -- bringing the war to the terrorists so we don't have to fight them again here at home.
The American people have a choice to make in November; that choice is clear to me. They have a choice of a man who is unafraid to defend our nation and protect the security of every American. They have a choice of a man who is determined to lead the world to freedom and peace, and win the war on terror. They have a choice of a man who will make the tough decisions when they must be made, no matter the political winds.
I know Michigan, I know the values Michiganders stand for, and I know Michigan needs four more years of President Bush. He has my vote, and he deserves yours, too.
These are just selected highlights. You have to read the whole piece at The Detroit Free Press
H.D.S. Grenway in Kerry's Hometown Boston Globe
John Podhoretz in the NYPost
Fred Barnes,The Weekly Standard
I could go on and on but the consensus is clear.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Gallup Internals
If you look at the Gallup Internals on last nights debate it seems that the President was a clear and undisputed winner in 4 out of the 6 key issues that voters rely on to choose. Those issues were who agreed with you more on the issues you cared about (Bush up 3%), who was more likeable (Bush up 7%), who was more believable (Bush up 5%) and demonstrated he is more tough enough to do the job (Bush up 17%)
Mr Kerry was the clear winner in one out of the 6 on the issue of who expressed himself more clearly and they tied on who had a clear understanding of the issues.
Mr Kerry was the clear winner in one out of the 6 on the issue of who expressed himself more clearly and they tied on who had a clear understanding of the issues.
Which would they choose?
James Lileks has some great thoughts on last nights debate over at his blog. Here is a great excerpt:
Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century
B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer
What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”
and on the proposed Kerry (Lovefest's) summit's:
And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either.
So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad? Second, do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely the alienated moderates must be asking: the United States could destroy the madmen, completely. Yet they do not. Why?
What a great observations.
Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century
B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer
What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”
and on the proposed Kerry (Lovefest's) summit's:
And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either.
So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad? Second, do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely the alienated moderates must be asking: the United States could destroy the madmen, completely. Yet they do not. Why?
What a great observations.
Global Test Found!
Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
TradeSports and Iowa Electronic Markets futures exchanges no losses for Bush just gains.
There was no Bush debate dip, modest or otherwise. He did lose ground against where he had risen to during the debate, but all that meant was that he was back to where he'd been at the start of the debate.
I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they "thought" was winning.
Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.
Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.
So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.
The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?
I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they "thought" was winning.
Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.
Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.
So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.
The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?
Opps again Johnny, wrong language again?
The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang's nuclear programmes.
US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".
Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".
This is bad news for Kerry.
US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".
Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".
This is bad news for Kerry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)