Bush Rehearses for Debate: The Mysterious Transcript
September 29, 2004 Satire by Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
Nobody knows how the young girl, wearing a Victorian dress, mysteriously got backstage at George W. Bush's practice session for the first presidential debate. Perhaps she's the one who planted the bottles of Evian water, the ones with "EM KNIRD" written in reverse letters at the bottom.
In any event, Bush and his assistants - those playing moderator Jim Lehrer and the journalists who would pose the questions - apparently all drank from the bottles, and behaved most irregularly. Here is a transcript of that Wonderland-like session, which we found in our mailbox the next day, with a note signed "Alice."
Rove: OK, let's get the show on the road. Don't know about you, but I'm feeling a bit... peculiar. One minute, I feel like I'm an unconquerable giant, and then shortly after that, I feel beaten down like I'm tiny. Sort of like running a campaign. But, whatever, it's pleasant. Mr. President, are you ready to go?
Bush: Let's do it. I'm feeling a bit strange myself - but in a fun, exciting way. Can't wait to hear what "John Kerry" is going to say. Actually, I can't wait to hear what I'm going to say.
Rove: We're mainly going to be working on your answers, Mr. President. Somebody will stand in for Kerry, and just blah-blah when it's his turn. Blah-blah - that's good, sort of what he sounds like when he's speechifying all the time. Borrr-iing! So French, you know? But you'll do great, Mr. Prez. We'll throw questions at you, so you can get used to responding quickly. Just let 'er rip and enjoy; we'll tape the rehearsal and use it as a guide later. Break an arm, kid!
"Lehrer": I'm just going to have some fun with this, Karl. Feeling' good.
Good evening. Welcome to the Presidential Debates. I am Jim Lehrer, and I'll be your moderator. This evening, the two major candidates will face off for the first time. Tonight's topic is foreign policy. You may wonder why other legitimate candidates are not present. The answer is simple: Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry said they would not appear if other candidates were invited. And, since the Commission on Presidential Debates is run by the two major parties, that's just the way it is. Negotiators for the Democrats and Republicans approved the format for the debates, and chose the journalists who will ask the puffball questions the candidates have prepared for.
Before we get to those questions, each candidate will give an opening statement. By a flip of the coin - or was it a flop? Sorry I couldn't resist! - Mr. Bush will go first.
Bush: Whooo-eeeeee! Thank you, Texas Man - I mean, Mr. Lehrer. Are you Jewish, by the way? The name, I mean, kinda makes you wonder. Anyhoo, glad to be here to try to defend myself from all the harsh things - many of them containing nuggets of truth, by the way - said by my opponent here over the past several months.
Johnboy seems to think I'm incompetent and probably stupid. Cop some to the first, but not the last one: I may be dumb as a woodpost, but I didn't get to be President by being stupid. I got here by hard work, street smarts, familial connections, some really effective dirty tricks, and a firm belief in the American people. I know the American people - I'm an American-type person myself - and I know how eager they are to hear anything that makes them feel good inside, even if they know deep down it's just political bullbleep. Can I say "bleep" on the air, Jim?
They know, for example, that Iraq is one big stinkin' pile of manure. I guess if I can say "bleep," I can use the M-word, right? We got ourselves caught in a huge rathole over there in Iraq, and I haven't the foggiest idea how to get us out before we've accomplished our mission there, which is real complicated, involving oil and military bases and changing the geopolitics of the Middle East and stuff like that. But none of that matters: All I have to do is to say how "we'll stay the course" and "America doesn't cut and run" and slogans like that, and our citizens, totally wanting to forget that 54,000 of our boys died in Vietnam, just nod and say they like me, 'cause I am "decisive" and "strong" and "speak my mind" and other silly things like that.
So, my fellow Americans, I continue to say tonight that, yes, our Administration made a big mess in Iraq - getting our soldiers killed daily by rushing into war without many willing allies to do the job and without a plan for what happened after our quick invasion victory and without an exit strategy and without the proper equipment - but Johnboy here doesn't have a way out either. So stick with them that brought you to the dance. That's me. I know what I'm doing - making sure you're scared as hell about those terrorists comin' over here to kill your children - and I'll keep doin' it, until the next election, when Jeb or that musclebound guy from California - whose name I won't say because every time I try, it sounds like I've said the N-word - take over.
I see the orange light comin' on, so I'll just close by saying vote for me. I know what I'm doing, what God wants me to do - or at least what I think God might want me to do, I haven't got a clue what God really believes - and I will continue to be a strong leader. Well, okay, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney will be strong leaders, and I'll be like the king who makes appearances to make people feel good. Whoops! Red light now. Whoooo, a Tom Ridge moment. Anyway, talk to you later, after Johnboy gives his little speecherooni.
SENATOR KERRY'S TURN
"Lehrer": Thank you, Mr. Bush. That certainly was a lively, little romp. Mr. Kerry, you're on.
"Kerry": Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bush... Iraq... disaster... phony intelligence... no WMD... bumbler... catastrophe... lies... no Osama connection... torture... rosy picture.... Vietnam.... blah, blah, blah.... way over his head... blah, blah, blah.
"Lehrer": You can respond to Senator Kerry's remarks, if you wish, Mr. Bush.
Bush: I resent the implication that my head is way over in this job. And, okay, maybe I didn't go to Vietnam, but I did serve in Iraq - a painted turkey to the troops on Thanksgiving; great photo op. And, even though things are not what we'd like in that country - well, okay, we're barely able to hold it together - the elections are coming and I think democracy will win out. I mean, over there. Finally, let me remind everyone that Johnboy voted for the war, so he's to blame too.
"Lehrer": Mr. Kerry? A response?
"Kerry": Blah, blah, blah, blah. Phony intelligence... lies... authorization... final resort... first resort... body armor... cuts family benefits... no postwar plan... Fallujah... flip-flop... commander-in-chief... blah, blah, blah.
"Lehrer": Mr. Bush, I think Senator Kerry just accused you of flip-flopping. How's that for turning the tables? Your response, sir?
Bush: I have never flipped a flop in my life. I am resolute. I am decisive. I make a decision and stick to it. And I've never flopped a flip, either. I love saying that.
You, Monsieur Kerry, are notorious for flip-flopping, constantly changing your mind. It's almost like you're windsurfing, first you go that way and then you go the other way. The American people deserve to know where you stand - or rather where you fall in the water since you're moving around so much on your board. You like that one, Karl? And the flipping-flopping one? Those were good, right?
Rove: Mr. President, they were dandy. But let's stay on track here. We're pretending here that this is for real. Why am I laughing, then?
Bush: Got ya. Okay, feed me another question. Which reminds me: I'm getting the munchies. Can someone send out for some ribs and chips and a Dos XX? Ha, ha, fellas.
JOURNALISTS' QUESTIONS
"Lehrer": Let's go to one of our tame little journalists. Who's got the first question?
"Journalist#1": That's me, boss. Here comes the inevitable question. Mr. President, your opponent and his surrogates allege that you did not fulfill your National Guard commitment during the Vietnam era, when you were supposed to be in Alabama. How do you respond to that charge?
Bush: I am proud to have served in the National Guard, wherever I was. I received an honorable discharge - I also had a not-so-pleasant discharge that I had to have a doctor look at, but that's another matter - which takes care of that unpatriotic question. You can't be discharged honorably from the armed farces - did I really just say that? - I mean armed forces unless you fulfilled all your duties. I got, or somebody got for me, my honorable discharge. End of story. Those who say otherwise can't prove anything. If there were any incriminating documents, they disappeared years ago.
"Journalist#1": A followup on that. What about your not taking the flight physical, which you were ordered to do on base with the military doctor, and then being dropped from flying? Sorry, sir, but you've got to deal with this one, as it may well come up during the debates.
Bush: I understand... I was rushing around like crazy at that time, and thought my own doctor could do it or maybe I'd take the physical somewhere else, in Alabama, where I wouldn't have to run the whole battery of tests, if you get my drift. I did take a partial exam in Alabama. Of course, it was just of my teeth, but it shows my good-faith attempt. As for why I stopped flying, I was little more than a student then, and the air fares were way too high. But, seriously, folks, I received an honorable discharge, which answers that.
"Kerry": I'd like to respond. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Coward... Vietnam... swiftboat... my medals... Texas Guard... doesn't make sense... Alabama AWOL... blah, blah, blah... didn't answer question..... blah, blah, blah.
ANY MISTAKES MADE?
"Journalist#2": I guess I'm next up. Mr. President, more than 1000 American young men and women have died in Iraq, with estimates of U.S. soldiers injured running from 4000 to 17,000; you've constantly changed the rationale for why you felt it necessary to invade. Do you feel you've made any mistakes in the way you've conducted the war?
Bush: Everything went so swimmingly, we didn't expect victory to be so easy. So we slightly miscalculated in the post-war phase. Yes, there are just a few wascally wabbits out there fighting us, but we'll soon wipe them out, and establish Iraq as a shining beacon for liberty and democracy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least through November 2.
"Journalist#3:" I guess it's my turn. Mr. President, Secretary Rumsfeld said the Iraq election would be legal if not every registered citizen voted, that some parts of the country were simply too risky to hold elections in. Do you believe the Iraqi people will accept the results of such a partial election as a legitimate form of democracy?
Bush: Why wouldn't they? We do it here, don't we? But seriously, folks: Look, the only election I really care about is the one on November 2. If the Iraqi election isn't held in January, or only partially held, that's a problem for another day. All I need to do now is to contantly assert that there really is going to be an election in Iraq soon, shortly after ours, and that things are moving quickly in the direction of democracy. The American voters want to believe what I'm saying and they'll be happy. What happens after I win will be handled appropriately. Or not. But there won't be anything they can do about it then. Na nee, na nee!
"Journalist#1": Mr. President, White House and Justice attorneys have authored memorandums that give you authority as Commander in Chief to do anything you want in the name of national security during wartime, including torture of prisoners - and would declare a partial election in the United States legal as well. Did you know of these memoranda and do you think the Supreme Court will okay this rather broad interpretation of presidential power?
Bush: Of course the Court will approve the action we took. It's wartime in terror land. And, anyway, it looks like I'll be appointing at least two or three new justices in the next several years. They better agree to approve those memos or I won't nominate them.
I'm gonna name me a conservative black Jewish woman to that court - let Teddy deal with that one! Goodbye, Roe! Oh, it's going to be such fun to watch the liberals squirm when I start making those appointments. We'll play it the usual way, won't we, Karl? We'll nominate some terrible extremist bigots, the liberals will object loudly, and then we'll name someone a little less objectionable and they'll sigh and ratify those. I love that game!
"Lehrer": One final question on foreign policy, Mr. President.
"Journalist#2": Your opponent and his followers have said that if you win another term, you'll re-institute the military draft, given that there may have to be other wars fought. If there are such war plans in the works, will it be necessary to re-start the draft?
Bush: You got a better idea? We've got to get the bodies from somewhere. Lots aren't re-upping, you know, or are going AWOL - whoops, better stay away from that word - or are not signing up for the National Guard. Whoops! Besides the draft is more fairer all the way around. Everybody gets a chance to die and kill equally.
Rove: That's a great start, Mr. President. Don't understand why, but I was giggling the whole time. That's probably enough for tonight. We'll... uh... "refine" your serious answers for the next rehearsal. That's a wrap, everyone. See you jokers tomorrow. Anybody want to go out for some pizza? Hey, someone order more of that Evian water for the Green Room!
Satirist Bernard Weiner was the San Francisco Chronicle's theatre critic for 16 years; a Ph.D. in government, he has taught at various universities, is co-editor of The Crisis Papers [ http://www.crisispapers.org/ ], and is a contributing author to the recently-released Big Bush Lies book.
Press Plays It (Mainly) Straight in First Reports on Bush-Kerry Debate
By E&P Staff
Published: October 01, 2004 12:00 AM EDT
NEW YORK When newspapers began to weigh in on the presidential debate late last night on the Web, they focused, as did the contest, on the split between the two candidates on the war in Iraq. USA Today, like many, highlighted Senator Kerry's charge that President Bush made "a colossal error in judgment" in going to war in Iraq, while Bush said Kerry had sent "mixed messages" that endangered America's security and hurt the morale of troops.
The headline on the top story at the The New York Times site by Richard W. Stevenson read: "Bush Sees a Safer America, While Kerry Sees a 'Colossal Error.'" The Washington Post story proved similar in describing the candidates' "different vision over how to protect the nation."
As many had urged, most of the early reports played it straight with little "spin." But USA Today did quickly reveal: "Early polls indicated Americans felt Kerry had won the debate. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll said Kerry had won, compared to 37% for Bush. Kerry also was ahead in polls taken by CBS News and ABC News." Other newspaper sites also caught up with the polls in the wee hours.
And the Associated Press moved two analysis stories quickly. Calvin Woodward commented on the two candidates "stretching the record," noting that Bush exaggerated the decimation of al-Qaeda while Kerry seem to suggest only the rich got a tax cut recently. "Self-serving oversimplifications marked the first presidential debate," he wrote.
Another AP piece, by Terence Hunt, observed that "Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke."
Several other reporters also commented that no matter how you scored the debate on points, the cutaways to a candidate while the other spoke seemed to damage Bush the most, often finding him in a "grimace" or worse. His camp had tried to prevent TV outlets from doing this, to no avail.
In this vein, in her final real-time analysis at The New York Times site as the debate ended, reporter Katharine Q. Seelye wrote: "Bush was on the defensive at several turns. In the cutaways it was clear that Kerry had got under his skin. Kerry looked cool and collected and met his threshold test of being able to stand on the same stage as the commander-in-chief and not look diminished."
The biggest surprise of the early cable news spin was conservative MSNBC chat host Joe Scarborough saying that Kerry had clearly "won on points."
The thinking-ahead prize, however, goes to the Democratic National Committee, which ran a banner ad on the Washington Post's home page all night with the large words, "Debate Shows Kerry Strength, Bush Fails to Deliver Plan for Iraq."
President George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry came as close as they could to throwing away the tightly scripted rules their two campaigns had negotiated for the first presidential debate in Miami last night. So the country was largely spared zingers. It got substance instead.
The two men have sneered and snickered at one another from afar during a vitriolic campaign. Last night, they mostly managed to put substance over style. No one who watched through the 90 minutes could now reasonably claim that there is little difference between the two.
For Democrats wondering before the broadcast if their nominee would serve up today's equivalent of more mush from the wimp, Kerry offered something new and different: He let Kerry be Kerry.
He wore his own skin comfortably. He demonstrated a mastery of every foreign policy subject -- Iraq, North Korea, Iran, nuclear proliferation and homeland security -- expected of a president. If Kerry's task was to look like a plausible president, he accomplished it easily.
The president let Bush be Bush. He stuck to his core message -- that the Iraq war was, in his words, "not a mistake," and that what he says is Kerry's vacillation about the conflict makes him an unfit commander in chief. Those keeping count of how many times Bush accused Kerry of sending "mixed messages" or offering only "uncertainty" quickly ran out of fingers and toes. Kerry's retort: "Its one thing to be certain. But you can be certain and wrong."
And that is, really, what Americans watching the carnage broadcast almost daily from Baghdad from now until November must decide. Is it enough for a president to be sure of himself, even when the facts should be shaking the foundation of his -- of anyone's -- belief? Or is this stubbornness finally too much to bear?
The bar was high last night for John F. Kerry [related, bio] - he was on the ropes, sagging in polls and caught in what had become a web of his own confused verbiage.
But by any measure, Kerry sailed over the bar.
The four-term Massachusetts senator denied President Bush [related, bio] the knockout punch the incumbent wanted and set the stage for a five-week, two-debate sprint to Election Day.
Kerry didn't get tripped up in explaining his stance on Iraq.
In fact, he proved he could stand toe-to-toe with the president and, at times, succeed in knocking Bush on his heels.
It must have struck the president as odd that it was Kerry who made the first reference to a flip-flop of Bush's only moments into the debate.
At several times, the senator seemed to stupefy the president in his lines of attack, leaving Bush grimacing in reaction after he called the Iraq invasion a ``colossal error in judgment.''
The senator's tack was evident from the start, and it was classic debating that had Kerry on the offensive and, for the most part, in control.
``This president, I don't know if he really sees what's happening over there,'' Kerry said of Bush.
Later he added, ``The president's not getting the job done . . . The president's plan is four words - more of the same.''
But Bush yielded no ground and was far from undercut by the aggressive senator.
Bush tried throughout to belittle Kerry by trying to highlight the senator's shifting views on Iraq and to paint him as anti-soldier because he has been anti-war of late.
``He voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place,'' Bush said. ``I don't think you can lead if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send to our troops?''
The president clearly liked that line, he repeated it nearly every time it seemed Kerry had him on the ropes.
Throughout the debate, Bush hammered the senator with his own statements and positions, casting him as wilting, eager to cede American sovereignty to European allies and - once, seeming to care what Osama bin Laden thought of the U.S.
But Bush seemed so well practiced that he at times appeared to run out of things to say, repeating his lines of attack with more incredulity each time.
The president got tongue-tied at times, mixing his words when he tried to speak of Kerry's ``mixed messages.''
And Kerry appeared to leave Poland off the list of U.S. allies in the war.
The debate was by no means like the fistfights of past elections, it was mostly a bloodless affair.
But it sets a new stage for next week - Kerry may be down, but he's not out.
And, the next time, Bush will have to hit a lot harder if he wants a knock down, or a knock out.
Note to George W: Next time, lose the blue tie, drop the folksy double talk and stand up straight.
That's the advice from local image pros who watched Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] and President Bush [related, bio] duke it out in Dade County last night.
``Bush's folksy platitudes fell flat,'' said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean at Boston University's College of Communications. ``His pleading tone lacked power, and staying on message only works if the message works.''
Julie Foley, a certified image consultant and founder of The Consultant of Style in Weymouth, said while Bush's lighter grey suit and blue tie conveyed warmth, Kerry diminished Bush's style by sporting a very presidential dark suit and red tie.
``Red is power,'' she said. ``Kerry dressed like a president and has stately body language. The president also slouched terribly. He was leaning on the podium, and I know he's a relaxed guy, but I can't believe he didn't stand up straight. I think his mother is going to be all over him.''
Comedian Tony V, who, at 10:15 p.m. was ``still as confused as when they started,'' admitted he liked the president's down-to-earth demeanor.
``George Bush sounds like someone you want to talk to,'' he said. ``I read somewhere people choose a president they'd like to have a beer with. Me, I'd rather choose a president and go out with people I like. I feel bad. He reminds me of Fredo in `The Godfather.' I can hear him saying: `I'm smart. I know things. I'm not stupid.' ''
While Berkovitz and Foley both faulted Bush for sighing a tad too much, Tony V didn't mind. He was much more distracted by the really important issues.
``I can't get it out of my head,'' he said. ``George W. looked like Alfred E. Neuman. And Kerry looks like he was born with a suit on.''
George Bush reiterated time and again last night that it was hard work to run this government. It was hard work to lead a country out of tyranny and into democracy. It was hard work to read casualty reports. The war was hard work. And he made it plain that talking with somebody about his record as president was the grueling, hardest work you could want.
He showed for all to see what a minor mind he goes around with. I looked at this guy Bush last night and thought about young people dying in Iraq because of him. And there will be more and more because he is a man sitting with a car full of people on the train tracks and he doesn't know enough to get off with the train coming. Watch the ages of the dead night after night, day after day - 21 ... 23 ... 19 ... 25 ... Anybody responsible for getting people this young killed is a national menace.
Dumb people always are.
And don't tell me he's not dumb. Yes, he was matched against an absolutely first-rate mind last night. But he could have done a little bit better at covering his helplessness than flusters of college boy anger.
He whined and brayed about consistency. He used that word so he could underline his famous "flip-flop" attacks on John Kerry. He said that by opposing the way the war in Iraq is going, Kerry was sending "mixed messages" and they are harmful to our troops. I, Bush, never change.
There were problems to this. One, Kerry cheated on him and turned a fine line: "Don't confuse the war with the warriors." Then in the middle of Bush's reiteration of dusty phrase after dusty phrase, we should remain as we are, was Ralph Waldo Emerson's, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ..."
It was better than anything you are going to read from anybody from now to the end of the election, and you will see that Emerson quote come alive whenever Bush opens his mouth and starts the same old lines. George Bush writes in crayon.
The other problem for Bush was that the president on the stage last night was John Kerry. He was strong, articulate - I make him as plain and understandable and yet powerful as anybody we've had around for many years.
I don't know where Kerry has been for all this time. He made a speech at New York University the other day that was strong and I thought he was on the way. Then he disappeared again. It seemed like a campaign by George Bush of small, endless stupidities, delivered in country boy shirtsleeves, was going to win an election that could end this country as we know it.
If you have four more years of John Ashcroft and a Supreme Court backing him up, you watch the end of rights as you were raised to believe in.
That was the fear at the start of the night. Then they opened the night with John Kerry talking. He was strong, passionate, sending a fine intellect out into the night. And when he got tough, he looked like a guy who could kill somebody if he had to for the country. Again. And that wimp next to him looked like he would, again, flee to the dentist.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2004 01:49:31 PM ]
WASHINGTON: Almost written off after trailing in several opinion polls, Democratic challenger John Kerry showed great élan in outmaneuvering President Bush in the first of three presidential debates on Thursday, throwing the November 2 election wide open.
In a composed performance watched by a prime time television audience of some 30 million viewers, Kerry attacked Bush over a range of foreign policy choices, including the "colossal error" of judgment in Iraq. He also defended himself skillfully against Bush's charge that he was an indecisive flip-flopper.
Most political pundits and media mavens called the debate in favor of Kerry. Several instant polls also showed Kerry to be the winner by comfortable margins. A CNN-Gallup poll gave Kerry a 46-37 win (rest said they were tied or were undecided), an ABC poll called it 45-36, and a CBS poll put it at 43-29.
The two men exchanged policy sallies, differing significantly on their approach to the war on terrorism, the exit strategy in Iraq, and on how to deal with North Korea.
Kerry attacked Bush for shifting the focus from Afghanistan, where the real perpetrators of 9/11 hid, and diverting it to Saddam Hussain and Iraq, who had nothing to do with the attack. When US troops had cornered bin Laden in Tora Bora, the job of finishing him was "outsourced" to Afghan warlords, Kerry charged, leaving no doubt as to what the President can expect in the next debate on the economy.
Bush did not care to differentiate between bin Laden and Saddam, and suggested he had done right to act preemptively to neutralise a potential threat to America.
"We can change tactics when we need to, but we never change our beliefs," Bush said at one point. Underlining their fundamental difference, Kerry told the President "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and you can be wrong. Certainty sometimes gets you into trouble."
Kerry however offered a better-defined exit strategy for Iraq, saying he would call a summit of US allies (and implying that a discredited Bush would not be able to do that), expand the alliance, and start recalling US troops as early as six months from now.
Bush repeatedly attacked Kerry for sending out the wrong message to American troops and enemies with his criticism of the war and his talk of pulling out. He would bring back the troops only when the job was done.
Bush was on the defensive most of the time and he was often repetitive. The arguments on the war took up more than hour of the 90-minute debate held in an auditorium at the University of Miami, where a packed house was forbidden from participating actively.
It didn't seem like either candidate managed to vastly sway voters of the opposite persuasion, although it will require further post-debate polls to confirm that. Democrats thought Kerry did a good job, Republicans thought Bush held his own, and the undecided voters were either split or still undecided.
Some 20 per cent of voters have said the debate could change their voting preference, while 80 per cent have said it will not. Among the 20 per cent, more Bush followers (63 per cent) say they are open to change.
The first debate, centering on foreign policy was thought to be Kerry's weak spot - because of his initial support for the Iraq war. But he now goes into the next two debates on turf that should favor him more - the economy and health care.
In terms of atmospherics, Kerry seemed more calm and benign - he looked more presidential than Bush, some pundits said. Bush often looked annoyed and agitated when Kerry was speaking.
Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 01 October 2004 1640 hrs
WASHINGTON : Democrat John Kerry stood his ground with President George W. Bush in their first televised debate, delivering a strong performance that could put him back into the election race after weeks on the ropes, analysts said.
Instant polls conducted by US television networks gave a clear edge to the Massachusetts senator after a showdown Thursday with Bush on foreign policy and national security issues that was dominated by Iraq.
CBS showed Kerry the winner by 44-26 percent and ABC by 45-36 percent. A CNN/Gallup poll put the margin at 53-37 percent and said 46 percent reported feeling better about the Democrat after the debate, compared to 21 percent for Bush.
Analysts agreed that neither Kerry nor Bush landed any heavy blows during the 90-minute encounter at the University of Miami, the first of three presidential debates before the November 2 election.
"This was the closest thing to a tie," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "I really was impressed. Kerry was articulate and crisp for once and Bush, I've never seen him so articulate."
But Kerry managed to deliver his most cogent attack yet on the Iraq war and convey a sense of solidity and coherence in front of the man who has spent months ridiculing him as a weak-kneed waffler.
"I think he was very effective at downplaying the argument that he had flipped and flopped on different issues," said David Corbin, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.
It was not clear whether Kerry's showing would translate directly into the new support he badly needs to overcome Bush's lead in the polls, generally estimated at five to eight points.
But several analysts said he now had a chance of recharging the somewhat dispirited Democratic ranks and winning back anti-Bush voters who had deserted him amid doubts about his leadership.
The debate was make-or-break for Kerry, whose campaign had been reeling from relentless Republican assaults on his credibility, toughness and vaunted combat record in the Vietnam war.
Both sides predictably claimed victory.
The Republicans said Bush effectively highlighted the mixed signals the Democrat was sending on Iraq. They said the president made a compelling case for more time to finish the war on terror he started after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Democrats hailed their candidate for hammering away at the war in Iraq as a diversion from the real battle against Al-Qaeda terrorists and building his credentials as a smarter, more effective commander.
Kerry also tried to cover confusion over his various votes in the Senate on Iraq by acknowledging that he might have flubbed some of his rhetoric, but Bush's muddled invasion was much worse.
While Bush started strong in holding himself out as the best hope for keeping the United States safe, some analysts said, he appeared to lose steam and showed some irritation towards the middle of the debate before closing with a flourish.
Charles Jones, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called it a virtual draw that could work in Kerry's favor. "It seems to me has demonstrated in this area that he is capable and that may stop the hemorrhaging."
Stephen Hess, a former Republican speechwriter now with the Brookings Institution, thought the debate would help firm up some of Kerry's support that had become wobbly.
"There may be some gain on the part of people who were not as familiar or aware particularly of Kerry who now get a sense of his seriousness and articulateness," Hess said.
Jonathan Siegel, a law professor at George Washington University who has done volunteer work with the Kerry campaign, thought that Kerry had given a boost to the Democratic rank and file.
"I think a lot of people who have been a little exasperated with his campaign will have some renewed vigor and say, 'Listen he's finally up there fighting.' During August you sort of got the sense he was sitting there and taking it."
Siegel had no illusions that the debate itself would erase Bush's lead and propel Kerry to the front. But he added, "I think this would prevent people from closing the deal with Bush.
"This leaves the matter open. It shows we are still in a presidential race and there is a lot of time before election day," he said.
Kerry makes gains against Bush; Iraq dominates session
By George E. Condon Jr. COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
October 1, 2004
CORAL GABLES, Fla. – For perhaps the first time in the four-decade history of presidential debates, last night's clash between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry soared far above politics and the campaign of the moment.
The political stakes, of course, were huge. But with U.S. troops dying in a far-off land that increasingly seems racked with chaos, the country deserved a serious, somber debate on the policies that put those troops in harm's way and the policies that can get them out.
The country got that debate.
It saw Kerry, the Democratic challenger, enjoy possibly the best night of his campaign. For once, he did not talk like a filibustering senator. He marshaled his arguments effectively, kept respectful but firm pressure on the president, and counterpunched better than he had in any of the three dozen debates of the primary campaign.
But the Republican incumbent stood his ground, hammering home his own points, stoutly defending his stewardship of the war, owning up to no mistakes of consequence, and insisting that his plan for victory trumps what he repeatedly called Kerry's "mixed message."
Too often, presidential debates are dominated by trivia, gaffes and points of style. This, though, was not a debate to be decided by candidate sighs or glimpses at wristwatches. There also were no obvious stumbles.
Instead, there were two polished politicians with very real differences on the life-and-death issue of a war. Perhaps not surprisingly, though the debate was to be broadly about foreign policy, it was dominated by Iraq. The entire first hour, and then the last five minutes, of the 90-minute session were devoted to Iraq and its role in the overall war against terror.
Never has one topic so overwhelmed all others in any debate since John Kennedy and Richard Nixon first dueled in 1960. And never have both candidates so risen to the occasion, particularly on an issue that bedevils both of them and is likely to be the key to the election in November.
"People don't understand what Kerry's position on Iraq is, and they don't understand why Bush sent us there in the first place," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Both have a problem with Iraq, and the debate was an opportunity to solve the problem."
They seized that opportunity.
Some political edge goes to Bush both because he withstood the challenger's assault and because he relentlessly delivered a message, while Kerry too often answered the questions instead of hammering home his campaign points.
But Kerry also achieved much in the debate, appearing forceful and possibly presidential, and that could help him in what is still a close national race.
"He clearly was not the person that he's been portrayed as," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "The American people now will have to take a second look at him – and when you're behind, that's what you need.
Pollster John Zogby called the debate the political equivalent of a baseball "pitcher's duel," with little scoring. Both candidates heartened their core constituencies, he said, and that gives a small edge to Kerry "because he had lost some of his base, and I think he probably strengthened that tonight."
Immediate debate-night reactions often have been misleading in previous campaigns. Instant polls in 2000 had then-Vice President Al Gore the winner in his debate over Bush. But after several days of focus on Gore misstatements, it became clear that Bush's candidacy had benefited the most.
Similarly, it took several days to assess the damage done to President Ford's campaign by his 1976 debate performance in San Francisco. Voters don't so much determine who "won" a debate as they become more comfortable with the notion of one of the candidates being their president for the next four years.
"It usually takes a few days for the public to chew over who they are most comfortable with," Washington-based political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said. "People might have thought you did better in the debate technically, but that doesn't mean you've won their vote."
Bush had better hope that is true, because the immediate verdict was not entirely kind to him.
A poll of 615 registered voters who watched the debate gave a big win to Kerry. The poll, conducted by Gallup for CNN and USA Today, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Asked who did better, the voters said Kerry by 53 percent to 37 percent for Bush. Asked if the debate had given them a more favorable opinion of Kerry, 46 percent said yes, versus 21 percent for Bush.
In a separate survey of 18 undecided Florida voters near the University of Miami campus, more were won over by Kerry than by the president. In a state that determined the winner in 2000 and is neck and neck today, Bush can ill afford any slippage.
But this group gave the debate win to Kerry by a wide margin, with many of the formerly undecideds saying the Massachusetts senator had laid to rest claims by Republicans that he is a flip-flopper. Several expressed pleasant surprise at the crispness of his performance.
At the end of the debate, half of the 18 said they would now vote for Kerry, while just two were won over by Bush. The other seven were still undecided.
Pollster Frank Luntz, who organized the group, said the reaction in Miami suggests gains for the challenger. "Kerry's message came through better than George Bush's message," he said.
Copley News Service correspondent Finlay Lewis contributed to this report.
FOR SIX months since the effective end of the primary season, President Bush has been portrayed as better able to control the debate by staying on message while John Kerry sends mixed messages. Last night at the first televised presidential debate, that equation was turned on its head.
Despite a game attempt by the president to depict Kerry as indecisive, it was Kerry who attacked Bush for sending mixed messages in matters of homeland security -- by cutting funds for firefighters and other first responders, by failing to protect seaports and bridges, and especially by shifting his focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.
Kerry even managed to turn around the president's presumed best asset: his determination and spine. "You can be certain but you can also be wrong," Kerry said succinctly.
Kerry painted a stinging picture of the American effort in Iraq. "I don't know if the president is aware of what's going on over there," he said, and ticked off a litany of horrors: the insurgencies, the beheadings, the barely contained chaos, each month bringing a higher toll than the last of Americans dead. When Kerry said, "This president isn't getting the job done," it had the unmistakable click of truth.
Meanwhile, the president's much vaunted ability to stay on message seemed more like a life raft he was grabbing as tough questioning in the 90-minute debate bore in on him and the essential thinness of his message was revealed. His repeated assurance, "We are going to win in Iraq," began to seem petulant, almost querulous.
Kerry appeared more knowledgeable, especially in discussing the threat from North Korea and unsecured nuclear material in Russia. He was persuasive when he complained that "35 countries were in a better position to make weapons than Saddam Hussein" when Bush went to war.
When Bush dismissed Kerry's proposal for engaging North Korea in bilateral talks as a poor move that would marginalize China, Kerry deftly undercut his credibility: "Just because the president says it can't be done doesn't mean it can't be done," Kerry said, adding, "This is the president who said there were weapons, who said `Mission Accomplished.' "
All that said, no one should misunderestimate the appeal of the president's steadfastness. "People know where I stand," he said. "People out there know what I believe." His short, truncated sentences may look disjointed and dull-witted on paper but often came across as sharp and focused when spoken.
On at least three occasions last night, Bush said, "The best way to win is to constantly stay on the offensive." He may have been thinking of his campaign as much as the war on terror. But last night he was not winning.
The US president, George Bush, and Democratic candidate John Kerry exchange words at the end of their first televised presidential debate. Photograph: Jim Bourg/Reuters
Julian Borger in Miami Friday October 1, 2004
John Kerry regained the initiative in the US presidential race last night with a forceful performance in his first debate with George Bush, occasionally leaving the president scowling and at a loss for words. 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.
"What you saw was a president who was annoyed, angry and aloof. He clearly didn't want to be there, and he was slouched over his podium," said Terry McCauliffe, the Democratic party chairman, in an interview in "spin alley", a university basketball court where partisans of each side strove frenetically to influence media coverage of the event.
Mr McCauliffe's Republican counterpart, Ed Gillespie, laughed off the description, saying: "I don't know what Terry thought he saw, but the president was obviously very engaged and very clear about his policies."
However, several conservative commentators awarded the encounter to Senator Kerry on points. Morton Kondracke, an outspoken hawk on Fox News, said he did not think the president "had dominated" and argued "Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief".
The Democratic challenger lived up to his reputation for hitting his best form in the closing stages of an election race, answering his critics by delivering a string of short, declarative statements, with relatively few of the verbal meanderings for which he has become famous on the campaign trail.
He rejected Mr Bush's central claim that Iraq was a central front in the "global war on terror". "Iraq was not even close to the centre of the war on terror before the president invaded it," he said
As he has done in the past, the president took Mr Kerry to task for inconsistency in criticising the Iraq invasion. He pointed out that the senator had voted to approve the use of force in 2002, and had declared Saddam's Iraq to be a "grave threat".
"It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it," Senator Kerry replied. "The president said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the UN and go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort."
Throughout the debate, Mr Kerry pounded the president for the US military's failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in Afghanistan, and for diverting resources from the battle against al-Qaida to Iraq.
In return, Mr Bush hit back repeatedly with the argument that Mr Kerry's wavering position on the Iraq war and his description of the invasion as a "diversion" sent "mixed messages" to US troops and allies.
That was also the main message driven home by Bush aides afterwards in "spin alley". Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, pointed to what he said was a new contradiction in the Kerry position.
"He said the war was a mistake, but he also said he was not asking American soldiers to die for a mistake," Mr Rove said. "Here's a guy who voted for the war and then says it's the wrong war at the wrong time. How can you go to the allies and ask them to go in there, if you're saying it's the 'wrong war'?"
Mr Bush did appear to score some points, hitting back at Senator Kerry for a longwinded explanation of his position on "pre-emptive strikes" in which the Democrat said he would only consider such an action if it passed a "global test" and gathered international support.
The president said he did not know what "a global test" was but added: "My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."
But at other moments in the contest, Mr Bush seemed to lose track of his point between sentences and seemed to struggle to fill his allotted time for each response. Challenged by Mr Kerry for awarding tax cuts to wealthy Americans while the money could have been used to improve America's counter-terrorist defences, the president reply was vague and hesitant.
"Of course, we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job," Mr Bush said. "I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how best to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work."
Uncommitted voters who watched Thursday night’s presidential debate said John Kerry won the debate against President Bush, and most of those voters improved their opinion about the Democratic candidate because of the debate, according to a CBS News poll.
Forty-three percent of the uncommitted debate-watchers picked Kerry as the winner, while 28 percent chose Mr. Bush. Another 29 percent said it was a tie.
Kerry also made significant inroads on ratings for his potential to handle Iraq and on likeability, two areas where he had been trailing Mr. Bush.
Immediately after the debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of more than 200 debate watchers assembled by Knowledge Networks who were “uncommitted voters” – voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds.
More than half of the uncommitted voters said that their image of Kerry had changed for the better as a result. Just 14 percent said their opinion of Kerry had gotten worse, and one-third did not change their opinion.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, saw very little improvement in his image. Twenty-two percent have improved their image of Mr. Bush as a result of the debate, but just as many said their views of the president are now worse than before.
On the issue of ability to handle Iraq, Kerry was the clear winner. He had a 38-point jump by this measure. A majority of the uncommitted viewers, 52 percent, said after the debate that Kerry had a clear plan for Iraq. Thirty-nine percent said this about Mr. Bush. Before the debate, few thought either had a clear plan for dealing with Iraq.
The panel of uncommitted debate watchers evaluated the debate in real-time, marking favorable or unfavorable opinions of what they heard moment by moment.
Kerry's evaluations rose as he assailed the Bush administration's planning for the war and for asserting that the administration allowed 90 percent of the costs of the war to fall on the U.S. Kerry did especially well with women when he said that Mr. Bush had cut police at home while sending money to Iraq.
Women responded positively in the real-time evaluation when Kerry talked about strengthening U.S. ties with allies and the policy of pre-emption. When Kerry talked about finding al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, both men and women responded positively.
Still, more women think Mr. Bush can be trusted to protect the country from a terrorist attack than Kerry, by 62-52 percent. Seventy-one percent of men said Kerry could be trusted to protect the country, while 66 percent said the same about Mr. Bush.
Kerry also significantly improved his likeability. Six in 10 members of the sample now say Kerry is someone whom they would like personally, up from 45 percent before the debate. Fifty-six percent would like Bush personally. More women said they liked Kerry than Mr. Bush – while men were equally likely to say each candidate was someone they would like.
In the horse race, Kerry now leads Mr. Bush among uncommitted debate watchers by 38-28 percent as their choice for president in November. But nearly a third remain undecided.
----------
This CBS News poll was conducted online by Knowledge Networks among a nationwide random sample of 209 uncommitted voters – voters who don’t yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds – who have agreed to watch the debate. Knowledge Networks, a Silicon Valley company, conducted the poll among a sample of adult members of its household panel, a nationally representative sample given access to the Internet via Web TV. The questions were administered using the Internet.
This is a scientifically representative poll of undecided voters’ reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 7 percentage points for results based on the entire sample.
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff / October 1, 2004
After two months spent reacting to attacks on his own record, John Kerry last night succeeded in turning the roving spotlight of the 2004 presidential campaign onto President Bush's Iraq policies, blaming Bush for allowing the United States to bear "90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs."
Bush, following the same effective strategy of his past debates, stuck to a few core themes, such as his argument that Kerry's attacks on the war undermine American troops and insult US allies.
But for most of the first hour, during which Iraq was the prime focus, Bush's repetition seemed insistent rather than firm, and his body language -- sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes -- suggested a man on the defensive.
Kerry, as had been expected, was more fluid and facile in scoring conventional debating points -- answering Bush's arguments with fresh rebuttals. But his easy manner projected an unexpected confidence that has been missing for most of the general-election campaign, and he leavened his senatorial manner with more-direct answers.
After Bush reminded the audience that Kerry had once said he voted for $87 billion for the Iraq war "before he voted against it," Kerry offered a wry retort reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.
"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war, but the president made a mistake in invading Iraq," Kerry said, pausing dramatically. "Which is worse?" In exchanges like that one, both candidates may have made their points, but Kerry's aggressiveness was more of a surprise to an electorate conditioned, both by attacks from his opponent and by his own equivocal statements, to think of him as weak.
In recent weeks, as Bush has maintained a lead in most polls, Republicans had almost succeeded in turning Kerry into a figure of derision; after a forceful debate performance, the disdain expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney and many GOP members of Congress may seem more strained.
Kerry also gave national exposure to some of the criticisms of Bush's policies that critics said were not effectively aired at the determinedly upbeat Democratic convention in Boston.
Kerry charged that Bush "rushed into war without a plan to win the peace"; that parents of soldiers troll "the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send their kids"; that soldiers were maimed because the Bush administration did not provide proper armor for Humvees; that Osama bin Laden was surrounded in Tora Bora but Bush "outsourced the job" of catching him to "local warlords."
Bush bored in on Kerry's past depiction of Iraq as "the wrong war at the wrong time," saying such a statement sends the wrong message to troops and allies, and "not the message a commander chief gives." He also shot back Kerry for saying the president should pass a "global test where your countrymen, your people understand what you're doing" before initiating military action.
"I don't know what you mean passes the global test, you take preemptive action if you pass global test," Bush said. "My attitude is you take preemptive action order to protect the American people."
At times, the different styles of the two men stood in stark contrast, and each was effective in his way: Kerry deftly wove facts into arguments while Bush offered personal commitments and expressions of his values.
Discussing homeland security, each addressed the question from moderator Jim Lehrer in his own distinctive way.
"Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do, and there is a long list," Kerry said. "First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers on the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America? What kind of a message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses that are the first responders here in America. The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel, into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems."
Bush said: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. That's my job. I work with Director [Robert S.] Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work."
But the built-in constraints of a debate about foreign policy allowed Bush only a few opportunities to display the easy personal touch that many observers thought was his secret weapon against Kerry; only at the very end, when he bantered a bit with Lehrer, did Bush seem fully at ease.
By then, Kerry had scored a lot of points and perhaps forced voters to look at him with fresh eyes.
If they do, the debate last night will have transformed the 2004 presidential race.
Find out what AlterNet's editors and invited commentators took from the first presidential debate.
AlterNet Posted October 1, 2004.
Editor's NoteThe first presidential debate lasted 90 minutes, and while it covered a range of topics, it also revealed some central points about the two candidates. Below are short takes from AlterNet's editors and invited commentators summing up their take on the debate.
Steve Cobble, Political Consultant A clear win for Kerry. Since I did debate prep for Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primaries, I got to watch Kerry in dozens of debates. This was one of his better efforts. He kept it concise; separated Iraq from Bush's "war on terror" cover story; and even criticized W's "colossal misjudgments" in Iraq – not exactly "Bush lied, people died," but not "ditto" either.
Bush never hit his stride until his closing. It took him all of ten seconds to first mention 9/11. Mostly he repeated stock phrases over and over, never looked in command, and often seemed irritated. Bush ended with some of his usual religious rhetoric. One line was: "I believe in the transformational power of liberty." Well, so do I. Our right to vote, won with the blood of marchers and freedom fighters, can change America's direction. If we use it.
Safir Ahmed, Editor, AlterNet In a debate that was so much about Iraq, there was far too little talk about death and dying. Earlier Thursday and half a world away, a string of bombs killed 35 Iraqi children, the largest death toll of children since the war began. Here's what an AP reporter filed from the scene: "Grief-stricken mothers wailed over their children's bloodied corpses, as relatives collected body parts from the street for burial and a boy picked up the damaged bicycle of his dead mother."
Over at the debate in Florida, there was absolutely no mention of the more than 12,000 Iraqis who have died so far. Even regarding the American casualties, it was left up to Jim Lehrer to mention the loss of life when he asked the only pointed question of President Bush: "Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?"
Clearly uncomfortable answering the question, Bush rambled on about "tough decisions," about how "every life matters," and then mentioned meeting Missy Johnson, a war widow, adding, rather goofily, "You know, 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."
For his part, Kerry at least stated boldly that he wouldn't rush to war as Bush did, adding: "You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, 'I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.'"
Amen.
Don Hazen, Executive Editor, AlterNet A crowd of 150 liberals and progressives hooted and cheered at predictable moments during the first presidential debate at a Jazz Club in the SOMA section of San Francisco. Those attending were encouraged to throw $25 into the kitty for MoveOn's ad campaign when they arrived. So the chances of finding a Bush fan in the house were rather slim. Nevertheless there were more than a few Kerry skeptics as I went around the room, and to a person, they all were impressed with the challenger's performance on this night, significantly increasing their enthusiasm for the candidate they were unsure about.
It was difficult to see many pluses for Bush, even as I asked the viewers, an eclectic bunch of PR pros, real estate brokers, lawyers, and activists, to put themselves in the shoes of the Republicans and assess the debate. The best that could be said, suggested one person, was that there wasn't really a break out for either candidate. But it was hard to escape the presence of a "presidential" Kerry. Bush seemed the rookie, leaning on the same messages over and over, and suggesting that four years on the job had not added any gravitas.
One event organizer, environmentalist David Hochschild, pointed out that the split screen effect really hurt Bush, because he made so many goofy faces. That seemed a persistent theme that ran through Jon Stewart's post debate show as well: Bush looked dumb and confused, while Kerry seemed sharper and more pointed. Bush's repetitions of the "It takes hard work to fight the terrorists" line, at least a dozen times, probably was more than even the stay-on-message professionals wanted. It suggested that Bush didn't have much to say.
An activist who had just returned from working with swing voters in Ohio suggested that many Ohio voters, even Bush supporters, were going to experience some shock. These voters haven't had much exposure to Kerry, and the honest viewers were going to have to face the music that Kerry was much more informed and coherent on every level. "The Bush campaign treats people like they can't be intelligent beings, suggesting all they care about is Kerry's 'flip-flops,' without putting something positive on the table," the activist said. "Kerry empowered people with his performance tonight."
Lakshmi Choudhry, Senior Editor, AlterNet When a presidential candidate is reduced to repeating two phrases over and over again – "hard work" and "mixed messages" – even the most loyal viewer must know he is in trouble. When Joe Scarborough, one of the most die-hard conservative hosts on television, immediately concedes the debate to the opposition, even George Bush knows he is in trouble.
John Kerry won the first debate in Miami. No amount of Republican spin is going to undo that fact. He was strong, confident, and yes, even presidential, to use that much-favored media word. Kerry also finally laid rest to the Swift Boat Vet smears. There was no doubt that the man who faced the nation is indeed the same man who both went to Vietnam and then had the courage to question a pointless war.
And the most important fact to remember – which may well be buried in the pursuit of the trivial and faux objectivity that may color media spin – in a debate about foreign policy and the war on terror, even a modest victory for John Kerry is a body blow for the "war president."
Farai Chideya, journalist and host, "It's Your Call" I got to see the debates from Miami. No, not from inside the hall, but at least from within Miami. Actually, a few minutes before the debate started, I was walking across a soggy sports field with Paula Zahn. Instead of trying to go to the debates, we were breakin' out. See, the media credentials didn't come with actual seats. Most of the journos who made it through the security perimeter were there to watch on televisions while logging on their computer or filing for TV or radio. Only a handful of reporters made it in. I wasn't one of them... so I ended up watching the debates in a crowd of Kerry supporters at the Miami arena. It was like pundit karaoke, with one gent (who looked oddly like an-gah-ree Republican movie star Ron Silver) yelling one-liners at the screen. The mood of many Democrats before the debate was, um, desperation. As in: hey, Boston Boy, if you eff this one up, it's over. But the mood as I left the hall – before John F. Kerry was due to arrive, and John Cougar due to play – ranged from elated to merely optimistic. I got in my car just in time to hear a radio host declare that, yes, Bush had lost the debate – but only because it was unfair and unbalanced.
Nick Penniman, Executive Editor, Tompaine.com A few minutes after the debate ended, I was stunned to hear Tim Russert say that no one won, that both men "secured their base" and that both "presented in a powerful way." From the scrawl on my pad of paper:
"9:18 (EST) - Bush still on defensive"
"9:25 - Bush still on defensive"
"9:35 - Where's Bush The Great Debater? Still on defensive. Continues to reference Kerry's negative framing of him - like coalition of the willing were 'coalition of the bribed' and 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.'"
The breakthrough moment, though, that even Russert should have noted, came at about 10:12 when Kerry, in response to another lame Bush attempt to label him a "flip flopper" retorted: "You can be certain and be wrong." That one moment reinforced what people had been watching for more than an hour on Bush's puckered face during the cut-away shots. Here was a man who was clearly annoyed that he had to be subjected to such public scrutiny, and clearly stung by Kerry's assertion that Bush made a tragic error when he chose to fight Hussein and not bin Laden.
Bush has been, as the White House press corps laments every week, the most secretive and private of recent presidents. But democracy, curse it the president's staff probably does when the chips are down, demands more of the leader of the free world. And that's the one point Bush repeatedly made that even we progressives can agree with: The world's a better – and safer – place when freedom and democracy thrive. All the more reason to send him back to his private life in Crawford.
John Kerry came across as a mature candidate during the debate, while George Bush squirmed repeatedly at challenges to his record.
By Steven Rosenfeld and Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted October 1, 2004.
The John Kerry that America saw on television Thursday night was not the John Kerry that the American people were told to expect by President George W. Bush.
In Kerry, they saw a man who knew himself, knew his values, and knew how, when, and where he would lead the nation in war and peace. Kerry wasn't shy about stating his agenda, defending it, and saying why it was an example of more mature leadership than that of the 43rd president. Most important of all, Kerry was adult enough to admit to the nation that he could change his mind when events called for it. And in doing so, he dominated the evening by setting the tone of the debate.
Bush, in contrast, presented himself as a resolute, unwavering leader, saying that was what the nation needed to win – in Iraq and the greater war on terrorism. He held to his belief that he could do no wrong by always putting American interests first. "We would all rue the day if Saddam were still in power... believe me," Bush said, repeatedly adding that he exhausted all political and diplomatic remedies before going to war.
But Kerry showed that it just wasn't so. By citing Bush's record, Kerry demonstrated that Bush had diverted the country from tracking down Osama bin Laden, the real target in the war on terrorism. In fact, he said Bush "outsourced" the job of capturing or killing bin Laden to Afghani warlords who, only a week before, had stood with bin Laden.
Kerry started by saying that he can make the world safer. He knew about war, when to go to war, how to build alliances before war and wouldn't shrink from it if necessary. But he said Bush failed not only to follow his own words and path to war in Iraq, but the president was ignoring the truth of what was on the ground. "He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, 'We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies,'" Kerry said. "The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, 'Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.'"
But the president did not respond to these assertions; instead he said Kerry changed his mind too often to lead a nation at war. "My opponent says 'Help is on the way,' but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?" Bush asked. "(That's) not a message a commander-in-chief gives, or this is "a great diversion."
Kerry spoke truth to power, while Bush said whatever the powerful said was true. A good example of this dynamic came during debate on how to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea. Bush said his solution was the only approach, six-party talks that his administration initiated after ending the Clinton administration's bi-lateral talks. Any other approach would fail, he said, because that would give North Korea what it wanted. But Kerry didn't buy that explanation, saying, here's the "real story."
"We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea," Kerry said. "Secretary (of Defense) Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
"While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea."
Kerry at least showed for the first time that Bush was in ownership of "the truth." And if proof is needed about who "owned the debate" or "won" it, look no further than the references that were made by the candidates regarding the United Nations.
Remember, Bush spent six months savaging the reputation of the U.N. before we went to war in Iraq, and the administration has since spent its time trying to pull down Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the authority of the Security Council. Kerry was having none of that. He spoke about the U.N. as a legitimate body to work with in our international engagements throughout the debate: "You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations." Kerry was so effective in creating a climate in the debate about the positive qualities of the U.N., that by the end, Bush, coerced by the dominant argument squirmed his way into defending the U.N.'s limited involvement in Iraq, almost wistfully hoping that it would have a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction: "Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they're now back in helping with elections."
One can only hope that the audience is smarter than the Bush campaign gives it credit for, because Bush used a caricature of Kerry's character flaws, without using firm examples from his Senate record. Bush instead chose to stick with the distortions he's spent millions on in his TV ads. Meanwhile, Kerry channeled Bush's record as evidence of repeated examples of bad judgement. For example, Kerry highlighted the fact that fewer Russian nuclear warheads and fissile material had been dismantled in the two years after 9/11 compared to the two years before it. Since both candidates agreed that was the greatest threat to the country, it can only mean that Bush has failed to address what he believes to be the most dangerous threat to America and the world - in a post-9/11 environment.
Kerry spoke repeatedly from his strengths, showing that he had been around longer than Bush, and that his military positions reflected the thoughts of America's decorated war heroes and former leaders, including Bush's own father: "I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father – all believe I would make a stronger commander-in-chief."
Kerry also referred to Bush's father in discussing the wisdom of invading Iraq: "Now I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said – he wrote in his book – because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land."
The candidates' mutual praise for each others' daughters was perhaps the most unscripted and revealing moment of the debate. Like his unwavering policy on Iraq, Bush revealed his inclinations to keep his daughters on a tight "leash." Kerry replied that he had learned "not to" rein them in, suggesting that a more flexible and understanding approach had brought about better results as a father. It was a microcosm of Bush's "Let's stay the course" vs. Kerry's "Let's learn what experience teaches us" approaches to leading the free world.
Challenger pummels president's record to carry first debate
Oct. 1, 2004 12:00 AM
The 2004 presidential election just got interesting.
In the same week President Bush's lead in the polls began to solidify and it appeared he might be able to ride out this race, he ran into a far better prepared opponent in John Kerry on Thursday night.
This newspaper has been supportive of Bush and much of his prosecution of the Iraq war, but it was clear to us the president was beaten decisively by his challenger in this 90-minute contest.
Interestingly, Bush and Kerry fought their war of words inverse to their approach to terror. While Kerry emphasized a stronger defense - more money, more attention to shoring up the homeland - he was decidedly on the offensive in the debate at the University of Miami. And Bush, who argues we must take the offensive in war and strike before threats materialize, found himself on defense most of the night.
Reaction shots on national TV that wounded the sighing Al Gore so badly in the 2000 round of presidential debates were this time unkind to Bush. The president's pinched face and shifting eyes only seemed to accent Kerry's charge that Bush had "made a colossal error of judgment" by invading Iraq. Kerry in contrast remained calm and confident.
The president tried to fend off his challenger's cool dissection of his Iraq record, by charging Kerry with vacillation and indecision on the issue. But it was Kerry this night who appeared resolute and Bush who seemed to wobble, if not in rhetoric, in bearing.
Kerry exploited the current chaos in Iraq to argue that the president had failed to plan for the peace and has no viable exit strategy. He also used the night to reiterate his plan, first outlined in a Sept. 20 speech at New York University, to ramp up training of Iraqi security forces, bring in allies to shoulder more of the burden, and to hasten reconstruction.
One of Bush's best moments came when he described his meeting with a North Carolina woman who lost her husband in Iraq. "I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some, that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy. I think (his sacrifice) is worth it because I know in the long term a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, will set such a powerful example in a part of the world that's desperate for freedom. It will help change the world."
Kerry used the debate to reel off a string of endorsements of his leadership skills.
On some points, the question was less about what to do than about which candidate could do it more effectively. In other words, "Anything you can do, I can do better."
Each candidate claimed to be best suited to gain the cooperation of other countries. Kerry pledged to assemble world leaders to work out a strategy in Iraq: "I know what many of them say, and I know how to bring them back to the table."
But Bush scored effectively by pointing out that Kerry has been offending allies by criticizing coalition members in Iraq and questioning the veracity of the acting prime minister there. Bush said he knows what foreign leaders think, citing his personal discussions with them, driving home his relationship by speaking of "Vladimir" in discussing Russian President Putin.
In his closing comments, Bush countered a swirl of rumors of a possible military draft with a specific reference to the "all-volunteer Army."
Kerry said he would begin bilateral talks to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. Reclusive leader Kim Jong-il has been calling for direct negotiations with the United States. This is a situation in which Bush insists on the current multilateral approach. Five countries, including the United States and China, have been negotiating with North Korea in fits and starts. The broad front makes sense, particularly in getting China to exert pressure on its neighbor.
Historically, a single debate seldom produces dramatic swings in the polls. But Bush will need to face facts that he was badly bested in this contest. Otherwise, he had better prepare to spend the next two bouts, including the last one on Oct. 13 at Arizona State University, on the ropes.
IN THE MIDDLE of a disjointed, subpar performance on an evening when he could have locked away a second term, President Bush made an unusually silly attempt to link the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11 with the dictator who used to rule Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had to be invaded last year, said Bush in a feeble summing up, "because the enemy attacked us."
Bush can usually get away with attempts to fuse Iraq with Al Qaeda before Republican campaign audiences or the White House press corps, but he was unable to fool the 9/11 commission, and he should not have tried to slip the flat-out misstatement past an alert, acerbic, and effective John Kerry last night.
In a rejoinder that neatly encapsulated Kerry's ability to speak clearly with the highest political stakes involved, Kerry clearly enjoyed drawing the long breath that preceded his response. The last time Kerry had checked, he said, Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States, but that under Osama bin Laden's direction, Al Qaeda had.
Worse, Kerry said that the United States let him get away from a near-certain trap in Afghanistan and then diverted resources from finding him to assemble the force that is now stuck in Iraq.
Somewhere inside the president's head there was a realization that he had committed one of those gaffes, one of those flagrant goofs that, if not corrected, can create days of trouble.
When he got the floor back, Bush fixed the record with a quick admission that, of course, bin Laden was behind the attacks three years ago. And then he drew the evening's only laugh -- always a clue to a poor performance -- with a pseudo-confident, "I knew that."
He probably does, but Bush has been trying to mislead the country for three years about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda so he could make the two wars one in most Americans' minds. Of late, he has been having more difficulty as the situation in Iraq continues to degenerate.
The Bush campaign has invested more than $100 million to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping opportunist. That's not how he came off last night. It was the president who sought the chance to shine in his favorite subject area and then proceeded to blow the opportunity sky-high.
This race goes on.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.
LADIES AND gentlemen, you wake today to a whole new presidential race. Last night, John Kerry won as clear a debate victory as we've seen since Ronald Reagan outdueled Jimmy Carter in 1980.
The senator that Americans saw on stage was hardly the shilly-shallying caricature that George W. Bush had been lampooning on the campaign trail. Nor was he the flatfooted candidate who fumbled his way through a disastrous August. Instead, the Democratic challenger seemed more serious and substantive, more knowledgeable and confident, than the man who holds the job.
Kerry presented his nuanced Iraq stand in much clearer, more understandable fashion than he has in the past. And though the senator oversells the likelihood that his scheme for an international summit on Iraq will relieve the disproportionate burden on the United States, his critique of Bush's runup to war was pointed and effective. Kerry's best moment may have come when, in skewering Bush's judgment, he noted that one can be certain but be wrong.
Although Bush had some moments, at too many points the president seemed reduced to repeating simple assertions that sometimes bordered on the petulant: that a commander in chief couldn't send mixed messages, that Kerry, too, had seen Saddam as a threat in the months before the invasion, that people had to understand that nation-building is hard work.
Bush struck a particularly odd note when, in trying to rebut Kerry about the prewar need for more patience on Iraq, he insisted that more diplomacy wouldn't have persuaded Saddam to disarm. It was almost as though the president has forgotten that no stockpiles of forbidden weapons have been found in Iraq.
You can, of course, have a debate victory that doesn't change the underlying dynamics of the race. This one should, however. The reason Kerry has been lagging in this race is because of voter doubts about his strength and his resolve.
It's hard to imagine the average voter watching this debate and concluding that Kerry wasn't tough enough, or resolute enough, for the job. Not after a night when the challenger stood on the stage with the incumbent and seemed much more presidential.
In a Rigid Setting, Two Projections of the Father Image
By Paul Brownfield Times Staff Writer
October 1, 2004
Who's your daddy?
This seemed to be the question before America's TV viewers, an hour into the first presidential debate Thursday night, when the intensely visceral and fear-producing issues of Iraq and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein seemed to leave a choice between two father figures.
Who's the daddy, at a time when the electorate is having nightmares about unseen, vaguely understood enemies? Is it President Bush, with his look-straight-into-the-camera, folksy masculinity, the daddy who pats you on the head, gives you a slogan that isn't terribly helpful and keeps saying, though you're not sure why, that life is "hard work"?
"I just know how this world works!" Bush said at one point, like a TV dad cutting off discussion at a dinner table.
Or is it the patrician-looking Kerry, who during this campaign has suffered from an innate reserve and the withering spin of the Bush people that he's a waffler? Standing next to, or at least 10 feet from, Bush, he actually came across on TV as with-it, engaged and informed — a father who might actually know best.
"I don't know if he sees what's really happening there," Kerry said of Bush's take on Iraq, on a night when anyone watching the evening news had seen tough footage of wounded and dead Iraqi children, victims of yet another car bombing in Baghdad.
Pundits had said all along that the debate could be a context in which Kerry would enjoy an advantage, though not a turn-the-campaign-around edge. When moderator Jim Lehrer announced the candidates, Bush came striding out first, easily beating Kerry to center stage.
On the "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather referred to the debate as a "televised happening." He was referring to the imposed rigidities (no direct questions from the candidates, no pie charts, no sighing or hint of a human emotion) that threatened to turn the debate into two respective stump speeches delivered 10 feet apart.
But there were fireworks almost immediately, because the war in Iraq is an emotional, in-the-moment issue on which Kerry and Bush differ deeply. If it was shocking to see their differences on display so starkly, this has much to do with the shoddy way TV news has been covering the campaign, funneling every day into a headache-producing prism of 10-second sound bites, illuminated by nothing deeper than spin.
Bush came across as suddenly less qualified to be Daddy than he has been.
Bush did look into the camera as much as he did at moderator Jim Lehrer, which reinforced his personableness in contrast to Kerry's more studied manner.
But words continually fail Bush. Mostly because he doesn't try very many. With the TV cameras trained on the stripped-down debate stage, his bare-bones communication style sometimes played as monotonous rather than resolute. He repeatedly said the situation in Iraq was "hard work." He said it 10 times, until it no longer seemed like anything so much as a network time-killer. He said this: "I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect us. There's a lot of people working hard."
Meanwhile, the candidates had signed an agreement requesting that TV cameras not show one while the other was speaking.
But the networks immediately violated this, posing the two in split screen. When Kerry spoke, Bush appeared tight-mouthed and frustrated that he was being contradicted. Kerry looked in control, taking notes, nodding and listening.
The two campaigns have crystallized their rhetoric about character: Inconsistency versus rigidity.
But on TV, rigidity made for a more revealing visual.
For 90 minutes, at least, it seemed Kerry had found a small-screen context in which he can get the better of Bush.
Even on the subject of actual fatherhood.
When Kerry said he had chuckled at some of the Bush daughters' "comments," Bush replied, "I'm trying to put a leash on them." Kerry winked and said, "Well, I don't know. I've learned not to do that, Mr. President."
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and President Bush during the presidential debate in Coral Gables, Fla. Thursday.
Kerry outsmarts Bush in the crucial first debate.
By Tim Grieve
Oct. 1, 2004 / 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer Tim Grieve is a senior writer for Salon based in San Francisco.
Leave it to Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" to get the big scoop on debate night. What was John Kerry intently scribbling on his note pad while President Bush was speaking? The enterprising Stewart got his hands on the pad after the debate and revealed Kerry’s words to "The Daily Show" audience: "I'm so crushing him."
-- David Talbot
[23:43 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Sullivan: The kids aren't alright with Bush
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan writes that he saw the debate "among a group of Dartmouth college students who were mainly pro-Kerry but who included a solid pro-Bush presence," and the kids weren't at all happy with Bush. In a lengthy, articulate critique of Bush's performance, Sullivan writes [ http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_09_26_dish_archive.html#10966034742507191... ]: "Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was 'hard work,' who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night.
"In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he'd seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he's voting for Kerry."
-- Farhad Manjoo
[23:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
About that legion of new Iraqi forces…
Twice during Thursday night's debate President Bush proclaimed that Iraq now has 100,000 of its own troops ready to protect the country, and that the number will go to 125K by the end of the year, and 200K the following. Sounds like great news -- but it's not accurate.
Moreover, "of the nearly 90,000 currently in the [Iraqi] police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as 'untrained,' and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.
"Six Army battalions have had 'initial training,' while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or 'awaiting equipment.' Just eight Guard battalions have reached 'initial (operating) capability,' and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been 'uneven.'"
-- Jeff Horwitz
[23:06 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Restless in the GOP's corner...
Weekly Standard chief Bill Kristol, on the Fox News Channel: "I talked to a half dozen Republican officials tonight and they're all a little bit deflated. They were hoping for a knockout of Kerry and they didn't get it. It's still a race."
-- Mark Follman
[22:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
"Boondocks" cartoonist rates Bush
While pundits on the left, right, and center agreed that John Kerry beat George Bush in the opening debate, none was more emphatic than “Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder. “Bush got his ass whupped,” McGruder told CNN’s Aaron Brown.
But the outspoken McGruder, who was relegated to “The Contrarian” segment of Brown’s news show, was not finished. “The elephant in the room” that no TV pontificators will dare acknowledge, he observed, is that Bush “is incredibly dumb...he can’t articulate, he can’t complete a full sentence, and he’s our president.”
Brown, being a member in good standing of the pontificator class, rushed to challenge McGruder, asserting that Bush was a man of strong beliefs, blah, blah, blah. But McGruder was unimpressed. Convictions don’t mean a thing if you’re just plain stupid, he pointed out.
And with that, Brown bade The Contrarian farewell.
-- David Talbot
[22:08 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Bush avoids the question
When Dick Cheney warned recently that if America voted the wrong way in November we'd "get hit again" by terrorists, there was such an outcry that the Bush campaign backtracked a bit, saying Cheney must have chosen the wrong words. And yet, Bush surrogates ever since have made similarly appalling insinuations -- and some have even suggested that al-Qaida wants nothing more than to see Kerry elected.
The New York Times [ http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092704F.shtml ] and Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-kerry28sep28,1,684193.story ] editorial pages have noted that this tactic marks a new low in American politics, calling it despicable, polarizing, and even "un-American." The LA Times said Bush was a coward for letting his surrogates climb into the gutter on his behalf and "refus[ing] to take responsibility for it or to call point-blank for it to stop."
Thursday night, Bush had a chance to show America he doesn't believe choosing John Kerry in November will make them more likely to "get hit again." He deflected the question. "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" Jim Lehrer asked.
"No, I don't believe it's going to happen," Bush said -- very clearly referring to a Kerry win in November. "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead."
What Bush showed the American people with that non-answer is that he's not willing to end the scare tactics.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[22:00 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Score six for Kerry in Ohio
You’ve seen the TV scene a hundred times: A network news station corrals six undecided voters -- three women, three men, two of whom are black, three white, and one seemingly of Middle Eastern origin -- in a library in Small Town, America. Mr. Correspondent then asks about the Big News Event.
You don’t want to seem cynical but these staged town hall meetings sure do seem to spur predictable answers from our good neighbors, The Undecided.
But not this time.
Who are the faces behind the early polls that show Kerry won the debate? They are these six folks in Massillon, just outside of Canton, in swing state Ohio, speaking with NBC correspondent Ron Allen.
So why are you, Jennifer Bauer, an executive assistant, still undecided?
"I’m not convinced George Bush is doing the right thing over in the war," Bauer says. "And I think John Kerry has a good knowledge of foreign policy."
And you, Phillip Elum, small business owner, you voted for George Bush in the last election -- what did you think of Bush’s performance in the debate?
"His performance was fine," Elum says. "But John Kerry gave me a higher comfort level in his capability of being commander in chief and in homeland security."
Julie Farley, dental office manager, you are a "security mom." Who do you think will keep the country safer?
"I think John Kerry will."
John Kerry?
"Yes. I think President Bush puts fear in us. And I think John Kerry is a leader and is basically just going to handle it."
Bob Phillips, you are a Persian Gulf veteran and now work at the veterans’ administration. Who do you think has a better plan for Iraq, for getting the troops home the soonest?
"I think John Kerry does, just for the simple fact that he wants to make it a coalition ideal, where everybody gets involved. Where George Bush is making our troops more involved."
So who had the stronger night?
All six: "John Kerry."
-- Kevin Berger
[21:49 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
CBS "insta-poll" shows Kerry scoring big
Using some new online technology, CBS tracked the reactions of roughly 200 undecided voters during and right after the debate. Dan Rather acknowledged that the polling system was "unscientific" -- but even so, the results of the quick pulse-taking look pretty great for John Kerry.
On the question of "who won?":
Kerry: 44% Bush: 26% tie: 30%
On the question of "who has a clearer plan for iraq?":
Kerry: 51% Bush: 38%
And 52% of the undecideds said that their "opinion of Kerry improved" from the debate.
The network that has taken a beating for its mistakes in the forged documents debacle wasn't afraid to offer a couple of quick opinions, either. In discussion with Dan Rather, chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said that President Bush "seemed pretty defensive" in the beginning, adding that he thought Kerry came out strong.
UPDATE: An ABC News insta-poll showed similar results, with Bush faring just a bit better. Of 531 people polled, 35% of them Republicans (ABC didn't indicate the breakdown of the other 65% with regard to Dem or indie): "Who won?":
Kerry: 45% Bush: 36% tie: 17%
UPDATE 2: Insta-polling may be a blunt instrument, but there seems to be a pattern forming here. CNN's survey of 615 registered voters on "who won?":
Kerry: 53% Bush: 37%
-- Mark Follman
[20:22 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cha-ching
So far, even typically hostile TV pundits -- and some Republicans, including John McCain just now on CNN -- are saying John Kerry more than held his own against Bush tonight. And apparently Kerry's strong performance has many Americans digging into their pockets. The Kerry campaign just sent this one line email to reporters: "As of 10:41 p.m., the Democratic National Committee is receiving 5 online donations per second."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[20:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Joe Scarborough agrees with Atrios
Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough calls it for Kerry...
-- Joan Walsh
[19:36 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Halfway through, pro-Kerry bloggers are very happy
Wondering who's winning? At the halfway mark, pro-Kerry bloggers were thrilled with their candidate's debate performance. At Atrios [ http://atrios.blogspot.com/ ], the regulars were feasting on the observation "The Rolling of Eyes is the New 'Sighs'" -- a reference to Bush's strange cutaway-camera eyerolling this year, which was as off-putting as Al Gore's sighs four years ago. Likewise at Daily Kos [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/30/213658/970 ] posters concluded that Kerry seemed more comfortable and prepared than Bush. "Holy shit, [Bush is] winging it, and it's painful," declared Kos. "Can't take my eyes away from THIS trainwreck," kvelled one poster. Stay tuned.
-- Joan Walsh
[19:04 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Warning lights, orange skin -- and hopefully some substance
The fight over lectern lights just hours before the first presidential debate was pretty symbolic of how substance-averse the agreed upon rules for tonight's event are. George W. Bush's debate team pushed to have signal lights alert the audience at home and in the auditorium when the candidates run over their allotted miniscule moments for explaining their positions. The conventional wisdom is that this will do damage to John Kerry, who is "known for favoring long sentences and statements," as the AP puts it [ http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1180.html ]. (The horror!) Bush's team won on this point, as they did with many of the terms of the debate. We're surprised they didn't get the commission to shock long-winded candidates with cattle prods.
Today, the Kerry campaign complained about the warning lights actually being placed on the lecterns -- it will make the room "look like a game show," Joe Lockhart said on CNN. Late this afternoon, the debate commission wasn't budging on the lectern lights.
We're trying to reserve cynicism about tonight's "debate" and hold out hope that somehow a substantive discussion will break out during and after the 90-minute forum -- and that Americans will get more from their media and politicians than they got four years ago with the Bush-Gore debates, when pundits and campaign advisers wrung their hands over the tint of Al Gore's skin and the volume of his sighs.
After all, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq -- 34 children among the dead just today. There's a lot for the candidates to talk about. Lynne Cheney is making jokes about John Kerry's "tan," [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4523817,00.html ] perhaps trying to resuscitate the Orange Democrat meme from four years ago. But let's hope everyone (the media) gets down to business tonight and dwells on the substance of the debate.
And yet, those strict rules and regs -- all 32 pages of them [ http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/deb04main/deb092004st.html ], in all their nitpicking glory -- are designed to strip substance from the proceedings and compel us to listen to the typical talking points from the candidates.
According to the ground rules, there will be no opening statements. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS will ask the first question, and the first candidate to speak will have 2 minutes to answer. The other candidate will then get 90 seconds to respond. The moderator can then at his discretion "extend" discussion for 60 whole seconds, but he must first call on the candidate who originally took the question. "To the extent that the moderator opens extended discussion, the moderator shall use his best efforts to ensure that each candidate has a maximum of approximately 30 seconds to comment in the extended discussion period," the rules state.
Also: The candidates cannot move from behind the podium, cannot address each other with anything but rhetorical questions and cannot propose pledges.
Some rules could well be broken tonight, however. The TV networks have already said they plan on ignoring some of the commission regs dictating what images can be broadcast. The official rules prohibit shots of Bush or Kerry while the other one speaks. Fox News is running the "pool" coverage, feeding multiple streams of video to the other networks -- and also feeding suspicion in the liberal blogosphere that somehow the choice of images shown would be biased toward Bush -- but it's up to each control room what shots to show. Reuters reports [ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6370562 ]: "CNN executive vp and general manager Princell Hair criticized the agreement worked out between the campaign managers for President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry. 'The level of restrictions is unprecedented, as far as I can tell,' Hair said. ' ... we're just not going to comply."
So, we won't get any interaction between Bush and Kerry, but maybe there will be some spontaneity after all! Stay tuned to the networks for their bold choices in cutaway shots.
-- Geraldine Sealey
[15:21 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Cheney's big flip-flop on Iraq
Throughout the presidential race the Bush campaign has ceaselessly ridiculed John Kerry for allegedly changing his position on the Iraq war and other issues of national security, including the funding of U.S. military weapons systems. No one in the administration has been more ruthless (or disingenuous) than Vice President Cheney in the attempts to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper" who would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future attack.
But while Bush and Cheney keep pounding the podium and claiming that Kerry was both for and against the war on Iraq, Cheney himself was adamantly against going after Saddam in 1992. Yesterday the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nati... ] dug up the text of a speech Cheney gave in Seattle in August 1992, while serving as secretary of defense for the first President Bush. Back then Cheney argued that taking over Iraq wouldn't be worth the cost in U.S. lives, and would lead to a quagmire. In light of the turmoil there now, the irony of his words is as rich as vast fields of Iraqi crude. Ditto regarding Cheney's timing on the threat Saddam may have posed: The Iraqi dictator, as we now know, was much closer to wielding nuclear weapons at the time of the first Gulf War -- when Cheney said Baghdad was a no-go -- than when the Bush administration launched the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
"[T]he question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney asked during the 1992 speech. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
What, back then, did Cheney think those problems would look like?
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place?" Cheney asked. "You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
When Cheney and his colleagues in the second Bush White House did apparently decide to "accept the responsibility for governing Iraq" in 2003, it seems they would've been wise to consider the prescient analysis of the former defense secretary... Dick Cheney:
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."
-- Mark Follman
[13:10 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
In the polls
Several new national polls released within a day of the first debate show President Bush either tied or leading the race.
In addition to the horse race numbers, Harris also provides an interesting breakdown of how voting intentions correspond to educational background: It turns out the more education a person has received, the more likely he or she is to support Kerry. Bush's numbers are best in the lowest category, "high school or less," where he gets 51 percent of the vote. But he's an underachiever among those with a college degree (45 percent), and flunks out with a solid F-minus (37 percent) among those with graduate degrees.
The LA Times poll also covered expectations for the debate. While pundits often joke about Bush as a fumbler at the podium, and Kerry as a plodding erudite, voters seems to have a different view. Forty-eight percent of likely voters think Bush will demonstrate "strong character," compared to only 20 percent that have faith in Kerry -- and by a slight margin, 33-31, likely voters think Bush will appear more knowledgeable than his opponent.
The poll's good news for Kerry is that a segment of Bush supporters are open to persuasion: Twenty-three percent of Republicans said "the debate could have an effect" on the way they vote, compared to only 13 percent of Democrats.
Though the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they plan on voting for, an Annenberg study [ http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_voter-have-much-to-learn_09-29_pr.pdf ] released this week shows that a hefty percentage of them lack a basic understanding of the candidates' positions. Forty percent of Americans didn't know Bush was the candidate in favor of permanently implementing the tax cuts, 53 percent couldn't identify Bush as the candidate who favors partially privatizing social security, and a full third of Americans were unaware that Bush is in favor of laws making it tougher for a woman to get an abortion.
Those surveyed were also in the dark about Kerry, with nearly half unaware of Kerry's position on laws making it easier for unions to organize, and for drugs to be imported from Canada. A majority had no idea that Kerry is in favor of ending tax breaks for corporations' overseas profits.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:19 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Real Voices get shut out by news networks
So far in this campaign, the surest way for political advocacy groups to grab some TV exposure is to create commercials (the more emotional the better), buy airtime in a handful of swing states and then hold a press conference to announce the spots. The first Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad that argued Sen. John Kerry lied about his war medals won free airtime for weeks on cable television. More recently, an anti-Kerry ad mixing a grainy picture of Kerry in among notorious Islamic terrorists was dutifully noted by most major news organizations.
The latest ad buy entry came yesterday when families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce two new emotional anti-Bush ads that are set to run in the crucial swing states of Florida, New Mexico and Nevada. Calling themselves RealVoices.org [ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/30/realvoices/index.html ], the mothers of slain soldiers appear in the two ads, often in tears as they describe their loss and their anger over the war in Iraq.
Sounds like some pretty gripping stuff, right? Apparently not to TV news outlets. So far they've been overwhelmingly MIA on the story. Here's an up-to-the-minute tally of the mentions that RealVoices.org has received:
At this point, it's possible the White House could tell reporters that George W. Bush earned a Purple Heart during the Vietnam War and the press would simply print it as fact. That's how badly the press has fallen down on the National Guard story. Clearly spooked by the recent controversy at CBS over the questionable memos "60 Minutes II" used for its story on Bush's National Guard service, the press has essentially abandoned the Guard story, despite the fact obvious unanswered questions remain about Bush's mysterious military service. Worse, when it is forced to address the issue, the press has simply morphed into stenographers, dutifully recording every absurd answer the White House gives and completely ignoring the established facts from Bush's own military record.
The latest, most egregious example came in yesterday's Associated Press story [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60936-2004Sep29.html ], which declares from the very outset, "President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said Wednesday."
The key, of course, is the final phrase, "the White House said." What else is the White House going to say? And why is it news that the White House once again repeated its National Guard talking points? The actual news was that for the fourth time since February when White House aides told reporters it had released "absolutely everything" about Bush's' service, it once again came up with yet another document. In this case it was a copy of Bush's resignation in 1974.
Elsewhere, the AP simply let the White House roll out whopper after whopper:
-- "The White House said Bush fulfilled his Guard duty completely, even after ending his pilot's career to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign."
"After ending his pilot's career" makes it sounds as though Bush fulfilled his obligation. The fact is, in April of 1972 with 770 days remaining of flight obligation, Bush simply refused to fly again. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity" in Alabama and fulfilled his commitment doing administrative tasks, the White House said."
Of course "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity.'" Despite owing the military years more in flight duty, Bush specifically requested a transfer to an Alabama Guard unit that had no planes. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The president's written evaluations demonstrate a good record as a pilot; the pay and points records demonstrate his complete fulfillment of his obligations; and the records demonstrate that he followed the proper procedures and worked through the chain of command to receive approval to perform equivalent duty in Alabama," the White House said."
First of all, Bush received no "written evaluations" for 1972 and 1973 because he showed up for duty so infrequently his commanders couldn't rate him. The AP failed to mention that.
Secondly, "proper procedures" for a transfer to Alabama required Bush to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling, that he receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit, sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander, receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general, and receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. Bush did none of those things. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The [White House's] answers also addressed why Bush skipped a required physical in the summer of 1972, prompting the termination of his pilot status. "The president was transferring to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying capacity, making a flight physical unnecessary," the White House said."
Guard regulations made it perfectly clear that every member had to take an annual physical, regardless of whether they were flying or not. The AP failed to mention that.
-- "The White House said, "The president did not ask his father or family friends for assistance" in getting into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
In 1999, former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, caught up in a lawsuit and forced to address the issue, admitted that in 1968 a wealthy Houston businessman approach him and asked that he try to secure a coveted slot for Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes said he acted on the request. Barnes told the same story to CBS earlier this month. The AP failed to mention that.
"Freshly unearthed public documents, ranging from newspapers to cabinet-meeting minutes, seem to indicate large gaps in George W. Bush's service as president, a spokesman for the watchdog group Citizens for an Informed Society announced Monday ... the most damning documents were generated at roughly one-day intervals during a period beginning in January 2001 and ending this week."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[07:12 PDT, Sept. 30, 2004]
----------
Republican pollster canned at MSNBC
Upon hearing that MSNBC planned for Republican pollster Frank Luntz to conduct on-air focus groups as part of the cable network's debate coverage tonight, David Brock of the media watchdog group Media Matters sent MSNBC executive Rick Kaplan a letter of complaint. It looks like Kaplan listened.
Media Matters [ http://www.mediamatters.org/ ] links to this Roll Call article today showing Luntz got canned. It's sub only, so here's the text:
By Mary Ann Akers Roll Call Staff September 30, 2004
The watchdog organization Media Matters for America was none too pleased that MSNBC had scheduled GOP pollster Frank Luntz conduct on-air focus groups following tonight's presidential debate.
In a letter to MSNBC President Richard Kaplan, Media Matters President David Brock (who used to call himself a conservative), said he hoped the network would disclose Luntz's "partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology."
Brock cited a number of examples, including Luntz's work on the 1994 Republican "Contract with America," pointing out that Luntz was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to disclose data on how he surmised that 60 percent of Americans supported the Contract. Brock also noted Luntz's published remarks counseling swing-state Republicans on what to say about Iraq and homeland security.
Looks like the letter had an impact. Although MSNBC did not respond to Brock, a spokeswoman for the network told HOH late Wednesday that the network has decided "not to go with Frank for the debate." In fact, MSNBC won't conduct polling at all now, she said. Brock was delighted to hear the news. "It is encouraging that MSNBC responded to criticism in a constructive way. Clearly they realized that employing a partisan pollster does not reflect well on them as a responsible media outlet."
Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ]: In "unusual public relations effort" by Bush administration in Iraq, U.S. sending Iraqi Americans to deliver "good news" about Iraq to U.S. military bases, but is curtailing reports showing increasing violence.
Reports of turmoil inside CBS News continue to reach our ears, following the disastrous decision to rush a “60 Minutes Wednesday” segment onto the air Sept. 8 featuring dubious documents about President Bush’s failure to fulfill his National Guard duties. This week came news that CBS News president Andrew Heyward decided to spike an unrelated report by Ed Bradley that laid bare the Bush administration’s deliberate lies -- or, if you’re feeling generous -- unbelievably credulous pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein was close to building a nuclear weapon.
It turned out, of course, that Saddam didn’t even have a nuclear program, much less a weapon. And Bush’s frightening talk of an Iraqi "mushroom cloud" about to explode over America, the now-shelved Bradley piece would have made clear, was just another means of terrifying the public into supporting an invasion. But the heart of the report was a critical examination of how forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger had been used by the administration -- despite doubts about their authenticity -- to help justify an invasion. With anchor Dan Rather having admitted he’d likewise relied on unauthenticated documents about Bush’s Guard duty, Bradley’s solid report was a casualty of the furor around the Rather story, which conservatives blamed on anti-Bush bias at CBS.
Salon reported Wednesday about the contents of the spiked report, though without the benefit of Bradley’s input; the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent did not return phone calls placed to him on Monday and Tuesday. We tried again Wednesday. This time, Bradley took the call.
Asked if he was "agitating" inside CBS to reverse Heywood’s decision to kill the segment, as sources have told Salon, Bradley said simply: "You heard wrong." He added: "It’s not my decision about why it’s not running. You should talk to the people who made that decision," he said, explaining that he meant Heyward.
"I reported the story. I certainly understand their decision not to air it," Bradley added.
Did that mean he agreed with the official reason Heyward gave for spiking the report, that it would be "inappropriate" to air a critical examination of the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq so close to the Nov. 2 election? Bradley demurred.
"Like I say, I’m not going to be pulled into this. I’ve said all I’m going to say," the veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent said, weaving carefully to protect both his relationships at CBS and his professional integrity.
-- Mary Jacoby
[16:29 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Beating back Ohio's own dirty trickster
All signs indicate that Ohio Democrats are poised to flood the state's voting booths in record numbers on Nov. 2. Not surprisingly, a worried GOP is clutching for any kind of last-minute lifeline. As War Room noted yesterday, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is up to some dirty tricks [ http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/09/28/ohio/index.ht... ] -- blatantly unethical if not illegal -- aimed at fortifying against the tsunami of new Democratic voter registrations.
Get-out-the-vote group America Coming Together is now circulating a petition to stop Blackwell's egregious attempts to obstruct the democratic process and tilt the election in his party's favor. You can sign the petition here [ http://static.act04.org/act/paperstock.htm ].
-- Mark Follman
[13:04 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Misery loves company
Tom Coburn, the beleaguered Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, has done a number of things that cast doubt on his political instincts, but his decision in 2000 to make himself the lone congressional endorser of Alan Keyes' presidential campaign may take the prize:
"Ambassador Keyes," Coburn added, "has shown repeatedly that he has a better grasp on the issues -- the foreign policy, the fiscal policy, the social policy and all the rest of it -- than any other candidate."
One wonders if Coburn realized then what "all the rest of it" would entail: Did he imagine Keyes would suggest that legalizing automatic weapons would allow Americans to fight the war on terror at home? Or would propose that the IRS should give the descendants of slaves lifetime exemptions from federal income tax as reparations? Or would state that "Christ could not vote for Barack Obama"?
Now that the Illinois Senate race is more a lopsided comedy than anything else (the most recent poll showed Obama beating Keyes by a 68-17 margin), Obama has begun to campaign outside the state to help fellow Democrats. Maybe Keyes should follow suit and make a few trips to stump for his old friend Coburn in Oklahoma.
-- Jeff Horwitz
[12:45 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
The cost of Bush's "spiritual" war
On Sept. 13, Sgt. Ben Isenberg was riding through Taji, Iraq, when his Humvee struck a roadside bomb. He was killed. Earlier this week National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" included a moving report from a memorial service for Isenberg in his hometown of Sheridan, Oregon. Isenberg, who was 27, came from a patriotic, devout Christian family with a long history of military and community service. After graduating college, he worked for the Oregon Department of Forestry before being deployed to Iraq with his unit from the Oregon National Guard.
With the continuing conflict in Iraq weighing heavily on the presidential race, the report from Isenberg's memorial is also a striking glimpse of how one American family, in the context of ultimate sacrifice, views President Bush's pivotal choice to take the nation to war.
"This war is not about Iraqis and Americans, [or] oil," said Robert Isenberg, Ben's father. "This is a spiritual war, and the people who don't understand that, they just need to dig into their bible and read about it. It's predicted, it's predestined."
Isenberg's father also told NPR that criticism of the war and its costs bothered his son, "because Benjamin understood that this was a spiritual war, and he understands that our current serving president is a very devout Christian also. Ben understood the calling was to go because the president had the knowledge and understood what was going on, and it's far deeper than we as a people will ever really know. We don't get the information that the president gets."
President Bush, who has never attended the funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, can listen to the full report here [ http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=27-Sep-2004&prgId=3 ]. Ben Isenberg, it continues, had planned to return to university after serving in Iraq to earn a credential so that he could teach high school science. He leaves behind his parents, a sister, two brothers, his wife and their two sons, ages four and two.
Stay tuned -- but don't hold your breath -- to the debate tomorrow night to see if Jim Lehrer uses any of your ideas!
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:36 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
What Kerry needs to do
The latest Democracy Corps memo from Democratic strategists/pollsters Stan Greenberg and Matt Hogan (via Political Wire [ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/09/28/what_kerry_must_do.html ]) puts a positive spin on a trend that is worrisome for John Kerry. "On the eve of the debates," the pollsters say, "John Kerry and the Democrats are rich with targets that could be consolidated or persuaded, despite the intense polarization of the presidential election."
Among these "targets," however, are voters John Kerry should have a lock on already. The bad news, the pollsters say, is that Kerry has yet to "consolidate" traditionally Democratic-leaning voters who should be in his column in even stronger percentages. The "good news," though, is that Kerry has room to gain ground in the polls if he can do better wih these voters. From the memo:
"One reason why Kerry is likely to make gains after the debate is the unconsolidated vote of a number of groups that are important to the Democratic base. All these groups are supporting Kerry with good margins, but they could do better given historic performance and their own current party inclinations and feelings about Bush. The reasons vary by group: some, like African Americans, are simply looking for a more intense engagement with Bush and stronger focus on domestic issues; others, like the college educated women, are looking for a broader issue discussion, as well as a plan for Iraq and a greater sense of conviction from Kerry; and finally, the union households want engagement and economic issues but also greater evidence of personal strength and resolve against the terrorists."
"White single women (14 percent). Women on their own -- single, divorced and widowed -- still hold great potential for Democrats. Kerry is already winning them by 11 points (51 to 40 percent), but they are desperate for an election about the issues facing these economically vulnerable women: an astonishing 58 percent want to move in a significantly different direction. They are strongly against the Iraq war and want to see action on health care.
"Well-educated white women (16 percent). The biggest drop off in support after the Democratic conventions has come with white college educated women -- from a 13-point lead down to a single point deficit. The drop was even more true for women with a post-graduate degree. The latter are still giving Kerry a big lead (26 points), but Kerry's vote dropped from 66 to 58 percent. But these college educated voters are strong change voters (by 8 points) and align with the Democrats (by 6). Kerry can make important gains here. These voters strongly oppose the Iraq war, think the middle class is squeezed, and care about health care and education.
"White union households (17 percent). In September, Kerry was carrying these voters by 9 points (50 to 41 percent), but that trails their party alignment by 6 points and their desire for change by even more: 59 percent want to go in a significantly different direction. These voters are deeply upset about the economy, and also Iraq, but they are less certain of Kerry's strength.
"African Americans (10 percent). Kerry is getting 82 percent of the vote and their interest in the election is very high. They will no doubt respond strongly to the engaged campaign that takes up domestic, as well as international issues."
The memo concludes: "This is an unusual landscape of opportunity because of the course the race has taken and Kerry's difficulties in fully consolidating Democratically inclined groups. The bad news is those patterns have kept Kerry a few points behind Bush in the race. The good news is that Democrats are clearly underperforming and can make gains in the race, and indeed win."
-- Geraldine Sealey
[08:11 PDT, Sept. 29, 2004]
----------
Archived War Room:[F6 note -- links appear at this location on the page; use link below]
(COMTEX) B: COLUMN: Bush fumbling, bumbling at debate ( Brown Daily Herald, U-WIRE )
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Oct 01, 2004 (Brown Daily Herald, U-WIRE via COMTEX) -- We knew it was going to be bad, but I don't think anyone expected it would be this bad. Did George W. Bush not realize that Thursday was the night of the debate? Was he out clearing brush on the ranch in the morning when Karl Rove called him up and told him to get his butt out to Coral Gables?
The president of the United States does not do well at press conferences, and for him the first presidential debate was the press conference from hell. In addition to his usual inability to answer the question asked, Bush had a tall, lanky conscience over his right shoulder pointing out that his decisions have actually not made the world any safer from terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
If it looked like Jim Lehrer was giving Bush a hard time, it was because that is exactly what his job was. This election, like all elections in which an incumbent is running, is fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent -- not his opponent. That's why Lehrer's questions focused on Bush's actions in office, not whatever attacks the Right makes on John Kerry, as in "his positions are too nuanced" or "maybe he got shot in Vietnam, but he didn't get shot very hard."
And when the debate is truly about the issues, George Bush is going to lose every time. He knew he lost, too. Every time the camera went to a split-screen during a Kerry response, Bush looked like a child getting a scolding. When his turn came up, he replied with the same, tired insistence that Kerry was demoralizing the troops and somehow vacillating on his position on Iraq, despite Kerry's consistent repetition of his stance: Saddam Hussein was a threat, but not a threat that warranted an enormously costly war.
During the split screens for Bush's answers, Kerry looked a little childish, too. But unlike Al Gore's exasperated sighs, Kerry's trademark was an impish smile. This is not to be confused with the toothy, disingenuous grin he sometimes flashes. He was truly giddy with anticipation of responding to the drivel coming from the president's mouth. Maybe that's a fault, but I was smiling, too.
Other than that, Kerry was perfect. He was clear, he was forceful and he didn't speak a word of French. He outlined sensible alternatives to both Saddam Hussein's initial threat and the continuing violence in Iraq. He presented a damning indictment of Bush's missteps in North Korea and Iran. And by insisting we beef up homeland security and increase the size of the military, Kerry erased the notion that he is a weak-willed foreign-policy liberal.
Bush had a few good moments. His discussion of Libya was effective and surprisingly short, considering it is his only true foreign policy victory. He did a nice job of name-dropping those foreign leaders he couldn't recall in 2000, and showed that he was on a first-name basis with "Vladermer." And his memorized closing statement was clear and effective, but it was such a departure from his earlier off-the-cuff bumbling that he appeared to be a different person.
John Kerry walked away with this thing. And you know what? The Bush team insisted that foreign policy be the subject of the first debate, because it is theoretically the president's strong suit. So no matter how badly he got beaten Thursday night, the best is yet to come.
You heard the words uttered by President Bush and John Kerry the other night. Now read their thoughts.
By Roy Rivenburg Times Staff Writer
October 2, 2004
It's no secret that politicians don't always mean what they say. In an effort to get inside the brains of Botox Boy and the Grammarian in Chief, we purchased a mind-reading machine on EBay and used it to analyze comments from Thursday night's presidential debate.
Here's the scoop on what President Bush, Sen. John F. Kerry and moderator Jim Lehrer said versus what they were really thinking.
Lehrer: A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer; yellow at 15; red at five seconds; and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.
Translation: And if that doesn't work, I know karate. Just because I'm from PBS doesn't mean I won't kick some serious butt if you clowns break the rules.
Bush: In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.
Translation: You know what else is hard? Using the phrase "hard work," "working hard," "hard choices" and other "hard"-based verbiage 22 times in one debate.
Kerry: I've never wavered in my life.
Translation: Well, except for switching my position on Iraq three or four times. But other than that, I've never wavered. I think.
Bush: [long, awkward pause]
Translation: Jim, I'd like to buy a vowel.
Kerry: It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change….
Translation: Oh, my God, Bush is rubbing off on me!
Bush: The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously.
Translation: Wait, can you fight vociferously? How about vituperatively? Vivaciously? Intravenously? Viagra-ly?
Lehrer: Are there underlying character issues that you believe are serious enough to deny Sen. Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?
Translation: Let's get some mudslinging going before this debate puts everyone to sleep.
Bush: I admire Sen. Kerry's service to our country. I admire the fact that he is a great dad. I appreciate the fact that his daughters have been so kind to my daughters.
Translation: But c'mon. Do you really want a guy in the White House who looks like Herman Munster?
Kerry: I appreciate enormously the personal comments the president just made. And I share them with him.
Translation: I can't believe I'm trailing in the polls to a guy who can't even eat a pretzel without supervision.
Bush: We've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more.
Translation: Unless we put them on double-secret probation.
Lehrer: The Darfur region of Sudan [is experiencing] ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you … has discussed the possibility of sending in troops. Why not?
Translation: I wonder if I can get out of here in time to catch tonight's episode of "Joey."
Kerry: I think the reason that we're not saying "Send American troops in" at this point is severalfold.
Translation: Duh, because there's no oil in Sudan.
Kerry: I wrote a book about [nuclear proliferation] several years ago — six, seven years ago — called "The New War."
Translation: Right now, it's No. 28,770 on Amazon.com's sales chart, but after this shameless plug, it should crack the 5,000 mark, and I'll be on my way to financial independence from Teresa!
Bush: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace.
Translation: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of peace, I shall fear no evildoers. For thou art vociferously with me.
By touching on Bush's ambivalent relations with his father, Kerry exposed his delusions about Iraq
Sidney Blumenthal Saturday October 2, 2004 The Guardian
After months of flawless execution in a well-orchestrated campaign, President Bush had to stand alone in an unpredictable debate. He had travelled the country, appearing before adoring pre-selected crowds, delivered a carefully crafted acceptance speech before his convention, and approved tens of millions of dollars in TV commercials to belittle his opponent. In the lead, Bush believed he had only to assert his superiority to end the contest once and for all.
But onstage the president ran out of talking points. Unable to explain the logic for his policies, or think on his feet, he was thrown back on the raw elements of his personality and leadership style.
Every time he was confronted with ambivalence, his impulse was to sweep it aside. He claimed he must be followed because he is the leader. Fate, in the form of September 11, had placed authority in his hands as a man of destiny. Scepticism, pragmatism and empiricism are enemies. Absolute faith prevails over open-ended reason, subjectivity over fact. Belief in belief is the ultimate sacrament of his political legitimacy.
In the split TV screen, how Bush felt was written all over his face. His grimaces exposed his irritation and anger at being challenged. Lacking intellectual stamina and repeating points as though on a feedback loop, he tried to close argument by assertion. With no one interrupting him, he protested, "Let me finish" - a phrase he occasionally deploys to great effect before the cowed White House press corps.
John Kerry was set up beforehand as Bush's foil: long-winded, dour, dull. But the Kerry who showed up was crisp, nimble and formidable. His thrusts brought out Bush's rigidity and stubbornness. The more Bush pleaded his own decisiveness, the more he appeared reactive.
Time and again, as he tried to halt Kerry, he accused him of "mixed signals" and "inconsistency." For Bush, certainty equals strength. Kerry responded with a devastating deconstruction of Bush's epistemology. Nothing like this critique of pure reason has ever been heard in a presidential debate. "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong," said Kerry.
Kerry's analysis of Bush's "colossal error of judgment" in Iraq was systematic, factual and historical. The coup de grace was the citation of the president's father's actions in the Gulf war. "You know," said Kerry, "the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said - he wrote in his book - because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today." With that, Kerry touched on Bush's most ambivalent relationship, the father he recently called "the wrong father," compared to the "Higher Father".
In flustered response, Bush simply insisted on his authority. "I just know how this world works ... there must be certainty from the US president." He reverted to his claim that September 11 justified the invasion of Iraq because "the enemy" - Saddam Hussein - "attacked us." A stunned but swift-footed Kerry observed: "The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important ... he just said, 'The enemy attacked us'. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." In his effort to banish all doubt, Bush had retreated into a substitute reality, a delusional version of Iraq, ultimately faith-based.
Bush's attack lines on Kerry did not describe the surprising man standing opposite him. They had been effective last week, but were suddenly shopworn. But Bush couldn't adjust. The greater his frustration in the debate, the more frequently he spoke of his difficulties in coping with "my job." Ten times he spoke of his "hard work": listening to intelligence briefings, talking to allies, having to comfort a bereaved mother whose son was killed in Iraq.
Near the end, Kerry praised Bush for his public service, and his wife, and his daughters. "I'm trying to put a leash on them," Bush said. That was hard work, too. "Well, I don't know," replied Kerry, who also has daughters. "I've learned not to do that, Mr President." Even in the banter, Kerry gained the upper-hand.
But Bush lost more than control in the first debate. He has lost the plot.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of www.salon.com
Editorial: The debate/Substantial Kerry, peevish Bush
Published October 2, 2004 Last update: October 1, 2004 at 6:41 PM
Sen. John Kerry and President Bush offered the nation a refreshingly substantive debate Thursday night on who is better qualified to handle this nation's foreign policy. The central issues were, of course, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Most of the substance came from Kerry, who displayed far greater depth of knowledge and offered far more specific proposals for winning both. Bush was defensive and peevish, and spent extraordinary amounts of his time stressing how hard the job is and how wrong it is for Kerry to "send mixed signals" to America's enemies, especially on Iraq.
That second point is wrong on two counts. First, a presidential campaign is precisely the time to evaluate an incumbent president's policies, and few issues are more important to discuss than Bush's Iraq policy. As Gen. John Abazaid, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said last Sunday on "Meet the Press," this discussion is at the heart of the freedom that America's men and women in uniform seek to protect.
Second, there is nothing "mixed" about the signals Kerry is sending. Americans who watched the debate Thursday night heard him say: Bush made a "colossal error of judgment" in attacking Iraq and "rushed to war without a plan to win the peace." But now we must win there, and we can win, but to do so we must pursue a more intelligent course than Bush has done. We must forswear any long-term designs on Iraqi territory and Iraqi oil. We must reach out to the Muslim world, which has a stake in preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state. We must reach out to Europe, which has a stake in preventing chaos on its doorstep. We must quickly ratchet up the training schedule for Iraqi police and military forces. We must retake the "no-go" zones in places like Fallujah. We must get the United Nations more involved.
Bush continued to insist that Iraq is the center of the war on terror. Kerry responded that Iraq "wasn't even close" to the center of the war on terror when Bush invaded it. The center, Kerry said, is Afghanistan. Yet Bush has deployed 10 times as many troops to Iraq as to Afghanistan to push the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the man whose Al-Qaida actually attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. It is Kerry who is on firm ground here, not Bush.
Kerry criticized Bush policies in other areas that mirror points independent experts have made in recent days: The president isn't aggressively seeking to contain Russia's "loose nukes." He has mishandled the effort to contain the threat from North Korea's nuclear ambitions and to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The president has stretched America's military forces so thin the United States couldn't afford to send troops to Sudan if that were to become necessary.
These are important topics that Americans need to hear about, topics that have found too little space in newspapers and too little time in broadcast journalism during this smear-dominated campaign. When Kerry went through his litany of issues, it finally seemed as though someone of stature were taking voters seriously, giving them something more than sound bites. Rudy Giuliani, on spin patrol for Bush, accused Kerry of "lecturing" voters. No, he was treating voters like the adults they are, capable of thinking seriously about the foreign-policy issues the next president must deal with. Kerry made a compelling case that Bush has done a poor job and he's capable of doing better.
We have a worry as this campaign progresses, however. The November issue of the Atlantic magazine has a long article, "Karl Rove in a corner," that details despicable methods used by Bush's political adviser in past races that have been close: whispering campaigns questioning an opponent's sexual orientation or suggesting involvement in affairs or pedophilia; the distribution of anonymous, over-the-top lies about his own candidate, then accusing the opponent of being behind them, etc. This race is close, and the stakes couldn't be higher. The election should be decided on the sort of substance displayed in Thursday night's debate, not by the smear artists.
October of 2004 Newsletter from America's Best Christian
Dear Members of the Republican (GOP) Guard:
I am just back from Miami and I am pleased to say that our handsome President thought that the debates went wonderfully and according to plan. Just like Iraq. In your giddiness from the relief of your disloyal vision, once again, being corrected by the balm of our President's thoughtful speechwriters, don't forget to take time out of your day to stop someone on the street and implore him or her to "Remember Poland!" No, it doesn't have quite the ring to it that "Remember the Maine" did in a previous wholly discretionary war abetted by powerful journalists (well, owners of former-journalists -- then, Mr. Hearst – now, Mr. Murdoch). But it is important to note that should those "nucular" troublemakers in Pyongyang get feisty tomorrow, Poland's cavalry could be within a day's ride of the Korean Peninsula by Christmas. Which is heartening, as we have no troops left of our own to send, as they are all otherwise engaged protecting the oilfields of Saddam bin Laden . . . or was it Osama Hussein?
In all candor, I must admit that there are days when I go whole hours without thinking of dear, sweet Poland. Nevertheless, perhaps it is our handsome President who should have joined me in this geographic slight last night. After all, President of the Republic of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski was discourteous enough to note: "[The Bush administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." Honestly, those Poles remind me of surly Jenna Bush sometimes. Invited to the party – and then gets all tetchy because there's a cash bar.
And speaking of poles, I don't think Jenna's pole-dancing for John McCain and the press once her mother had nodded off after her "bonus" Halcyon kicked in helped with our President's concentration during the debate. Which may have provoked his comment about "keeping my girls on a leash." Call me clairvoyant, but I took that as a harbinger of an early parole for Private Lynndie England!
I will say this: President Bush may have come across in his reaction shots as a tad surly and scared, but he is quite the sassy little coquette in his new beige blond hairdo! How fabulous that Mr. Bush chose not to stay the course with yesterday afternoon's white 'do that, all for the wont of intentionally cheap pearls, risked making him look like his mother after an elusive diet. Just an hour before the debate began, Georgie asked me, "2B or not 2B?" I quickly steered him towards the sink and lobbied persuasively that he opt for a flip with Clairol 7B (Tawny Summer), rather than an inevitable flop with Clairol 2B (Anemic Crone).
After retrieving my Aveda Sun Source tanning crème from Mr. Bush (and admonishing him that one five ounce tube is generally not thought to be "one application" by those who've never dated Ben Affleck), I tried to quell his concerns about his new saucy blond locks by saying: "Even as a Christian, I know that it's better to be whorey than hoary, dear!" (Which left him looking rather perplexed – an expression he was unable to shake for several hours.)
"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, September 11, 2004.
"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein"
-- George W. Bush, September 30, 2004.
Angry lib commentators danced in American solider blood when Mr. Bush appeared to make a slip by referring to Saddam Hussein as the man living in a cave in Tora Bora. This was no slip. Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld were simply adhering to the recent decision by the administration to make public what was previously a secret policy: confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. It keeps terrorists (and the composers of terrifyingly awful songs about being followed by moon shadows) on their toes if they think America is so diligent in the War on Terra that we are still hunting people we've already caught. Although if I were Barack Obama, I would think twice before checking into a hotel in Bora Bora. Soon, the money we devote to protecting ourselves (approximately 15 cents out of every dollar we spend protecting the Iraqis) will result in a super-complete terrorist homonym database. Just as soon as Tom Ridge finds someone to fill the FBI's Microsoft DOS 2.0 programming position. (Speaking of intelligence needs, where are the Spanish translators to decipher all those "Mexed messages" the President is so rightly concerned about?)
Between us, I do worry about the next debate between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Edwards. I fear that Cheney will look like a Rottweiler trying to attack a beautiful Springer Spaniel puppy – and America will recoil. When I told Laura this while sneering at Jenna's unladylike slacks, Laura replied: "Dick's only heart problem appears to be that he doesn't actually have one." I'll give her this: Pickles can usually be relied on for a zinger if you catch up to her before the White House pharmacist.
On a positive note, I'm glad that the President was able to clearly pronounce the non-flip-floppity Bush Doctrine of Foreign Policy: We can invade Iraq without consulting anyone, but can't even talk to North Korea without China holding our hand.
ABSTINENCE-ONLY DOESN'T INCREASE ABSTINENCE: AFY's evaluation of eleven state abstinence-only programs, ten of which were funded federally, found there were " few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact ( http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm ) ." Overall, programs were moderately successful at improving participants' short-term attitudes towards abstinence but highly unlikely to positively affect participants' sexual behaviors. Five programs measured long-term impact on sexual behavior: " No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens' sexual behavior at follow-up ( http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm ) , three to 17 months after the program ended."
ABSTINENCE-ONLY DISCOURAGES SAFE SEX: In at least two states, AFY Evaluators noted that abstinence-only programs' emphasis on the failure rates of contraception, including condoms, " left youth ambivalent, at best, about using them ( http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm ) ." The results are consistent with a Columbia University study by sociology chair Peter Bearman. Bearman's study ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/health/main604877.shtml ) , which tracked the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents between 12 and 18 years old over a five-year period, "found unsafe sex much greater among youth who'd signed pledges to abstain from sex" until marriage. The "virginity pledge" is a key component of many abstinence-only education programs.
ABSTINENCE-ONLY TEACHES BAD SCIENCE, MISINFORMS TEENS: In place of effective, disease-preventing safe-sex education, the administration wants to fund programs that denounce condom use ( http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php ) , and mislead teens about the risks and effects of sexual intercourse. Much of the money proposed for the abstinence programs, Salon reports, "would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to...school programs that teach kids that premarital sex leads to psychological maladies and that sex with condoms is a kind of viral Russian roulette." In Texas, where Bush pushed for an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum as governor, one textbook under review "advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/08/05/texas.textbooks.reut/ ) so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence."
ABSTINENCE-ONLY HAS HAD NO IMPACT ON NATIONAL BEHAVIOR: There is no national data to suggest abstinence-only has had any positive effect on sexual attitudes or behaviors. From 1991 to 1997, sexual experience (the proportion of 9th through 12th graders reporting that they have ever had sexual intercourse) decreased significantly by 11 percent. But from 1999 to 2003, the period coinciding with the triumph of the abstinence-only agenda, changes in sexual experience leveled off ( http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fstrends.htm ) .
BUSH PUTS ABSTINENCE-ONLY AHEAD OF DOMESTIC NEEDS: Despite its ineffectiveness, when it comes to abstinence education, "money seems to be no object ( http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index2.html ) . The administration's 2005 budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex," double the amount spent last year. Even as it guts proven HIV-prevention programs ( http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php ) , the administration continues funneling money into abstinence-only programs proven to be, at best, grossly ineffective. Read this new American Progress column ( http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=200102 ) to see how HIV-prevention funding cuts have affected Washington, D.C.
STICKING TO THE WRONG COURSE: Bush tried to assail Kerry's leadership last night, saying nine different times that Kerry's "mixed messages" and "mixed signals" mean he's not steadfast enough to lead. Bush, however, has confused bullheadedness with leadership. In Iraq, for example, he is clinging to the precept that staying the course is more important than being on the right course. Slate's William Saletin writes that Bush's stubbornness means a disconnect from the reality on the ground in Iraq: " Ignore the evidence ( http://www.slate.com/id/2107517 ) that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated. Ignore the evidence that Saddam had no operational relationship with al-Qaida. Ignore the rising casualties. Ignore the hollowness and disintegration of the American-led 'coalition.'" Kerry last night said, "It's one thing to be certain. But you can be certain and wrong."
MISSTATING AL QAEDA CAPTURES: Last night, Bush repeated his oft-stated claim that three-quarters of known al Qaeda leadership has been captured. What this ignores: "al-Qaida is still considered a mortal danger in part because it refills its ranks and leadership."
MISSTATING THE RATIONALE FOR WAR IN IRAQ: Bush tried to rebut Kerry about the prewar need for more patience on Iraq, saying diplomacy wouldn't have persuaded Saddam to disarm. Writes the Boston Globe, "It was almost as though the president has forgotten that no stockpiles of forbidden weapons ( http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/01/a_presidential_kerry ) have been found in Iraq."
MISSTATING VOTER REGISTRATION SUCCESS IN AFGHANISTAN: Bush stated, "10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan." The problem: most sources agree there aren't even 10 million eligible voters in the country. Human Rights Watch this week released a report showing that figure included " multiple registrations of many voters ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html ) . In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions."
MISSTATING NORTH KOREA DIPLOMACY: Bush inexplicably claimed Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, claiming it would also "drive away China, a key player in the negotiations." He was unable to explain this charge, however: " He never said why ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01policy.html?pagewanted=all&position= ) , and there are many examples in which the United States has negotiated with a nation in several different forums at the same time." In reality, " each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html ) with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea."
MISSTATING BRINGING KHAN TO JUSTICE: Bush last night stated, "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice," referring to the leader of a Pakistani nuclear smuggling ring. Not true. Khan was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. In fact, reports the Washington Post, " not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html ) ." Yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained Pakistan is blocking all access to Khan ( http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041001-054443-3141r.htm ) .
MISSTATING NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS: Last night, Bush said he'd increased spending by "about 35 percent" on nonproliferation efforts since he took office. The Washington Post points out that in his first budget, "he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress."
WATCHING TELEVISION IS HARD WORK: The New York Times reports Bush was "unnerved" by Kerry's reference to his personal military service. "Mr. Kerry repeatedly referred to his first-hand experience sending men into battle in Vietnam," leading the president to repeat that "he understood that fighting was hard work and added, ' I see on the TV screens how hard it is ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01teevee.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnl... ) .'"
ETHICS DeLay Violates House Rules
Quick...look over there! Last night, as all eyes turned to Miami for the first presidential debate, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives released the findings of a six-month investigation into whether Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke House rules by trying to buy a fellow congressman's vote. The 62-page report found he in fact did offer to endorse the congressional bid ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63387-2004Sep30.html ) of Rep. Nick Smith's son in exchange for the lawmaker's vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill. That's a direct violation of House rules, as "it is improper for a member to offer or link support for the personal interests of another member as part of quid pro quo to achieve a legislative goal." Here's hoping his slapped wrist recovers -- beyond last night's rebuke, DeLay's penalty for violating House ethics and trying to unduly influence a colleague is... nothing at all ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-DeLay-Ethics.html ) . (If you think it's time to bring the hammer down on DeLay, take a stand and tell the members of the House Ethics Committee ( http://www.americanprogressaction.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100385&acti... ) .)
Under the Radar
IRAQ -- BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUPPRESSES FACTS, SPREADS 'GOOD NEWS': The debate proved President Bush has no plan for dealing with the real war in Iraq, but as usual his administration has got lots of plans for fighting the propaganda battle here at home. The Washington Post reports the Bush administration is "sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls 'good news' about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ) showing increasing violence in that country." The administration says it will specifically restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International, showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. After the Post ran a front page story ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50259-2004Sep25.html ) on the data earlier this week, a USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: "This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts."
ENVIRO -- EPA RULE CHANGE DISTORTS DATA, FAVORS POLLUTERS: "In a rebuke of the Bush administration ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01epa.html?oref=login ) ," the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general said in two critical reports that the agency has " exaggerated the nation's air quality and undermined court cases against big electric utilities ( http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109658270620533028,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs ) by devising a rule change that lets them prolong the life of pollution-prone plants." The revised rule, made final last year, "has not been put in effect yet because of legal challenges. But the report concludes that just by issuing the rule ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01epa.html?oref=login ) , which scuttled the enforcement approach of the Clinton administration, the agency has 'seriously hampered' its ability to settle cases and pursue new ones." In a report on smog, "Inspector General Nikki Tinsley disputed recent comments by EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt that the nation's air quality has steadily improved." The rules change has stalled legal actions against major polluters. Read more on the Bush administration's rollback record ( http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=82002 ) .
HOMELAND SECURITY -- IF THEY CAN'T GET THIS ONE RIGHT...: A new government report finds efforts to protect U.S. borders by consolidating terrorist watch lists are woefully behind. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, in the sometimes scathing report, cites poor cooperation among many agencies ( http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109658864511433243,00.html?mod=home%5Fwhats%5Fnews%5Fus ) and says his own agency failed 'to play a lead role' in oversight." Instead of coordinating one muscular, updated list, "dozens of agencies, from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue to use different lists that sometimes contain outdated or incorrect information and even contradict each other. That can hamper the sharing of vital data and identifying of suspects -- and make it easier for terrorists to slip through cracks in the system, officials say." Daniel B. Prieto, research director for the Homeland Security Partnership Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, charges this "has been the one project that is the most straightforward; the most defined, the most politically accepted idea, supported by every investigative commission since 9/11. If they can't get this one right, then shame on them."
HEALTH -- STUDY URGES CAMPAIGN TO CONFRONT OBESITY: In a comprehensive assessment of what the country should do to counter the explosion of obesity among American youngsters, the National Academy of Sciences called yesterday for "an unprecedented national campaign" to fight childhood obesity. The panel issued more than a dozen recommendations, including giving consumers " more and better nutritional information on packaged foods and in restaurants ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62046-2004Sep30.html ) ," and convening a national conference to draft new guidelines aimed at curbing advertising and marketing of junk food to children. Earlier this year, the Bush administration signaled its opposition to such measures, " watering down ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3401715.stm ) " new dietary guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization and adopted by most European nations. Administration officials claimed there was "no proof" fast food leads to obesity and that " further discussion was needed ( http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040120-063016-3512r.htm ) before a final plan was approved." A Food and Drug Administration spokesperson reiterated the administration's failed policy of asking the food industry to take voluntary action.
MEDICARE -- PFIZER EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATED AFTER ENDORSING IMPORTATION: Apparently, telling the truth about drug importation is a risky move. A drug company executive who endorsed a local plan to import drugs from Canada "said yesterday that his company has launched an investigation into his political activities ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63209-2004Sep30.html ) . Peter Rost, vice president of marketing for Pfizer Inc., said the company has hired a New York law firm to find out what elected officials and media organizations he has spoken with in the past month." Rost was one of the first drug industry executives to come out in support of reimporting drugs from Canada, a practice the Bush administration opposes ( http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=424 ) , despite not being able to " name a single American ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001802160_canadadrugs27.html ) who has been injured or killed by drugs bought from licensed Canadian pharmacies." Pfizer's political action committee has contributed $525,700 ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00016683&Cycle=2004 ) to Congressional Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.
MILITARY -- ARMY LOWERS RECRUITMENT STANDARDS: Facing a steady decline in recruitment and reenlistment rates, the Army has announced plans to relax requirements facing new recruits ( http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9808265.htm?1c ) for the first time in six years. The new criteria will allow for increases in the number of recruits without a high-school diploma and in those who received the lowest acceptable scores on a service aptitude test. The shift in standards comes "amid allegations by Iraq war veterans near the end of their enlistments at Fort Carson, Colo., and other Army bases, that they had been forced to choose between re-enlisting or being sent back to Iraq with another unit," and is one in a series of signs that the U.S. military is becoming critically overstretched ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops30sep30,1,2908054.story?coll=la-home-nati... ) . Last week, the Army National Guard said it would fall 5,000 soldiers short of recruitment aims, failing to meet its goal ( http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040923-114738-3289r.htm ) for the first time since 1994. Additionally, "more than 35 percent of nearly 3,900 former soldiers mobilized for yearlong assignments in a little-used wartime program have resisted their call-up, seeking delays or exemptions."
"Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere."
Bush campaign official Dan Senor " coached and aided ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html ) " Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi before his speech in front of the U.S. Congress. According to reports, "Senor sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week." Senor has declined to comment.
WASHINGTON With major polls showing that Americans see Senator John Kerry as the clear victor over President George W. Bush in their first debate, the president's aides worked Sunday to repair the damage, fiercely attacking the Democratic challenger for saying that any pre-emptive U.S. action against another country should meet a "global test."
Democrats angrily rejected the Republican criticism, saying that Kerry's words were being misrepresented.
The new polls, by Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, gave Kerry a lopsided edge in the debate - as large as 61 percent to 19 percent, according to Newsweek - and they showed the two men in a statistical tie in terms of voters' intentions.
But the same polls, Republican advisers repeatedly noted, indicated that voters felt greater confidence in Bush on fundamental issues like Iraq and terrorism. Although Kerry appeared to score points against Bush on Iraq, a post-debate Gallup poll said that Americans believed, by 54 percent to 43 percent, that the president would better handle Iraq.
It was substance that mattered, the Republicans said, not the debating skills that they conceded to Kerry. "This is an election," said Ed Gillespie, the Republican national chairman, "this isn't a moot court or a college debate club." Bush counselors including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, assailed the Democratic senator repeatedly over what they called the "Kerry doctrine" - the senator's assertion that pre-emptive U.S. action against another country should meet a "global test" that persuades others of its legitimacy.
"What does that mean?" Rice asked on CNN. "Does that mean the consensus of the international community, of Cuba and countries like that?"
"Can you imagine trying to pass a global test in a Security Council that Syria had sat in?"
The Bush campaign, apparently believing that the issue was the closest thing to a potentially damaging gaffe by Kerry, quickly produced a campaign ad suggesting that a "global test" doctrine under a President Kerry would make any U.S. response to terrorism subject to other countries' whims. Democrats angrily rejected that charge - Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic national chairman, called it an "out-and-out lie" - and said Kerry's words were being misrepresented. "He said that if I have to go act preemptively, I will go do it as president of the United States," McAuliffe said on CNN.
McAuliffe, who was harshly critical of Bush's debate performance, said that the president had "shredded the foreign policy of this nation."
Kerry was campaigning Sunday in one of the hardest-fought battleground states, Ohio, before heading to New Hampshire. The president had no events scheduled. The two vice presidential candidates, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, will hold their sole debate of the campaign on Tuesday. With four weeks of doubtless bruising rhetoric remaining before the Nov. 2 elections, Democratic spokesmen sought Sunday to reinforce Kerry's criticisms of Bush while beginning to shift focus toward domestic issues like the economy and health care, where polls show that the Democratic senator has stronger public support. The next Bush-Kerry debate, on Friday in St. Louis, Missouri, is expected to deal with such matters.
In a major opinion survey conducted since the Thursday debate, the Los Angeles Times found that Kerry had overtaken a 4-point lead held last week by Bush to take a slight edge, by 49 percent to 47 percent. That, however, was within the poll's margin of error of 4 percentage points. The survey questioned 1,368 registered voters.
The Newsweek poll, conducted Thursday through Saturday among 1,013 registered voters, had a similar result. It gave Kerry a 49 percent to 46 percent lead over Bush. That, too, was within the 4-point margin of error.
Bush aides had sought, before the debate, to portray Kerry as a man of unique debating skills, but lacking in core convictions; they continued this line Sunday.
"Senator Kerry has been preparing for this debate for his entire life," Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said on Fox-TV. He added, however: "President Bush still has a lead in the big issues on terrorism, on Iraq, leadership. And these are the issues which the president is going to get re-elected on." But McAuliffe said that Kerry had won the debate not only on style but on substance, and added, sharply, that the president's performance was "almost embarrassing." "He had a smirk on his face, he looked arrogant, he was hunched over the podium," McAuliffe said on CNN. The president, he added, "had trouble putting a sentence together." While both Bartlett and Rice challenged Kerry's reference to passing a "global test" before taking pre-emptive action, the senator's aides, and a new Democratic advertisement assembled over the weekend, emphasized the context of the remark. "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America," Kerry said in the debate.
Tad Devine, a senior Kerry strategist speaking on Fox-TV, said Kerry had made it clear "he will not hesitate to use pre-emptive force to defend the nation - made it crystal clear." But Bush's aides pressed the issue. "I don't know how you pass a global test give that, by the way, you couldn't even get consensus on the fact that after Saddam Hussein had defied the international community for all of those years," Rice said.
A CNN interviewer asked Rice about Bush's related comment Friday that "the use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." Was it appropriate, he asked, for the president to ridicule a longtime ally?
"There's no ridicule here," she replied. "It's a statement of fact. The French didn't agree." And Bartlett said, "We ought to have American security interests decided by the president of the United States, not by foreign capitals." But the CNN interviewer also asked Rice about a matter on which Bush appeared to have spoken carelessly. Referring to efforts to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, Bush said in the debate, "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." But Abdul Qader Khan, considered the father of the Pakistani nuclear program, and whose network secretly shared nuclear secrets with Libya, Iran and North Korea, has been pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and none of his associates yet brought to justice, the interviewer said.
Rice said that several people were in custody, and that Khan was "out of the business that he loved most" and "nationally humiliated."
"...truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." -- Thomas Jefferson
Moderator: The first question goes to Pres. Bush. What would you do to get American troops out of Iraq, and how soon do you think they can get out?
Bush: We all want to get the troops out as soon as we are able. But I know and believe we have a strong and vital role to play in Iraq, and we certainly cannot leave a vacuum for the insurgents to take over. We are engaged in a conflict from which America cannot afford to cut and run. We must be steadfast in this endeavor, upon which depends not only our future but that of the entire modern world. I will be guided by the military in the exact logistics of withdrawal, but politically, it is our aim to see that a democratic Iraqi government takes over in Iraq, serving as an example to the Arab and Muslim worlds, and leaving us free to come home. About the time frame, people have to understand that this is a long-term investment. We are talking about our future, after all, and a few years is very little in the big picture. It might be, it is, painful in the interim, but it is, I believe, essential for America and the world. My own sense is that it will take anywhere between 3 to 7 years overall. But that will be only be determined by the facts on the ground. But I know we will not stay one minute more than necessary.
Moderator: Senator Kerry?
Kerry: I disagree with almost everything Mr. Bush has said in his answer, except for his mention of the long-term. We do have to take the long-term view. And long term, the question to ask ourselves is whether America should attack others pre-emptively, whether she should embroil herself in wars far away from our soil, and try to bring democracy by force to the rest of the world. Even accepting Mr. Bush's explanations of our motives for a second, something which is contradicted by all the administration's words and actions, this is a question we must first answer. And I believe it is both unwise and even wrong to interfere in the affairs of other nations. This is a basic difference between us. Indeed, if we are honest, we will see that this is one of the reasons for 9-11...
Moderator: Mr. President, your rebuttal?
Bush: On 9-11, we discovered that we cannot escape from the world. To me personally, this was a life-changing experience, and I realized, as did all Americans, in a way that is impossible to describe, that we were not protected by the two oceans. It was necessary to eliminate threats before they showed up on our doorstep. I agree with my opponent that we should not be getting caught up in far away wars. But I believe Iraq was central to our war on terrorism. A brutal dictator who had gassed his own people and had the potential to build weapons of mass murder...
Moderator: Sorry Mr. President, your time has expired. The next question is for Sen. Kerry. Senator Kerry, many people are unclear about your exact position on the War (laughter). You voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Did you not expect the president to go to war? Subsequently, you have said you supported the War, then later that it was the wrong war. You said you supported the bill to fund the war before you opposed it. Can you clarify to the American people where exactly you stand?
Kerry: I'm glad you asked me that question. My position on the war has changed over time. I don't see stubbornness and clinging to positions once you see their error as a great virtue in a president. To answer your question, it is true that I voted for the Senate resolution, as did the majority of Democrats. We did so because we believed our President when he declared that Iraq had weapons, and that it was an imminent threat. Of course, we did not know the inner discussions in the White House which cast doubt upon the existence of these weapons in Iraq. One expects to be told the truth by the President of the United States in all matters, and especially in matters of war and peace. As time went and facts were revealed, I have had to reconsider my position. What remains unchanged is the principle, which is that we do not launch wars without overwelming reasons, and overwhelming alliances, and without overwhelming force, none of which the President did in launching this war. And that is why we are in the mess we're in now, with an administration which has deceived the people, disdained its allies, and deserted its men in combat (applause). As to the 87 billion dollars, my words were taken out of context. Every senator, Republican and Democrat alike, has voted in favor of bills that were not 100% to his or her liking, or opposed bills which contained things that they supported. This is a matter of compromise, which we cannot expect an extremist administration to know anything about (applause). This administration...
Moderator: Senator, your time has expired. Mr. President, your rebuttal...?
Bush: Senator Kerry has added one more position now (laughter). The principle I believe in is the principle of protecting our nation. I believe that the United States has the right to attack any country it views as a threat at a time and place of its choosing. As commander-in-chief I cannot risk another attack on our country like 9-11. If it means taking the battle to the enemy that is exactly what the United States will do. I'm sorry, but I have no regrets for taking out a regime which gassed its own people and had attacked two of its neighbors, and held hostile intentions towards the United States. In fact one of Senator Kerry's positions (and you should ask him if he still believes in it) was that the Iraq war was brilliant.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Kerry, your rebuttal...
Kerry: We can see why Mr. Bush is called a fine debator. Unfortunately, thunderous words and applause lines do not change the facts one bit. It was Donald Rumsfeld who shook Saddam Hussein's hand in Baghdad in 1983, long after he had gassed his own people. And it was the Bush Administration which gave 43 million dollars to the Taliban in 2000, I remind you, long after it was known as the protector and host of one Osama Bin Laden. And when I said the war was brilliant, it was a tribute to our troops and the generals, an accomplishment in the face of constant meddling by an incompetent administration which refuses even to provide our troops with proper body armor! (Applause)
Moderator: Thank you. The next question, for President Bush. Mr. President, nearly 1100 troops have died in Iraq alone. Americans have died and in Afghanistan. Thousands more have been injured, many with lifelong disabilities. Do you think you and your administration bear any responsibility for this, and do you ever wonder why we are in this situation?
Bush: No president ever puts American lives at risk without a terrible sense of responsibility. And no American ever hears or reads of a soldier's death without saying a silent prayer for the dead hero or thinking of the grief of the family and friends. Every young man or woman who dies represents a life with its own dreams and plans, extinguished so suddenly. But all said and done, it is our responsibility to see that (1) we never put our troops in situations where they are subject to unnecessary risk, and (2) we give them all our support at all times. This is why people are distressed when we see my opponent and his running mate run down the war in Iraq and second-guess how it's going, because we know it has a bad impact on the morale -- of the GI under fire in Falluja or the marine facing killers in Najaf. We know it is a tough choice. In war, people die. But when we refuse to confront the enemy, we will face the enemy in New York and Washington, as we did on 9-11. As for responsiblity, of course we stand by our decision to go to war on Iraq. President Kennedy said that friend and foe alike should know where America stands. Under my administration, they do. As for my opponent, I guess he'll keep our enemies guessing, because he himself won't know where he stands.(Laughter and Applause).
Moderator: Your turn, Senator...
Kerry: Fine words again from President Bush. We all die a little when we hear of young men and women killed or maimed. That is why war should be the last resort. Unfortunately, this president did everything to make sure we rushed to war, and nothing to see if we could prevent it. He made it his first choice. The duty of the president, especially of a great power like America, is to the exact opposite. War is terrible. I know. I've been there. It is not enough to lament the loss of life, when we know we have not done enough to avoid it. And it is simply tragic to continue on a course involving greater loss of life, American and Iraqi. This is why we will find a way to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible (Applause). Finally, the president should know the difference between criticizing the war, criticizing the administration, and letting down the troops. We are being Americans when we hold our government to account. We are being false to our troops when we send them to a needless war, betraying their trust when we shortchange them on protective equipment, and cheating them when we silently cut their benefits, as this administration did. You might also want to ask the president why his administration prevents the media from showing the caskets of dead soldiers arriving back at Dover Air Force Base.
Moderator: Mr. President, you have 60 seconds...
Bush: This administration knows how to safeguard our people. Protecting the American soldier is and will be the first priority of our government. As for our fallen men and women, we believe we should respect their privacy. Let me also say one other thing -- the senator knows very well that we went to the UN, and we tried weapons inspectors, only when Saddam would not comply did we take the ultimate step of going to war.
Moderator: Thank you. Senator Kerry, what exactly would you do differently from the President on Iraq? Would you go ahead with Iraqi elections as they are currently planned? We know you have laid out a four-point plan, but your opponents say your four points are already being done.
Kerry: The key difference is that I am not George Bush (Applause). This president has antagonized so many nations around the world, a task that a lesser man would have found impossible (laughter). Consider our situation on September 12, 2001, the morning after 9-11. Our neighbors Canada and Mexico, Latin America, Europe, China, India, the Middle East, everywhere in the world, people stood with America, outraged by the crime that was committed against the greatest, noblest, country in the world. Within six months, our president had squandered this unprecedented goodwill, and converted it into a near-universal fear and loathing.
The second important difference is that when President Bush sees America, he sees only a military superpower. I see a moral and idealistic beacon. Mr. Bush may talk about democracy all he wants, but it is not democracy to wilfully disdain and heap scorn on world opinion. We do not command moral leadership by starting pre-emptive wars. After all, isn't that why we went to war against Saddam Hussain when he invaded Kuwait?
If President Bush is elected, the world will see that instead of punishing him for earning America the hatred of the world, we were rewarding him. His continued leadership alone would make mending fences and building back our trust in the world practically impossible. The third difference is that this administration's word is not trusted any more. When, during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent an envoy to President DeGaulle with photographs of the missiles, DeGaulle waved the photographs away, saying, "I trust the word of the President of the United States". That was then. When Colin Powell sits at the Security Council brandishing evidence which turns out to be false, when the President speaks to the nation about non-existent yellowcake from Niger, which his own CIA knew to be untrue, when Donald Rumsfeld says that he knows exactly where the weapons are, and then it turns out there are none found, what credibility does our country have left? (Applause). Whatever my merits, I would think these facts alone disqualify Mr. Bush from election (Applause).... [after a wait] I would have said re-election if he had won fair and square the first time (Long Applause).
Moderator: Mr. President, your turn...
Bush: Thank you. I'd like to answer that. First of all, it will come as a surprise to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, the Cameroons and all those countries, big and small that have stood alongside us in Iraq, some losing lives, to hear Senator Kerry say that they don't count for anything. Second. Moral leadership means promoting universal values like freedom, liberty and democracy. I have said that Liberty is not the United States' gift to the world, it is God's gift to mankind. We need to change the nature of the society in the middle east from one which breeds terrorism to one that is free and peaceful. Third. We weren't the only ones to say Saddam had WMD's. The UN thought so. My predecessor in the White House thought so. So did the senate. And mind you, we're still not done looking. (Laughter).
Moderator: Senator Kerry...
Kerry: Liberty and human rights are American ideals already enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the UN, not President Bush's gift to the world. I know the president is fond of bashing the UN to get a round of applause whenever he can, but the fact is that nothing long-lasting can be achieved by cowboy-style shoot-from-the-hip attitudes and clever soundclips like 'Wanted, Dead or Alive' or 'Bring 'em on'. These may sound good in Westerns, but in the real world, building alliances and persuading other countries is the only way to achieve great things. So long as we live by the ideals of our nation, the UN and the nations of the world will follow us. If we behave as outlaws, we can say little when other nations do the same.
Moderator: Next question to President Bush. You took the country to war saying that that Iraq was central to the war on terror. After a year-and-a-half, there are more insurgents in Iraq now than there were before the War. How can you say your policy is succeeding?
Bush: When we got rid of the dictator, we fully expected that some people in his Baathist party and others who hate America would try to resist the approach of democracy. You see, they hate our way of life and know that if freedom and liberty come to the Middle East, their message of hate will have no place. The people of Iraq are happy to have been rid of the tyrant, and glad that their long nightmare has ended. But we knew it would not be easy.
Iraq has long borders with other countries, including Syria and Iran, and some terrorists have come into Iraq from these countries. So the road is long and arduous, but at the end, we will prevail over the terrorists. The future of the Middle East, and of humankind, is freedom.
The other day, the Prime Minister of Iraq was visiting me in the White House, and I asked him how he managed to go to work everyday with so much negative publicity about his country. He said he dreamed of the day when Iraq would be another US in terms of a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, a place for everyone would have a good life. That's what real Iraqis are talking about, and which never gets reported in our press. The Prime Minister told a news conference that there were only three or four districts that there were insurgents, and the rest of the country was free. Now that's the Prime Minister of Iraq talking. We're making progress, despite what everyone says, and every step takes us closer to the day when a free and democratic Iraq takes its place in the family of nations.
Moderator: Senator Kerry?
Kerry: The President's answer will certainly be a surprise to his own vice-president. Do we remember how Mr. Cheney kept telling us that we would be welcomed as liberators? He also kept telling us that Iraq had a link to 9-11. And that he had no doubt Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But members of this administration have always given accuracy a wide berth.
The simple fact of the matter is that we planned for the invasion, not for anything else. We had too few soldiers to secure the country, something that Gen. Shinseki warned about, and for his candor he was rewarded with early retirement by this administration. Just consider the consequences. We saw widespread looting just as soon as we occupied Baghdad, including the looting of mankind's most ancient artifacts at the Baghdad Museum. Now Mr. Bush may not care about our heritage, here or in Iraq, but it is an irreparable loss to all of humanity. Equally tragic, the Iraqi army was allowed to dissolve into the ground, allowing the disappearance of all its weaponry into unknown hands. Nuclear facilities were not guarded either. And there was certainly no way we could secure the borders with such a small strength of soldiers.
So this administration squandered the peace and blundered the post-war situation. Bluster and high talk will not change the facts. Ask Senators Hagel and McCain, both Republicans and war veterans. Both have said that Iraq is a mess. In Iraq today...
Moderator: Sorry Senator Kerry, Mr. Bush's rebuttal.
Bush: It is a slur on our armed forces to say that they did not do their duty guarding Iraq. Our armed forces are the best in the world, and as Commander in Chief I will keep it that way. It is difficult to guard a long border, especially when confronted by an enemy who hates us. They have tried to frighten us by kidnappings and beheadings, but they know that we are resolved, and they cannot break our resolve. We will win this war (applause). In my acceptance speech I spoke about post-War Germany and Japan, which took years to set right. I'm sure that in Iraq, the people will thank America in the decades to come.
Moderator: Senator Kerry, many people say our relations with the Islamic world will never be good unless we address the Israeli-Palestinian issue. When Gov. Howard Dean said we should be even in our dealings with both sides, you criticized him during the primaries. How would you address this issue, and how would your plan be different from the President's?
Kerry: To answer your second question first, almost any approach would be different from the President's, because he has none. (Applause).
This administration abandoned the promising negotiation tacks that were put in place by the Clinton administration, and departed from a settled foreign policy plank of the United States for at least four decades, namely its role as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our first task in the area is re-establish our credentials, once again an impossibility under the current administration. We need to talk to all the players in the area, not because we agree with them, but because they play a role. Our aim is what it has always been, the establishment of a safe and secure border between the two nations. To the Israelis, we must say that their only hope of long-term survival is not an indefinite arms buildup and dependence on the US, but the establishment of good relations with their neighbors. To the Palestinians, we must say that they need to think of a future where they are known for their great business talents and skills, not their suicide bombers.
I will also add that the Israeli methods of assassinating Hamas leaders is troubling to me. Assassination is a double-edged weapon, and not a permissible tool in the realm of international affairs. If they have charges, let them arrest the people concerned and try them. As a democracy, Israel should consider whether its methods enhance or reduce its moral standing.
Assassination, kidnappings and suicide attacks have become too much the standard operating procedure in the Islamic world. So much so that the name of Islam itself has been diminished in the eyes of many people. It is the responsibility of all of us, and particularly those in the Islamic world who care about their religion, to rescue it from its increased association with violence. My administration will work with all parties in the Middle East to make this a top priority.
Moderator: Mr. President, you have 90 seconds.
Bush: When Prime Ministor Sharon faces suicide bombers killing schoolchildren in buses and young people in cafes, it is not our place to tell him how to deal with the killers. These are fanatics and fundamentalists who hate Israel for what it is. We have said that as long as Yasser Arafat is in power, the Palestinian leadership has no credibility. We have called upon the Palestinians to choose a leader who will give them bread and jobs instead of guns. I hope, for their sake, Mr. Arafat understands that his part in the play is over, and exits the stage gracefully. It will be his best service to his people. (Applause)
Moderator: Senator Kerry, 1 minute.
Kerry: You know, as I was listening to Mr. Bush, it occurred to me that so much he said about Arafat is true of him. An unelected leader, offering his people guns instead of jobs, food and medical care, and with hardly any credibility left... (Loud Applause). [Waits for applause to die down] And I do hope he takes his own advice to Arafat -- leaving the stage gracefully, realizing his time is up. (Loud Applause).
But as for Mr. Arafat, whatever his past services to the people of Palestine, he has not, in my view, been effective for some years. That said, it is for the Palestinians to choose their leadership, and I would not presume to say whom they should or should not choose, just as I would not tell Israel...
Moderator: Sorry Senator, we need to move on. Our next question is for President Bush. Turning to our relations with our allies, how do you see the United States in relation to the European Union and Russia? It is no exaggeration to say that we have had a bumpy relationship in the last four years. What would you change?
Bush: With the EU, our relations are long-standing and strong. We have always said that friends can disagree but still remain friends. In fact, Germany has helped us a great deal in Afghanistan, and France has been very forthcoming in some new initiatives in bringing Iraq back to the fold. About Russia, we have continued to improve relations with President Putin. I visited the Russian Embassy to sign the condolence book in the wake of the horrific school hostage situation there in Beslan. The Russian people understand, as we do, and are waking up to its horrors as we did on 9-11. We will work with Russia, as we are now, and with the European Union, to build a strong alliance to fight terrorism across the globe.
Look, a stable Middle East is in everyone's interest, most of all the Europeans, who are their neighbors. So we will call upon Europe, as we have continued to do, to work with us in building a strong force for democracy in Iraq. We are all in this together. The fight against terrorism is not limited to America. Europe, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, the Phillipines, all have had their share of it, and all the leaders have been very cooperative in our efforts. But it is for America to lead, and we will.
Moderator: Senator, ninety seconds.
Kerry: Thank you. President Bush should look at his record. His administration refused to fund an effort to secure the Russian nuclear facilities in the post-Soviet era. This is the greatest danger to non-state nuclear proliferation. In Europe, we have come across as arrogant and self-important. Look, no one needs to demonstrate America's position in the world. Everyone knows it. And yet, members of this administration have set back our historical relations with the major nations of Europe by dismissing them as 'Old Europe' and spurning their advice and counsel.
President Bush is correct in saying that all nations must work together in the war on terror. He has a good speech. But has he followed it with actions? Just look at his record. The way he and his colleagues talk about the United Nations is not calculated to win friends or influence countries. The way he went about deriding the Kyoto accord and the SALT treaty soon after assuming office was hardly the way to establish a relationship with the powers of the world. It is not enough to say when we are in a crisis -- please work with us now. When I am president, building international relations with our friends and allies will be an ongoing process, not a blow-hot blow-cold approach.
I would also add that foreign policy does not begin and end with terrorism, as this administration appears to believe. (Applause).
Moderator: Mr. President, 60 second rebuttal.
Bush: My opponent seems to think being 'sensitive' to the UN is the cornerstone of foreign policy. I refuse to subordinate the interests of the United States to any body, UN, EU or anyone else. (Applause).
Moderator: Senator Kerry, you have supported going to war in Afghanistan. The Afghan elections are coming up soon. What will a Kerry administration do in Afghanistan, and how will it differ from the Bush administration?
Kerry: Very different, Jim. It is true that I supported going to Afghanistan, but let us remember the reason for that war. It was to capture Osama Bin Laden, and getting rid of the Taliban. We have, unfortunately, failed on both counts. Bin Laden is busy producing videos, and even if he is to be captured today, he has had three years to reorganize and morph his deadly structure into innumerable groups across the globe. I accuse this administration of wanton neglect of this main objective in their pursuit of Saddam Hussain, a man whose whereabouts we knew. As for the Taliban, their leader, Mullah Omar, is still in circulation, and the Taliban have been very active in Eastern Afghanistan. In the rest of the country, the story is not much brighter. Mr. Karzai travels little beyond the confines of Kabul. Even the other day there was a rocket attack on his entourage when he was on a rare tour outside the capital. Fortunately he survived, though others were killed. The administration's record on the one foreign policy they said they were focused on is a tale of unrelieved failure. And this failure is due to a blinkered arrogance to which there is no cure except to throw them out of office. (Loud applause).
You asked me how a Kerry administration would do things differently. First of all, we would have to undo the damage done by this administration by its ineptitude and miscalculations. We would have to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, but it has to be a long-drawn-out process of engagement at the civil, cultural, military and political levels. Right now, warlords control most of the country, and the poppy production, which was the one thing the Taliban appeared to check, is back way up. This must be tackled on a war footing, which we will do.
Moderator: Mr. President, you have 90 seconds.
Bush: Senator Kerry seems to have forgotten what has happended in Afghanistan. Remember the Taliban regime, which kept women at home, banned movie theaters and soccer games, and conducted public executions? Well, it is gone. It was replaced by a president chosen by a committee of people drawn from all political factions in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now a free country, and 10 million people have registered to vote. You see, people want to participate in democracy all over the world. It is wrong to think that just because some country is Muslim, they cannot be democratic. Afghanistan has now got 200 new school buildings and 25 hospitals. This is what most people would call progress. Who knows, tomorrow, Mr. Kerry might change his mind (Laughter).
This was a country devastated by war for a decade and a half. We are building it up, but things take time. We have the help of the entire international community and this country is making steady progress. Under President Karzai's leadership, a new phase in Afghan history is taking shape. The Afghan people are a proud people, and they are grateful to the United States for freeing them from the scourge of the Taliban.
Moderator: Senator, your one-minute rebuttal.
Kerry: I tell you what I have not forgotten. I have not forgotten that the Bush administration gave the Taliban 43 million dollars. I have not forgotten that when Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, the Taliban leaders were welcomed to his state and given a royal treatment. And let me tell you what else I've not forgotten. The words, 'Tora-Bora'. It was there that Osama Bin Laden was trapped, and could have been killed or captured. He was allowed to escape, with his lieutenants like Ayman Zawahiri, because Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld chose to rely on Afghan warlords rather than on the US armed forces. This is worse than incompetence. And after this stunning 'success', Mr. Bush and his friends wanted to divert forces from Afghanistan to Iraq. Senator Graham has written about it in his recent book. It is a shoddy...
Moderator: Sorry to stop you, Senator. There is only time for the closing statements. Mr. Bush, you first. You have two minutes.
Bush: I want to thank you, Jim, for conducting this debate, and I want to thank all those who organized it. I also want to thank my opponent for a spirited exchange.
This election is unlike any other we have had in our history. On September 11, 2001, our nation was changed, perhaps forever. As president, I too was changed, and the entire meaning of the presidency was altered permanently. No longer could we afford to be complacent about the world we lived in. Nor could we expect that our innate sense of decency, goodwill and kindness to others would always be reciprocated. And, what is most important, our military power and oceanic fortress was not enough to protect us from determined enemies the likes of which we have never faced before.
In these circumstances, the most important need is to have a steady hand at the wheel, one which does not deviate from its purpose depending on which way the wind blows. The task of keeping America safe and secure in an uncertain world falls heavily on the president. This is not the time to have someone learning on the job.
It is the men and women in our administration and all across our great land, who have worked day and night, most of them whose names you and I will never know, who protect this country of ours and keep its people safe. They need to know that they are led by a person of steady vision, strong resolve, and solid beliefs.
My fellow Americans, I believe I am that man. May God Bless America. Thank you. (Thunderous applause)
Moderator: Senator Kerry, your closing remarks...
Kerry: I want to thank the organizers, and you, Jim for a fine job. I want to thank President Bush for his participation.
When the nations of the world look upon the United States, they see a country which has achieved what they would all like to become one day. Whether it is in the field of science, art, music, agriculture, politics, economics or war, the United States is the leader.
America has everything most countries envy. A Constitution which is the treasure of mankind, a strong military, natural resources of every kind. Above all, as Tocqueville said, a good people, which is what makes us great.
This is our inheritance. I ask myself, will we pass this along to our children, or will our generation be the one to lose what is most precious about our country?
We need a leader with perspective. Yes, 9-11 was a vicious attack on our country. But does it mean everything this country stands for, is respected for the world over, has fought for throughout its glorious history, all become meaningless? Only someone who does not recognize the glory of America might think so.
Yes, we will fight terrorism as we fought the Fascists and the Nazis, the Communists and their surrogates. We will fight anyone who wishes to impose a totalitarian system upon a free society, and we will always prevail. But we will not do so with a fear-stricken administration which seeks to deprive us of freedoms in the name of 'defending' us from the terrorists, who also seek to deprive us of our freedoms.
We need a leader who has a sense of balance, an understanding of the ebb and flow of history and a sense of our country's unique place in it. This is a foreign policy debate, and you cannot conduct foreign policy without a sense of what we are fighting for. And any President who can reduce the conduct of this country's affairs to a morning's attack by a bunch of demented fascists does not, in my view, understand what this great nation is all about.
As to changing hands midstream, someone should tell Mr. Bush, because Mr. Ashcroft probably didn't (laughter), that is exactly what the Constitution intends. And as to moving with the winds, he who does not trim his sails to the wind is destined to crash his vessel.
Ladies and Gentlemen, great challenges confront our great nation. We seek to meet them by rising to the task, not by defining our country down. Thank you, and good night. (Thunderous Applause)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
