Another Image Problem

FoxNews reported that Senator Kerry is relaxing with a pre-debate manicure. Now maybe, just maybe Fox is biased against the senator, but could they make that one up?

A manicure? How sweet. Does that come with a complementary waxing? Nevermind. Forget I asked.

I will be at work when the fun starts. Please post your observations regarding the debate here.

Comments

[teal marie]

Manicure is secret code for nose hair trim, pass it on.

[torchy]

Ahem, wonder who does his "MANICURE"(scratches tip of nose with index finger and winks)

[Fausta]

Dont' know about the waxing, but he's going to have to do a heck of a lot of exfliating to get rid of the orange glow

[David Blue]

Just from following lots of live-blogging, so buyer beware -

Kerry won. He is a superb debater. Anyone who can come into a debate like that with a dozen positions on the issue at hand - or more, I lost track - and not get obliterated is a master of his trade. The only down-side for him is, by keeping on Vietnam, he begged the swifties to keep hitting him.

Bush is a lame public speaker. He couldn't lay a glove on an opponent whose whole approach to national security is a glass jaw. The only good side is, by reciting some memorised speeches, such as his closing remarks, he was able to stay solid enough to stay a respectable alternative.

I've put aside my happy "sea to shining sea" fantasies of a Bush landslide. With such an inarticulate candidate, and against such a weight of big money and big media bias, any win is a good one. All I hope is that it's big enough to stop the Democrats either stealing the election or creating a second Legend of the Florida Recount to further poison American politics.

As long as Bush doesn't lose the other two debates too badly either, I think he will prevail by not losing.

And the swifties will keep being effective against Kerry, because he will keep making Vietnam, and thus their charges, relevant. Kerry's only hope there is that big media will keep repeating the line that their attacks have been debunked or are unsubstantiated - ignoring for example Beldar's challenge - until people believe it. But the mainstream media are being caught lying so often now, that's got to diminish their credibility with those aware of it.

I'll stick to my line: the Americans will not choose a four-year Vietnam flashback over a functioning presidency. No way.

[teal marie]

If you watched the earlier news of Bush visiting hurricane victims you would have seen that the back of his shirt was wet with sweat. During the debate he drank 2 glasses of water. I suspect my dear President was dehydrated and weary, having spent his day doing good instead of pampering his looks with a manicure and a facial.
Lurch looks good in rouge, I must say. I'm not persuaded he won the debate, though the questions were tilted in his favor.
Please don't call Mr. Bush lame in any respect, thank you very much.

[David Blue]

Having read the ">http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003"> transcript -

I don't think the first debate will hurt Bush badly, though it must help Kerry at least a little.

Bush did one smart thing. Early on, before anyone would have tuned out, there was a question to Bush that was nothing but a trap, to get him to say something offensive on the lines that if Kerry is elected America will be attacked again. Normally I don't like it when a politician ignores the question and recites his own talking points instead, but in this case it was justifiable. So Bush ignored the question and instead gave a laundry list of things he had accomplished. Not trusting that there would be a good opportunity given for him to recite his results early enough in the debate, he made his own opportunity, and he was right, he needed to do that. From there on, so much of it was - lets discuss the president's alleged misjudgments. (Which by the way was a legitimate tack to take.) But Bush had gotten his point in up front: here's the bread on your plate.

Another thing: when I read the transcript, I would pause before scrolling the screen and ask myself: how would I respond to that? And Kerry's replies were good debating, but they really made no sense to me, there was no deep linkage between them, no inner structure, or none that I could see. Whereas, when I would want to say something as Bush, often: bang! He would make my point at once, concisely and directly. He thinks like me, or rather I think like him. Bush automatically will get all the votes of the Americans who think anything like me.

On the other hand:

KERRY: "I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life."

I don't believe him.

There was only one point at which I flat didn't believe Bush:

BUSH: " We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace."

Not yet. What I see is Beslan and totally evil terrorists in Iraq blowing up children, and a fight that still has to be decided. And I know who I trust to press on with it. (Howard. And oh yeah, that American guy. :P )

This is why I have to be careful to discount my own strong agreement with and affection for Bush and my lack of confidence in Kerry in deciding who won the debate.

Finally, I think the very rigid and limiting structure of the debate has been justified by the high quality of the discussion that took place. There's been a lot of dirt and distractions in this campaign. This was a really good chewing-over of the real issues.

[David Blue]

Some even further thoughts.

Kerry obviously decided to win now and never mind later, and he was right to do so. This was a must-win situation for him. He won. You can't say he was lucky either, after the Agent Orange mishap. He was good.

But even though the goods were worth the price, the bills will still come due.

Is Kerry going to want to explain his views about a global test on the acceptability of pre-emptive war, and on the desirability of giving uranium to Iran, in the long run? These issues are unlikely to cost him as much as the debate won him, but people will still remember the "global test thing, if only because Hugh Hewitt intends to keep reminding them.

Also, risk is a price.

I notice that Kerry likes to win by putting himself on the position of the expert with special knowledge that other people can't question. It's like some guy who talks all the time about his well-connected uncle who you never met, and what his uncle told him. You can't say anything back, because it's private knowledge. Guys who love the sound of their own voices do that sort of thing a lot, because it silences other people and then they keep going and going.

So we get Kerry debating in the Senate with the aid of his seared - seared! - experiences in Christmas in Cambodia, which other people couldn't talk back on because they weren't there. We get Kerry the big expert at the signing of the cease-fire to George H.W. Bush's Gulf War. We get Kerry at Treblinka Square in Russia. Again, he's appealing to the authority he has from a special insight he gained from an experience we are not party to. We get Kerry the big foreign policy expert, who knows far more about all this coalition-building stuff than George W. Bush does.

Every time he does that, there's a non-zero chance he's going to get called on it. Maybe not this time. But he tries to inflate his special insider knowledge all the time.

[David Blue]

Apparently the subway thing was wrong too:

From Wizbang via Right">http://rightonred.net/index.php?p=408#more-408">Right on Red.

"Item: Kerry - (On domestic security) "That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there."

Problem: I was there. The NYC subway never closed during the convention."

-

There are other errors, like the way that Kerry was vague on Poland even when Bush reminded him of it. And Korea and nukes. Lots of stuff. Bush called him on some of it, but there was so much Kerry got away with.

This sort of confirms my point. When you have a guy who always wants to speak with the advantage of superior and preferably unquestionable/insider knowledge, and who plays fast and loose with the boundaries of truth in doing this, and who is lazy in gathering facts in the first place (like not showing up for intelligence briefings), these things are going to happen. It's not bad luck, it's the result of connected habits.

He just goes ahead confidently faking it. And it all sounds great till you check it against reality, when it collapses.

[torchy]

I think this debate was a blowout for Bush if you look at it as a forum for issues and not as a contest of vocabular volume. Kerry ably demonstrated his contention that you can be certain about your position and still be wrong. Kerrys responses were a litany of fallacies, similar to his campaign strategy, in an attempt to swamp his audience in many fine sounding positions intended to set the opposition on its heels responding to each and every fallacy, taking the initiative from them in a feeble attempt to capture the momentum. Reminds me of a child attempting to forestall, if not escape outright, parental punishment by lying any which way to attempt to draw attention away from his guilt to the point of possibly undermining the very concept of punishment itself. Like a cagey parent Bush was correct to not challenge each lie in their order (which can be accomplished post debate) but to reiterate the overarching and overriding fact of the childs guilt which Bush did effectively by hammering on the inconsistency of Kerrys statements of record. I enjoyed Bushs initial tactic, out of the gate, of shaking his opponents hand on their side of the platform, as he did with Gore in their debates, it speaks volumes to the appearance of readiness, confidence and fearlessness. Even though Kerry got the first question,"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 911-type terrorist attack", it was a question he couldn't really answer without first stating that 911 itself was preventible, defending it, as well as pointing out current vulnerabilities that terrorists could sieze upon. Kerry did neither. What he did suggest is that he "can make America safer than than Pres.Bush has made us". Safer than now Mr Kerry? Is that possible? He then suggested that America is safer when leading the world and leading strong alliances which evades the question altogether. He didn't demonstrate how our current world leadership has made us more vulnerable to an attack at home or which world alliance would make an attack of that scope and magnitutde less likely. He went on to say OIF destroyed the potential for certain world alliances that might, or might not, make Americans safer from a 911 style attack. He then had the audacity to state: "by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America". So our enemies have captured the the will of potential allies, Mr Kerry? Are those allies of any value then? How has Bush "almost not done" any outreach to Muslims? What kind of "outreach" would appeal to terrorist-appeasing Muslims? The best "outreach" would be putting boots on the ground and attacking terrorist enclaves. Showing Muslims that we won't appease terrorists and neither should they, if they have, because by not isolating and destroying terrorists you are appeasing them. Kerry then went off on a rant about summits and training Iraqi forces for elections, ending with this feint: "All of these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little bit later." Excuse me? The question was directly about homeland security! Whereas Bush directly engaged the question in his rebuttal with a list of achievements against terrorists and proliferators ending with this gem: "And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror". Bravo! I could go on about the other questions but I believe this first one set the tenor, and exposed the tactics and strategies, of both candidates campaigns. Bush being direct and concise, Kerry engaging in misdirection and verbosity.

[David Blue]

(reviewing the transcript) Oh yeah - Kerry has inside knowledge on Osame bin Laden:

KERRY: "The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is."

Osama bin Laden is alive and in Afghanistan, and only John F. Kerry knows it for sure. How, one may ask? But Bush as usual didn't take time out from his own points to call him on it.

And sanctions on Iran, that was another one. Bush called him on that.

But mostly it was like Foghorn Leghorn versus the dog. Kerry was so smooth, and Bush was so not-smooth. (teal marie - I carefully did not say "lame" then, for you. K? :) The better debater did as he pleased, leaving the fact-checkers to complain later.

[torchy]

In the interest of fairness I'll admit I did wince at Bushs intial response to the second 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?" Bush could've laid out a scenario that would lead to another "911-style" attack (though that quote is loaded with complexity and full of landmines for anyone attempting to use it to attack an oppenents position or defend their own and thus worthy of avoidance) instead of grandstanding with the suggestion that Kerry won't win (though it was a stunningly simple way of making the question moot). Bush could have stated that any attempt to remake the WoT as solely a law-enforcement exercise or shackle the military option to the whims of international organizations or summits would increase the potential for another attack on the US homeland, which he did allude to later in his response. Still, on reflection, the nature of the question was worth treading very lightly over. I'd rather he be accused of grandstanding than cruel cynicism.

[David Blue]

torchy: "Like a cagey parent Bush was correct to not challenge each lie in their order (which can be accomplished post debate) but to reiterate the overarching and overriding fact ..."

torchy, I hope you turn out to be right.

[David Blue]

On the good side, the exercise of going through the transcript slowly, trying to work out proper answers, and seeing that again and again Bush said what I would have wanted to say, but he said it better and more concisely - it made me more confident than ever that this guy will know what to do with his second term. He won't coast.

torchy - I thought that question was a political death trap. I wouldn't try to disarm the bomb, just walk way around it, and if that costs me some style points, so be it, but don't get involved in it, hoping to handle it just perfectly, and stumble.

Bush is not a dumb guy. He had a pretty fair idea what he can do and what he can't do.

[torchy]

One big problem I had with the broadcast was the decision by the MSM to scoff at the rules of the debate and include cut away shots, that is, when they either split the screen and showed both the speaker and the his opponents reactions or just cut completely to the opponents reaction. I didn't do a count but I suspect I saw more of Bush fuming at Kerrys remarks than I saw of Kerry sucking his upper lip and reviewing his notes. Nonetheless, I think it worked in Bushs favor. It showed a man actually listening and reacting to his opponents statements regardless that it might be viewed as angry or smug posing.

[Pat]

Kerry's Iran strategy is the same strategy that failed with North Korea.

Here's what Kerry said in the debate last night:

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."

Only someone credulous would believe that an energy-rich country needs nuclear reactors for peaceful persons. Only someone morally-impaired would think that a country led by Islamic fanatics is interested in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Only someone suicidal would give nuclear fuel to a country that has already threatened Israel with nuclear holocaust. But Senator Kerry thinks we should offer them fuel to see whether or not they'll use it peaceful purposes. I guess that makes him credulous, morally-impaired moron and suicidal.

The "Moolahs" (was that a Bush jibe or flub?) will build their nuclear arsenal in bunkers deep underground yet Kerry wants to deprive the US of the sole means of destroying those bunkers. He said:
"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

Kerry still doesn't understand that there is a difference between free democratic countries retaining nuclear weapons for defense and rogue regimes seeking to acquire nuclear weapons for offense. That proves he is a credulous, morally-impaired, and suicidal candidate.

[DJ Drummond]

Kerry is a former prosecutor, used to confrontations and attack by innuendo. Bush is a former businessman, used to cooperative discussions aimed at addressing issues. Both men spoke as they are, last night.

btw, Kerry broke the rules. He brought written notes in his jacket pocket, while Bush followed the rules about not bringing talking points. I don't know how that would be addressed, but that's why Kerry was able to stay on his points, and it speaks well for Bush, that just on memory, he got every name and nation correct.

Next, every point Kerry brought up, Bush addressed, while there were several points Bush brought up which Kerry did not answer, and at least three questions asking for "specific" proposals from Kerry, which Kerry sidestepped with generalities.

Considering that this debate was really about trying to reach the voters who are undecided or who can be swayed, I found the results better for Bush than the media will admit. Bear in mind, also, that the Old Media like Kerry's nomination speech at the DNC, but the real effect wasn't what they expected.

I counted four lasting impacts from the debate. First, Bush was a bit tired and mumbly, while Kerry was crisp. But Kerry made several gaffes, leaving openings I don't think will play well. He actually suggested the United States should have bilateral talks with North Korea, locking out China, which is the kind of blunder to prove Kerry doesn't really understand international issues. Kerry also discussed Beslan only in terms of whether he liked Putin having that much power - Kerry never once mentioned that he was sorry for all the children deliberately murdered there, or showed the kind of compassion and horror people would expect from a leader. And finally, Kerry failed completely to show what he would do in Iraq, that would be both different and better than what Bush has done. he essentially fell back to his March position, unaware that the handover of sovereignty, the establishment of the Interim government, the scheduled elections in Iraq al changed the conditions there.

Like his pick of Edwards, I see a small bounce for Kerry, but one which will fade quickly, and quite possibly work against him later. Remember, Kerry needed a big victory here, and frankly, I don't see that he got it. Bush failed to nail Kerry where he had several chances, but Kerry made no effective points, and Bush made no critical errors. It's like Kerry needed a triple, the press wants to call it a Home Run, but in reality, he just picked up a walk.

[susan]

Senator Kerry did not debate the President, he debated against America's right to defend herself. Kerry's entire career was built on pacifism and has proven time and again he cowers to the enemy. He has always believed that because America has the power to defend herself she must not defend herself. Afterall, Kerry spent the last 20 years voting against military funding and had once proclaimed American soldiers as "reminiscent of Ghengis Khan". Last night's debate reminded me that Kerry is still against America.

What bothers me about Kerry's style is that his image supercedes his lack of substance.

President Bush, on the other hand, is a proven leader who consistantly defends America's right to defend herself. Bush believes in America, so do I.

[torchy]

David Blue- You've made some useful observations but I wonder about your obsession with style points. We Americans, via Hollyweird, other media outlets, morning-after spotpolls, may give the world the impression that we value style over substance but I assure you its a slim minority of the electorate that actually votes that way. I'd liken Kerrys catwalk flair to a runway models, whose only claim to fame is giving "life" to a couple yards of fabric but whose average political savvy is woefully inadequate. Whereas Bush risks appearing 'lame', 'not so smooth' (might I suggest 'clumsy' or 'plain jane' as additions to your style vocabulary?) but whose political acumen is substantial.

[carol]

I can't add much to what everyone else has said, but those cutaways to Bush when K was speaking hurt. Bush had such a strange expression--he looked like a Tole cartoon, an early Charlie Brown, or even Ross Perot. It was the frown and the beady little eyes. (Was the lighting bad for him?)

Also, maybe I read too much into it but I think Bush was really struggling to not explicitly link the WOT with Islam. He mentioned Russia, then the Philippines (he could have added Sudan), then stumbled and stalled and seemed a little incoherent. The enemy that dare not speak its name is Islamic jihad. Bush is really walking a tightrope on this point, for the sake of diplomacy I suppose. I hope it works.

[StinKerr]

DJDrummon,

You're right on the bilateral talks with NKorea. That won't work. That's how we got into the present situation. China, as I have said here before, must be involved in any agreement with NKorea and Kerry seems to miss this point.

He criticezes Bush for being unilateral and then he criticizes him for being multilateral.

Kerry's claim of 'outsourcing' in Afghanistan is ill informed. This is how Special Forces operate. A relatively small SF group goes into an area then trains and leads a local force. It's what Special Forces was designed to do and they do it well.

[Key]

Kerry bullshits more smoothly, which is much more important than Bush knowing WTF he's talking about.

I worry about this country sometimes.

[JLawson]

Kerry missed a great career as a used car salesman. He's smoooooth. He's slick.

Problem is - I don't trust slick. I've been burned by slick folks enough times to be VERY cautious when one tries to sell me something.

Bush looked tired and worn, like he's actually working for a living and taking what he does too darn much to heart. I wouldn't say he's cuddly or anything, but I feel sympathy for him and want to support him, to take the weight off for a while. I know I can't - I know I wouldn't even begin to know how - but that was my feeling watching him. He's got an excrutiatingly heavy load to shoulder, and I don't think Kerry and the DNC backbiting is making it one bit easier.

J.

[David Blue]

torchy: "David Blue- You've made some useful observations but I wonder about your obsession with style points."

Thanks for your kind words.

I did focus on style. I can't evaluate substance fairly in this case. George W. Bush's thoughts were too much like mine. I can't be fair to John F. Kerry either. Some people don't mind cleverness unmoored to any underlying structure, but I'm way over at the other end of the spectrum.

The Americans are savvy to style, maybe more so than anyone except the Japanese. But they're also avid consumers of it, otherwise how do you explain the amazing career of William Jefferson Clinton and the utter failure of Robert Dole's run for president? So if you can't talk substance, style is at least a useful alternative topic.

I respect Michelle Malkin because she makes the same calls regardless of party. If profanity is wrong, it's also wrong when Dick Cheney does it. If a stunt like saying the other party wants to ban the Bible is wrong, it's wrong when Republicans do it. And so on. I try to live up to the same standard. I wish to acknowledge every good thing that can fairly be said for the side I want to lose. In this case, Senator Kerry won on style, and I acknowledged it.

I think the debate was a crisis point for Kerry. He has had a bad campaign, and was forfeiting the perception he might win, That's critical for him because hardly anyone chose him or supports him for any other reason than to beat Bush. If he doesn't look like he can, they might as well save their money and start the recriminations early. To stop that happening, Kerry had to make a public demonstration of his ability to beat Bush. He did, and thus the fragile morale of his political army was restored. Bravo for him.

Of course I hope I'll be saying bravo for Bush on the third of November.

[David Blue]

The Gallup poll (Kerry Wins Debate (10/1/2004)) is interesting.

[David Blue]

I like that Hugh Hewitt, who is almost the only pundit to think that the debate was a big win for Bush, is sticking to his guns. In his shoes, I would not retract my opinion till at least a week of polls showed it was wrong. The bills for John F. Kerry's misstatements will fall due, and then we will see.

[Jim R]

Election day is just 30 days away. Local Republicans need any time you could spare, as well as the enthusiasm you are showing here, to help President Bush.

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans from a list provided by my local contact.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices. It is the first time I had done anything like this and I am glad I did. I met like minded neighbors and new friends.

If you would prefer to write opinions for news outlets, etc, various help is needed. If you could contribute some time to help President Bush, just go to:

http://www.gop.com/GetActive

and enter your zipcode or state for your local contact information.

[David Blue]

Volunteer political work can be fun and educational. You might think that parties will push you to do more and more, or anyway a lot, once you put your hand up, but in my experience, both asking and being asked, they're very reasonable, if only because people who are comfortable with the level of activity they have asked for actually do what they say they'll do. That's key.

I think the previous message was a little bit spammy, bus mostly on-topic. Sometimes we forget that we are part of what we are discussing. Was the result of the debate good, for example did George's supporters get charged up and do useful stuff? To a small extent, the answers are not to be found in speculation but in personal action. Either you do something, however small, or you don't.

[Paula Davis]

The Democrats are having a collective orgasm because Kerry isn't dead in the water after the debate. This Newsweek poll is their afterglow cig.