« Let The Debate Begin…. | Home | Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal »
Why Bush Won
By Matt Margolis | October 1, 2004
It is understandable for both sides to claim victory after such an important debate. I really believe that George W. Bush took this debate easily. Kerry may have outperformed himself, but he did not outperform our President.
Kerry did perform better than most people expected, and the polls will confuse this with him winning the debate. He talked tough, but he did not come across as genuine. Bush spoke from the heart and came off as more human. Kerry said what he needed to say to survive despite the fact that what he said conflicts with the ideology he has practiced his entire career.
Reading over the Live Blogging Round Table between Mark, Kevin, and I, I noticed many things. Without the influence of post-debate media spin, we constantly saw President Bush nailing Kerry exactly the way he needed to. Kerry sought to answer questions he was not asked, avoiding saying anything substantive about his plan for Iraq and trying to suggest that funding at home has suffered… that Bush quickly and effectively rebutted.
Did Kerry remain on message during the debate? No. He repeatedly degraded the coalition in Iraq, all the while suggesting that he somehow will have the magic touch to bring other countries (read France and Germany) into it. Bush hammered him on that.
Kerry mentioned a fantasy summit, which combined with his “global test” theory prove that he will only defend America with the advice and consent of other nations.
The American people do not want that.
Another clear difference: Bush could point to things he has already done. Kerry could not even mention his twenty years in the Senate. Bottom line is this: Bush can run on his record, which allows him to make a case for his plan for the future. John Kerry is running on empty promises, which do not hold water when you compare it to what history has showed us he is willing and capable of.
John Kerry showed us who is really is: a 9/10 Democrat lost in a post 9/11 world. He wants to protect America if it “passes the global test.” Bush on the other hand has the attitude that “you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.”
Bush won the debate with that line alone.
Bush showed us he was serious about defending our country. All John Kerry gave us was the “yes-no-maybe” bowl of mush that Zell Miller described at the Republican National Convention.
The score is Bush 1, Kerry 0.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt agrees it was a big Bush win…
Topics: Election 2004 |
Related Posts:
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:31 am
I flat out disagree with you, you can’t piss on my face and tell me its raining.
Few have claimed this was an obvious victory or that it will even help Kerry the most in the long run. But after watching that debate in its entirety, reading its transcript, and discussing it with many people of different opinions, regardless of “media spin”, there was a consenus that Kerry won there. He was the more composed person, his answers were better argued with facts and said them more clearly. Bush did get Kerry at points and missed other chances, and was not able to stay as composed or as strong in delivery of his arguments.
Kerry was not perfect, “global” was not the right word to use but it didn’t stop him from arguing his point. If Bush had jumped on it and argued it more convincing it would have been much worse for Kerry. Both candidates were repetitive, Bush overused certain words without giving them much meaning and Kerry did stick to that “you mislead America” theme.
If Kerry loses the next debate I’ll concede it. There have been too many apologists in this campaign, blogs being the worst among them on both sides.
October 2nd, 2004 at 11:52 am
ok matt… ever heard of dick riding?? wanna know wat it is… ok it’s when u have a favorite band and they make a new CD, ok follow so far? There’s a song on that CD that flat out sux, but you won’t admit you don’t like it because you love that band too much. You are a complete dick rider towards Bush, that debate was 100% kerry don’t lie to yourself Bush has no idea what he’s doin just like his father he’s past his prime its done ZING! signed
- t3h double ewe ess kay
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:46 pm
A real man knows when to concede. Be realistic Matt. Your love for Bush takes you to unstable mental states which makes you refuse to see reality. Bush lost that debate. Bush can try better at the next debate. What’s wrong with that?
October 2nd, 2004 at 1:24 pm
Bush was on the defense. He took it back to Iraq every time Kerry took it back to real problems like bin Laden, N. Korea, and even the social problems here at home. Iraq is all Bush has and that is slipping through his fingers. Kerry smoked him, and I can’t even stand Kerry.
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:39 pm
it could not have been more obvious that Bush won that debate. substance is more important than style. Kerry had no substance.
sorry guys, face it - Bush won big.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:26 pm
Matt, what debate were you watching?
Bush had 2 things to say. 1) being president is hard work. 2) Kerry has been inconsistent.
I actually don’t think that’s substance.
Kerry had more. He spoke more clearly, and make some excellent points.
Also, 61% of America thinks that Kerry won, which should tell you something.
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:23 pm
If you cannot speak correctly and argue a point well then you can’t even deliver substance. Kerry used facts in his answers rather than invoking vague and meaningless words and phrases that blur reality. And he pointed out the fallacy in Bush’s logic in several cases which the President was unable to do to Kerry.
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:52 pm
Once agin no public response by the you MATT?
HMMM me thinks you think I am correct, he goaded.
Matt I commend you on your efforts. It does appear you are doing this Blog for your own self interests to become the next “Limbaugh”. And like Limbaugh you choose to also express yourself and cover a topic based mostly on opinion and zero regard for fact or unbiased observations. But far be it for me to stop someone who wishes to be in “show business”.
I also was bothered by your reference(s)in some of your writings to those who do not look like you, or carry as much weight around the middle as you that you would call them “freaks”. It is very obvious that the name calling against your own culture for centuries taught you very little of how to respect others. That is sad. Perhaps though it is your learning curve. New York is referred to as downtown earth-almost every culture in the world is represented in one form or another.Something to be appreciated. BUt you are too blind by your own opinions you hold to so tightly. I was hoping to come to this Blog for understanding little of which you have provided. Instead you write cheeky immature unimaginatve comments but you are still young and hopefully it will be something you out grow.
One other comment I live just a couple of blocks from where WTC used to stand. And two people I used to work with, they were new immigrants to this country in fact were killed on the very top floor of windows of the world restaurant. You will never know the impact this had on the city that day. I wouldn’t expect you should. The air was thick with pollution for weeks so much so my throat was sore. Only now do we find out that most of the rescue dogs that were there that day, two of them I used to feed, have all mysteriously died. Your president with his enviromental person told us it was ok to breathe the air again.It wasn’t! You like to make light of September 11th by supporting a president and our old mayor who use it as a platform for their own self interests. They are standing on the graves of 9/11 to reach their goal.You make light od this as well with your support. YOu are a fool. The freakness as you put it that you have observed and the anger is from living in a city that has been at the most constant highest elevation of terror with little done or support from your Bush. You want to know why we came out in droves of anger try living here but quite frankly i wonder if you could handle it. You’re choices are your own this election. Although I do feel you if you feel this strongly about W’s causes for liberation as he now spins it (remember the “weapos of MASS Destruction” line should down our throat and at the U.N.and the world and how your Bush mocked that campaign in a speech to the press in March?)why don’t you volunteer in the service to fight? The U.S. troops could use your help. NO? Because what is truly “freaky” is someone who says they support something but will not back it up with their life, heart and mind.Or is your support just “show business”.
Comment by mike pedersen new york. — September 1, 2004 @ 2:57 am
October 3rd, 2004 at 12:36 am
I watched the debate between Bush and Kerry. Kerry out right refused to detail his “Iraq plan” when asked directly about it. kerry offered zero substance. zero facts. he may have spoken better than bush, but he said nothing. nothing. and i don’t expect liberal partisans to realize that, but that’s not going to change the fact that kerry was completely full of it thursday night… wake up!
October 3rd, 2004 at 12:58 am
Kerry did help himself in the debate, and did quote more facts than Bush did. Unfortunately, he shaded the truth on quite a few of them.
http://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/2004/10/al-gore-part-deux-john-kerry-and-21-of.html
Lying is an interesting debating tactic, and the Internet factcheckers cannot always be heard when the MSM doesn’t want them to be…
tweell
October 3rd, 2004 at 1:11 am
“Kerry out right refused to detail his “Iraq plan” when asked directly about it.”
Hey Matt if you had substance yourself you’d consider the fact that there was a TIME LIMIT for the candidates. I know Bush could tell his entire fucking “Iraq Plan” in under 90 seconds. But someone with actual knowledge of warfare would never be able to give a detailed plan for the Iraq occupation. What are you fucking crazy or something? You’re condemning Kerry as a loser in the debate because he couldn’t give Bush a detailed answer to what his plan for Iraq would be. You’re so anal Matt. 90 seconds… ‘detailed Iraq plan’…dummy
October 3rd, 2004 at 4:49 pm
todd. KErry was asked directly to explain his plan.. and he rambled for 2 minutes about something different.
nice try though.
October 3rd, 2004 at 5:42 pm
On “Blogs for Bush” you posted the full statment Kerry made about passing the “global” test. There are three definitions of global:
1) Having the shape of a globe
2) Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth
3) Comprehensive; total
Which of those three definitions do you think he meant? He doesn’t mention other countries afterward, he mentioned that you have to convince Americans you are correct. You should stop hammering on this “global” test thing, anyone who reads his comment can tell which definition he is using, and the liberals will just slam us back for trying to twist his words.
October 3rd, 2004 at 6:31 pm
I might also add that Kerry brought some 3×5 cards (the high school debate team favorite, we had thousands) with him in violation of the debate agreement. Poor Bush, actually sticking to an agreement once made - how simplesme!
October 3rd, 2004 at 7:44 pm
Too bad JFK2 had to bring a cheat sheet along. I guess the rules don’t count for arrogant rich Massachusetts liberals.
October 4th, 2004 at 1:27 am
I’ll try and recall what Michael Moore said tonight when I saw him speak live. “It would be like me going to some families house and wrecking it, and then asking the family, ‘So, what is your plan to clean up the house?’” The Republicans broke Iraq. Don’t expect Kerry to automatically have a clear plan to fix it.
Bush is running on his record in the last four years alone, and if you ask me, that should worry you.
October 4th, 2004 at 10:41 am
The Republicans broke Iraq? Hoo boy, it’s getting deep in here.
Kerry’s 20 years in the Senate provide quite a record (when he bothered to show up) as well. Why isn’t Kerry running on his record? Hmm?
October 7th, 2004 at 10:19 pm
Matt, couldn’t the reason that both you and Hugh Hewitt both agree that Bush won the debate be that both you and Hugh Hewitt are so stupid that you shouldn’t be allowed out on the street?
October 9th, 2004 at 9:29 am
Lowell, couldn’t the reason be that you can’t admit President Bush won the debate be that your head is stuck so far up your backside that you are blinded to reality?
October 30th, 2004 at 11:44 am
Hey Matt, blog on this:
Being a Vietnam veteran, with two years and nine months service in Southeast Asia, I am appalled that the American people overlook the fact that both Bush and Cheney are draft dodgers. Nelther of them were willing to do what they are asking American kids to do: die on a foreign soil. This is the ultimate act of immorality and certainly a sin in God’s eyes. They don’t mind seeing blood spilled, just not their own.
Why don’t Bush bloggers get it. Especially veterans! Many young men that I grew up with went to the war zone, willingly or not, while people like Bush and Cheney dodged it: We could have joined “the guard;” Bush did this (believe me, the National Guard, weekend warriors, of the sixties was a far cry from the brave men and women who have been sent to die in Iraq by Bush and Cheney in this century); we could could have married the most available girl in our town ( Cheney did this); we could have gone to college (Bush and Cheney did this–most of my friends couldn’t afford to); we could have gone to Canada (I love my country too much to desert it); we could have invented medical ailments to attain 4F status.
HELLO! Bush and Cheney dodged the draft! Except now you annoint them as brave and courageous and loyal and resolved (God, I have come to hate that word) and patriotic. If any American citizen (even a veteran like me) disagrees with those words (because they are just words), we are annointed with being unpatriotic, even unfaithful.
Sorry, I did my time and that gives me the duty to inform those of you with your head up your blog that we should not elect two draft dodgers to lead us into war.
Stephen Ghirardelli