Tonights Debate
By
An analysis shows President Bush’s simpler speaking style is more effective than John Kerry’s longer sentences so says an article in the St. Petersburg Times. To be honest, Kerry is too wordy. His average sentences are 19.9 words whereas the Presidents are 14.2. Because of this, Kerry’s communication style it is hard for people to tell exactly where he stands. On the other hand, for the President, he leaves little doubt where he stands.
On a personal note I like it. I have written a lot of ‘Code’ in my profession as a System’s Engineer. Why use 2 words when 1 will do? Why complicate things with long phrases?
This is one of the reasons that President Bush is seen as more decisive and in my prediction, should hold up very well agianst Kerry tonight.
—————
The above was before debate. Look at the comments to see post commentary.
No related posts.
Well, The debate is over. I think that that the President held his own. He did seem a bit flustered in places. There were three areas I feel he did very good.
1. Pointing out the mixed messages that Kerry has been projecting and there effect on our allies and other countrys around the world.
2. Again saying that we will be steadfast in our war agianst terror. Terrorists will always know that the President’s resolve will hunt them down.
3. The president’s confidence! He started out by saying he does not believe he will lose.
Kerry will get some bounce. It was predetermined. See this previous post. But it shouldn’t be to much. Anyways, I would like to hear all your opinions.
Have to add more. There was a question about pre-emption. Kerry said “President always has the right. “But if and when you do it Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the global test…” GLOBAL TEST. This is were is seemed at first President Bush was faultering. But what it was is that he did not believe his ears. GLOBAL TEST! He finally responded by saying “What’s he mean, passes a global test? You take preemptive action in order to protect the AMERICAN PEOPLE!”
That will be defining moment of this debate.
The first presidential debate held tonight was forty-five minutes too long. It was over half way through when Bush was clearly winning. The debate dragged on and on with really nothing more of substance uttered. Bush clearly tired of Kerry; I think he thought he had made his case early. Unfortunately for the president, he had to stand there for another 45 minutes…. The perception game was won in the first half by Bush, was a tie in the second half (Kerry did come across more aggressive, but not necessarily more believable in the second half). The summation, I believe, went to Bush. If I had to call a winner, I would say Bush won in a squeaker – if perception is the measuring stick.
The president is precisely correct regarding North Korea, and he was correct regarding the World Court. Furthermore, Kerry’s words of “meeting a global test” were really revealing. John Kerry is an internationalist and he let it slip with that remark – you can run but you cannot hide, John.
Kerry still didn’t describe, specifically, how he would win the war any better than what Bush is already doing and has in the works. I think Bush made enough of a case for staying the course, with tactical changes as events dictate.
Bush nailed Kerry on a point that none of the talking heads post debate pointed out, but I will. One of Kerry’s keystone criticisms of Bush is that he has failed to develop international conversation – no terror summits. Yet, two major summits are planned, one in Saudi Arabia and one in Tokyo. Kerry lost that exchange and I believe it was a big deal.
The President scored, I believe, the biggest point by repeatedly saying that you cannot lead the world, lead our troops and win the global war on terror by sending mixed messages – he is absolutely correct and Kerry has sent many mixed messages. He has spent a year and a half looking for an angle and tonight we simply saw the most recent manifestation of John Kerry. If you look up convoluted in the dictionary, you see a picture of John Kerry. Add to that, nuanced position changes and at the end of the day he becomes harder and harder to take seriously as the commander in chief. He comes across fine as a seasoned liberal senator, but not a commander in chief.
You truly have to ‘Hope’ that many things will happen mystically for Kerry once in office for him to be successful. Bush, on the other hand, is very straightforward about it – no nuance, no extra code, just follow my (now experienced) lead and we’ll get the job done. He’s right about that, now its up to us to stay the course.. Pretty simple and right on.
I believe this debate, like many, was one of perception. Fox News was sounding a little defeatist towards Bush in their post debate panel, while MSNBC and CNN were far less willing to declare a winner.. sort of all over the map. This tells us something, that there are many in the Fox News camp who would have loved to see Bush strike a knock-out punch tonight and were disappointed that he did not bury Kerry. The other networks, who are decidedly more apt to side with Kerry, were a little disappointed that Kerry did not really live up to his pre-debate debating prowess. I think they think he did pretty good, but aren’t sure how well….very odd.
Kerry did well enough to keep himself in the game, but he clearly did not win. Bush could have hurt Kerry on several issues but let him get away by not reiterating the GOP Convention themes. Bush should have hammered Kerry when Kerry spoke about his father’s approach to Iraq – there is a big difference, and that is 9/11.
On balance, I believe Bush was more believable, more credible, and more presidential while Kerry was more nuanced and technical. The liberals up in the northeast and down in Madison are energized..a little, and the Bush re-election team goes into full attack mode tomorrow.
I will sleep on this and maybe post my own nuance tomorrow!
Correction – one of the summits will be in Cairo, not Saudi Arabia.. Sorry.