Bush clearly lost. Polls, media types uniformly agree. Both on style - the twitching, slouching and faces, and on substance - all he could do was repeat bullet points, sometimes in not obvious response to the challenges Kerry made to his record. An interesting question is why he was so unprepared. Didn't he take the debate seriously? If not why not?
Bush campaign tactics since Thursday reflect how serious this loss was. They have had to go back to securing their base (hence the red meat, but obviously false charges about Kerry's French veto). They wouldn't be doing stuff like this if the didn't think their base was dispirited and disheartened. They're obviously doing repair work rather than reaching out to independents and swing voters who would be turned off by the stump speech nonsense they're resorting to.
It will be interesting to see how Bush adjusts his performance. Can he get control of his physical presentation? Can he prepare enough so that he actually can fill the 90 and 120 second slots allotted to him. Can he concentrate enough so that his talking points are actually related to the questions posed? Of course, the risk is that he over compensates and seems to stiff and uptight. But voters obviously didn't like his slouching Texan approach on Thursday.
It's unnerving to see how out of touch Bush is on Iraq. People see the war on TV every night. They know if the military is launching an offensive to retake Samara 16 months after Mr. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" while standing beneath a "Mission Accomplished" sign, that things have gone seriously wrong in Iraq. When he claims that any statement by Mr. Kerry to this effect undermines the morale of troops, our allies or Iraqi citizens, then the troops, our allies, Iraqi citizens, and any US parent with children of military age must wonder what happens at Mr. Bush's military briefings. When he claims that Mr. Kerry's criticism that Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place - an assertion which most Americans believe is true - undermines morale, parents with children of military age must shudder.
But perhaps the most disturbing statement Mr. Bush made during the debate was his claim that he couldn't provide for Homeland Security programs to secure chemical plants and inspect containers shipped through US ports because it would create a tax gap. A tax gap? A man who has given $78K in tax cuts to citizens making over $200K a year, is telling us that our safety will cost too much? Is he for real?
And indeed, Pudentilla believes this should be the commercial coming out of the Thursday debate. We know they can't use footage from the debate. May we suggest the following?:
George Bush inherited the largest budget surplus in American history. He turned it into the largest deficit. George Bush, even as he took America to war in Iraq, gave the wealthiest citizens in the US the largest tax cut in history. Citizens who made more than $200,000, got almost $80K in tax cuts. pictures of chemical plants and ports John Kerry wants to make America safe from terrorist threats. Since 9/11, the President has done little or nothing to secure America's vulnerable system of shipping through US ports, or its chemical plants. George Bush says he can't keep American chemical plants and ports secure, because it would increase the deficit. For George Bush, your safety is just too expensive. scene from F9/11 where Bush in white tie is talking to his base: the haves and the have mores America deserves better. America deserves a president who will value the nation's safety more than he values his friends' tax cuts.
