resurrectionsong

October 03, 2004

So What?

So Kerry might have cheated. So he might have had a pen or a "cheat sheet" or a magical genie in his pocket that he pulled out to put the supernatural whammy on President Bush. So what?

Bush didn't lose the debate on issues--he lost it on presentation. He let himself be drawn into what seemed, from his side, a peevish mood that was evident in his mannerisms and his words. He lost because he had pauses that were absolutely huge. He lost because Kerry simply did what he needed to do to make himself look focused and clear to the American people.

So, did Kerry cheat? Maybe, but I don't find it in myself to care. In fact, I think it's a waste of time and energy to pursue this line of thinking; it makes us in the GOP look small and desperate to go after such a tiny thing. It may have been a material violation of the debate agreement, but, again, so what?

Let's focus on continuing to spread our message: Bush is better equipped to continue the war on terror, Bush has earned a second term, and Kerry isn't to be trusted with our nation's security. Nowhere in there is the grade school finger pointing about a cheat sheet.

Let's try to win this one on message and substance, not on something as nitpicky as this.

Read about it here (and through a good portion of the conservative 'sphere).

Posted by zombyboy at October 3, 2004 06:41 PM

Comments

Amen. Even if it could actually be proved, I can't see it having much of an impact.

(Disclaimer: I said the same thing about the SwiftVets.)

Posted by: McGehee at October 3, 2004 06:53 PM

I don't care about this story, but wanted to comment on your earlier posts re: the debate. While Kerry was clearly ahead on style, I'll be amazed if most Americans will follow him where he wants to go on *substance.* I mean, the guy basically said he wanted to reopen the Korean Conflict! Not only is he fighting Vietnam again, but now he wants to take us back to the war before that!

It's a lot of talking, blah, blah, blah about everything. And "I will do a better job" is all talk unless you've got some sort of cred to back that up. I can *say* I'll do a better job, too, but that doesn't mean I will.

On the other hand, the format favored the challenger. It's Bush's record that's on trial, and Lehrer was baiting him too.

Posted by: bryan at October 3, 2004 07:16 PM

I think it's interesting how no winner ever complains that the loser was cheating. To me, this whole thing is just a tacit admission that Bush got his clock cleaned in Coral Gables.

Posted by: Mark Hasty at October 3, 2004 07:24 PM

I think it's a tad much for my blood.

Posted by: bryan at October 3, 2004 07:33 PM

Yo, what worries me more are the stolen laptops. I don't care much about the cheat sheet since by now it would have been burned, its ashes dispersed in milk and drunk by Joe Lockhart, but those laptops, whose theft small-minded folks accuse Rove of perpetrating in order to gain prudince, are perhaps the ultimate cheatsheets.

Posted by: OF Jay at October 3, 2004 07:36 PM

Well, don't you think Bush's gaps would have been shorter, his answers more confident, his quotes of Kerry's past pronouncements more searing, had he had a crib sheet he could read off of?
That's how it made a significant difference (if, in fact, there was one). Kerry with a cheat-sheet is not as tendentious, boring, long-winded, etc.
Furthermore, it is significant simply from the standpoint of character. The DNC already violated rules by showing clips of Bush's facial expressions, and now they might have cheated by Kerry having notes? What does this say about the character of the man and of the party? If a Republican had done things like this, we would be treated to headline after headline after headline. The Conservative side of Old Media is cowed by the howling of the Liberal side. It tilts elections, and it does matter who our next president will be.
Luckily, I don't think it will be enough to allow Kerry to win.

Posted by: Nathan at October 3, 2004 08:00 PM

Hey Mark Hasty,

I didn't realize that the DNC passed out kool-aid on the weekends. You guys are getting so good at this Internet thing.

Not. Bush didn't claim that Kerry was cheating. It was the blogosphere that noticed it. And is asking questions.

Here's a thought: While George Soros and MoveOn has to pay bloggers in order to spew the party line, I have yet to see a list of paid Bush bloggers.

We've noticed that the libs don't like it when unpaid bloggers ask questions. (Especially Dan Rather.) As a matter of fact, everytime an unpaid blogger asks a question about Kerry there seems to be a lib around to shout down the asker. You don't like free speech, do ya?

Here's a question: Does Kerry want to subject American foreign policy to a "global test"? Kerry now has an ad claiming that Bush's "global test" ad is a lie. I heard Kerry propose the "global test" with my own ears. I even read the transcript. Where's the lie?

How about this one: Does Kerry think that the soldiers who have died in Iraq have died for a mistake? Kerry gave two non-nuanced and very different answers during the debate. Which answer does Kerry believe? I know which answer the paid Democrat bloggers believe. (Money talks, ya know.)

Here's another one: Why did the DNC have to send out a mass email telling Dems to flood the online polls and call-in shows with their rave reviews. Why is even the Washington Post writing editorials about the form letters from Dems they've received about the debate?

Dems don't like questions, do they?

Posted by: Remy Logan at October 4, 2004 02:35 AM

Nathan: " The DNC already violated rules by showing clips of Bush's facial expressions..."

As I understand it, this wasn't the DNC. This was something that was discussed before the debates. The debate agreement stated that facial expressions in response to the opponent would not be shown, but the TV networks were not bound by this. Moreover, all of the networks stated before the debate that they would not abide by this restriction.

If there is something else that I am not aware of then ignore me. I have to admit to not following this story at all.

Posted by: Jerry at October 4, 2004 06:03 AM

Remy,

Mark is hardly your garden variety demo troll, so you might put the snark-o-lator back in the holster for a bit.

Posted by: bryan at October 4, 2004 06:33 AM

Jerry,
From what I read, it was the DNC running the ads rather than a 527 group. But it is always possible I just gathered an impression rather than actually seeing it in print, so I'll research it and get back to you.
On the other hand, if the allegations at the end of this entry are true, then I don't know what to think, and may give up on politics this year.

Lest the right gloat over the flackery of the left, let me remind you: Bush pulled something out of his pocket, and had something--a receiver for an earpiece?--hidden under his suit, as well.

(I haven't followed the links that QandO provides yet due to time constraints...)

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 07:10 AM

Nathan: "From what I read, it was the DNC running the ads rather than a 527 group."

This could be where my confusion is coming from. I wasn't aware that there were any ads. I thought that you were referring to the reaction shots during the debate itself.

Posted by: Jerry at October 4, 2004 09:04 AM

It's still up here as of this linking.
Linked in this Drudge Report archive.

And I just saw that the allegations in the QandO post I linked are for Oliver Willis, a paid Democrat writer with questionable credibility...

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 09:48 AM

Well, Z, you're the lone voice of reason today, Bless your heart.

Poor sportsmanship point deduction to everyone making this an issue because Bush did not adequately prepare. I'll buy "Bush was fatigued due to him spreading comfort to all those hurricane victims earlier that day" than "Kerry's a cheater! Kerry's a cheater!"

Grow up, folks. This isn't partisan bickering...it's partisan paranoia.

Posted by: Jo at October 4, 2004 10:08 AM

...and how do you feel about Nader's actions again, Jo?

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 10:23 AM

Ummmm, to clarify: rules are rules, fair play is fair play. The effect of minor infractions may make no difference....or could provide a non-level playing field. Consider a football game in which refs call "offsides" only on one O-line. It's only 5 yards, not a big deal. If the team who received all the offsides calls were truly better, they'd still be able to beat the team that was allowed to be offsides without penalties, right?
...except that by the 4th quarter, the effect on play as one team was intimidated by the referees would be huge.
I'm not saying that Kerry's actions actually had this big of an effect. I'm not insisting he actually cheated at all. Yet.
But his actions on the video are worth investigating, and the possible repercussions of violating the rules both candidates agreed to is well worth discussion.
Another way of stating it:
If you can't trust someone to abide by rules he agreed to, there is no way you can trust that person with the Office of the Presidency.
So why would anyone try to dissuade investigation into that possibility?

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 10:32 AM

I think Bush should have just punched Kerry in his big head. That wasn't one of the "forbidden" things on the list, right?

Posted by: Patrick at October 4, 2004 11:26 AM

Final point of summation:
I have no problem with ZB or SJ saying it's not big deal. I have no problem with Democrats saying it wouldn't have made any difference in performance.
However, I do have a huge problem with anyone who tries to say that my caring about an integrity issue is merely partisan paranoia. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding on my part, because rereading the comment, I see that you did only specifically refer to the people giving excuses for Bushes loss as being partisan paranoiacs,Jo...but combined with saying that Zombie is "the sole voice of reason today", I think perhaps there is some smack-talk going on.

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 11:53 AM

I'm just saying looks like some Repubs have sunk to a new low, throwing this allegation around. That's all.

I really have nothing more to say, it's gonna fall on deaf ears anyway. For folks to scrape so low as to think that on NATIONAL TV a candidate would RISK EVERYTHING by cheating? Nathan, you're gonna look back on this and be surprised at yourself, I think. I am surprised at you, anyway. People B**** about how Kerry supporters will do anything to see "any body but Bush". I submit that some Bush suppoters have become so...fervent? They'll stoop to suggesting the opponent a "cheat" to somehow explain how their candidate looked like such a bumbling fool on occasion....and that's even worse.

Bringing up Nader is you looking for an argument which I will not give you here. We have debated this ad nauseum privately; I don't see any reason to pretend here as if this is some sort of new dialogue for us. I'll not jump into the traps you have so carefully set; especially knowing you have already asked this question and received my answer in completion.

Posted by: Jo at October 4, 2004 01:59 PM

That's why I dropped it and moved on with my explanation.

And I'm going to feel no worse about asking valid questions about this 10 years from now than I feel about my opinions regarding Bill Clinton's actions. Despicable behavior should not be excused just because the perpetrator is a Democrat.
Because to claim that Bush lost the debate because Kerry had a cheat sheet is excessive and could quite fairly be dismissed as partisan paranoia, yes.
But there is clear evidence (not proof, no) that John Kerry violated the rules, even if it was only a pen. Honor, integrity, honesty do count for something regardless of the tangible impact.
It may not matter to you if Kerry cheated, but your lack of concern cannot be automatically forced onto others. Dismissing all debate as mere "partisan paranoia" seems to me like you are trying to silence debate through a semantic trump card.
I tend to bristle when people do that.

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 02:49 PM

And here's the actual answer. Which doesn't invalidate the question of "What did he pull out of his pocket?" I still think it always better to know the answer than to merely dismiss the question out of hand.

Posted by: Nathan at October 4, 2004 05:04 PM