POST DEBATE…AND MORE
I decided to wait till this morning to do my analysis and round up of the debate last night so that I could better absorb what pundits and pajama people were saying.
The short version is that it was a draw which was okay for Bush but good for Kerry.
CNN poll has Kerry winning 52-39 while ABC had Bush up 43-42. CBS? They used a sample of “undecided voters” which is a crock of shit because the reason people are undecided is that they’re unsure whether or not to toss the incumbent. Historically, they break 2-1 for the challenger. Still, Kerry won 36-25 with another 36% saying it was a tie. Might be good news for Bush…could be undecideds are willing to go Bush IF (and that’s a big if) war news and economic news don’t get much worse.
Round up of the pajamahadeen is a mixed bag (see below). Interesting that the Kerry remark about Cheney’s gay daughter seems to have hurt Kerry. MSM is even taking him to task on it. That and his unintentional reference to “marrying up” (read I am NOT a gigolo) could play some part…we’ll see.
Crushkerry calls it a clear Bush win. (They’re going to stay up after the election renaming-hopefully-the site “anklebitingpundits.com”)
Kerryhaters has some good post debate comments and some questions for the Senator on SS.
Glen Reynolds has his usual post debate round up. Consensus…it’s BUSH! (Yeah, so…it’s not a surprise)
PowerLine watched the debate with 600 cheering conservatives and guess who won…
John at RWN liveblogged the debate and has a very good round up.
Polipundit thinks that the debate sealed Bush’s re election (we’ll see)
Aceof Spades calls it for Bush and wonders why the Volohk Conspiracy doesn’t include him!
Stephen Green seems afflicted by Churchill’s “black dog” (or maybe he’s a little down in his cups) but nevertheless gives it to Bush.
The Commissar (Hail the Revolution!) says its a tie.
Frank J. is perplexed. (Check out this cartoon)
Finally Bill at INDC has some great analysis and an excellent round-up.
We’ll revisit this debate on Tuesday (after weekend polling) to see where we are.
UPDATE: THE MYTH ABOUT 9/11
I’ve always bristled at the notion that somehow, the invasion of Iraq “squandered” the goodwill and sympathy of the world towards the US following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The fact is, anti-americanism may have been slightly muted in SOME quarters, but it was business as usual for the anti-american bigots in Europe and elsewhere even in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
An article in the Guardian on September 17, 2001 by William Shawcross (no paragon of American booseterism himself) is revealing of the hate towards America less than a week after human civilization suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history:
“I did not see the BBC’s Question Time last week. Part of the studio audience bayed at America and slow-handclapped the former US Ambassador Philip Lader, reducing that man almost to tears just 48 hours after his people had suffered the worst attack in their history.”
Shawcross was horrified and rightly so. He goes even further:
“But the disdain with which its failures and its efforts are greeted by some in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is shocking. Anti-Americanism often goes much further than criticism of Washington. Too often the misfortunes of America are met with glee, a schadenfreude that is quite horrifying.”
And, presciently, Shawcross wonders how long any of the “sympathy” exhibited in Europe and elsewhere will last:
But I have an awful fear that the solidarity with the US expressed at the United Nations and in Europe this week will not last long. Fundamentalist anti-Americanism will again rear its head, as it did on Question Time.”
This is less than a week after 9/11.
But what of today? What can we say about this will-o-the-wisp sympathy that either came and went very quickly or was never there in the first place?
A piece in Wall Street Journal by John Rosenthal explores this “myth of solidarity” with the US following 9/11 and traces it ti an editorial in “Le Monde” entitled “We are all Americans.” Rosenthal fisks the editorial right smartly, pointing out that if you get beyond the title of the editorial, some interesting thoughts are contained therein. To wit:
“…it amounted to the first, albeit awkward, suggestion in the French press that America had perhaps merely got what it had coming. In the following paragraph, Mr. Colombani went on to add that perhaps too “the reality” was that America had been “trapped by its own cynicism,” noting that Osama bin Laden himself had, after all, been “trained by the CIA”–a never substantiated charge that has, of course, in the meanwhile become chapter and verse for the blame-America-firsters. “Couldn’t it be, then,” Mr. Colombani concluded, “that America gave birth to this devil?”
Thus, another myth, this time born in Europe, America got what it deserved on 9/11. When you hear Democrats talking about “squandering” the goodwill of the world after the tragedy, do we also hear how that “sympathy” took form of arabs dancing in celebration from the West Bank to Teheran? Or how Canadiens less than a week after the attack booed the National anthem at a baseball game? Or how ordinary Brits reduced a former ambassador almost to tears by hurling anti-american insults on a TV show?
We don’t hear of this because it suits the liberals purpose to ignore history and live in fantasy land. It goes to the heart of John Kerry’s ridiculous notion that “mythical” allies will put tens of thousands of boots on the ground in Iraq and take over a substantial burden of the cost of the war.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…America is virtually alone in the world. If we have to save civilization in spite of itself…so be it. Suprnational organizations are powerless against the evil that threatens to blow us back to the stone age (or further). To depend on them is folly.