Ace, check out Hugh Hewitt's comments on Kerry's anti-nuke comments. It's devastating.

My guess is if Bush gets beaten up in a debate on his strongest area, foreign policy, because poor 'lil snookums is tired, hissy, smirking, sluggish, and doesn't want to be at the debate....or bother to address more than 2 of Kerry's 20 well-timed hits....

If it is the same sort of Bush that shows up and has to defend his domestic policies....Borrowing 2 trillion from China, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, and Japan - in order to give 90% of his tax cuts to drug companies, other corporate cronies & the top 5% of the population...to the effect of the lowest job creation since Hoover, and shortchanging most programs the public thinks would be good for all Americans...

Then Kerry will have 90 minutes to wage open bloodletting.

Bush blowing the 1st debate.

Hope Karl Rove gives him a bitch-slapping. Feeds him coffee, and tells him if he wants to be another 1-term failure like his Dad, then go ahead and slack your way through debate #2.

I believe that we watch 'debates'because we are supposed to watch debates.But in reality we really know that they are just a little dog-and-pony show for the easily amused and/or the long suffering.
But they demonstrate very little and teach less, as they are all highly structured kibuki theatre.Everyone has a role to play and the object is to be the best actor at that moment in time.
I wish GWB was better at expressing himself;it would make life ever so much more mellow,but as you say he simply does not have it in him.
So the question remains;is an inarticulate but straight forward guy better or worse than an an articulate but suspiciously 'NUANCED'one.
Everyone must make their own determination but for me if GWB talked like Tarzan I would still not support Kerry.I don't TRUST him AT ALL on the GWOT,which for me is the only issue during this election cycle.

Cedarford,

Wow! That was certainly nuanced??? You covered all of the DNC talking points, wrong, but you did cover them all. Read, think for yourself, and learn. Democrats aren't always right. In fact, they have more lies per minute than a rational person can defend. Susan (the Zsa Zsa Gabor impersonator) Estrich told us all we need to know. Get down and dirty (like they haven't already?). Happy spinning
Cedarford.

Bush could care less about winning debates. He cares about winning the election. He kept on message said exactly what will win him votes.

Kerry showed his usual lack of judgment and made 5 major mistakes. These mistakes will be featured in Republican commercials for the 30 days.

Kerry won the debate and lost the election with his performance.

"How the hell is he going to fill 90 minutes with "I cut the shit out of taxes, Dudley DoRight. What of it?"

That is all Bush has to do in that debate to win the election. No one has or will vote to raise their income taxes.

Remember how Mondale lost 49 states with his promise to raise taxes.

When Rove gave the go-ahead for three debates, I wondered what the hell he was thinking. Bush isn't known for debating; Kerry is. Bush is leading on points; a debate lets Kerry back into the fight.

But now, things look different. Debates aren't self-contained events. They have aftershocks. Bush may have lost during those 90 minutes, but he said nothing that will be useful to Kerry. On the other hand, Kerry handed out a month's supply of free candy to the Bush campaign.

That's what matters. The aftershocks ARE the debate.

I suspect that the Bushies understand the current media environment better than Democrats do. Dems still draw overwhelmingly on Old Media for analysis and to relay their spin. But while Old Media gears up for the Sunday pundit shows, conservative TalkRadio has already harvested and disseminated the best arguments from around the blogosphere.

The liberal spin will come too late, and will be demolished immediately. Bush's poll numbers will rise.

I'm with Lyle, Kerry won on style definitely, content was drab on both sides (anything new said last night?), but Bush won on strategy.

Bush performed worse than he did in 2000 in my opinion, we know he is capable of even more than that. It wouldn't be beyond Rove/Bush et al to have Bush hold back on the debate just to give Kerry time to waffle without worrying about being on the defensive. With that 90 seconds and lights ready to flash, pressures on to get as much crap in as you can, and when he waffles, he makes mistakes, and Bush gets his soundbites.

The other thing is that since Bush didn't harp on about too many Kerryisms (i.e. voting on the 87 billion), Kerry didn't need to defend those points which would have taken them off the table for future anti-Kerry purposes. Bush did hit on the mixed signals issue many times, but there are too many for kerry to 'clear up' even if he had the whole 90 minutes. Strategically, assuming this is what he did, its quite smart. Kerry shot his load last night, and Bush was there to serve some of them back. Kerry won't be around to answer back when the soundbites hit the airwaves.

Kerry gave away the kind of gifts that keep on giving. Global Test my ass.....

Kerry's idiotic remarks regarding North Korea, global tests, nuclear proliferation.

All Bush had to do was let Kerry "nuance" himself into showing his total lack of a grasp of reality.

Kerry won the DOG & PONY SHOW; Bush won the DEBATE.

Bush's facial expressions showed he was listening to Kerry's comments, not arrogantly ignoring them. It seemed clear that Bush was tired. I'd be tired too if I was commanding US troops in the GWOT, visiting Hurricane victims, campaigning, and then had to listen to Kerry's off-base comments.

More thoughts at my blogsite on "W Debates The Manchurian Candidate?".

Bush will have no problem coming up with material in discussing his domestic agenda.
No Child Left Behind has already started to bear fruit. Don't get me started on the prescription drug bill.
I'd love it if he'd tickle the subject of privatizing social security again, just to see the Dem dogs start barking and foaming at the mouth again. Just love that.