All along I have never wavered in my belief that the president will win the election, and with a decisive majority. After the deabtes, I no longer have that sentiment. Even after reading Victor Hanson's article, I must conclude Kerry will win, though marginally, and we truly are doomed.

I have always had faith in the American people, that the minions of Deaniacs were an aberration, that the MTV generation was transitory. Surely the legions of reality television viewers watch as a diversion from the hussle and bussle of daily life.

On Thursday night a man came before the American people and basically asked them to do two things: "Forget everything I've said and forget everything I've done." And the American people apparently are. It seems that according to Newsweek, Kerry has a slight lead.

If Kerry gets elected, he'll be one of the weakest presidents entering office in history, comparable to Grant or Harding. Kerry will have immense pressure from his own party to exit Iraq immediately. He will have no mandate to do anything internationally except go to the UN. At least Clinton camapigned on the economy, giving him freedom to pursue a frenetic yet idealistic foreign policy. Kerry will face an extremely hostile congress and foreign policy crises which he will ill-equipped to handle. He will be hand-cuffed militarily, unwilling or unable to pursue any optionthat requires force.

Perhaps Americans prefer style over substance. Bush gave them substance, Kerry style. But that seems to be Kerry's campaign mantra, about being respected abroad. He's more concerned with appearances, than realities. Reality is just a diversion, just like reality TV.

Since I actually watched the debates from start to finish, and turned off the television when they completed, I missed all the talking head pundrity. I had work to do, and I thought that Kerry won. I also thought that Bush missed major opportunities. There were so many huge holes, it reminded me of watching those Nebraska teams that won back to back national titles. Even I could have rushed for a hundred yards with holes that size.

Whether it was Kerry's flip-flopping, his claim that there was no al Qaeda-Saddam connection, that the war was a mistake, or a myriad of other things, there were too many holes not to run through. And Bush I thought missed all the holes. I also thought that, as I wrote earlier, that the debates will not matter. And I think most "experts" agree. If you went in a Kerry or Bush supporter, you left the same. Undecideds? Probably still are.

But I got a chance to read all the commentary and blogs, go over the transcripts, and realize that Kerry sealed his fate. By Saturday, most people will have forgotten most of the debate. It is past. Done. Football is on, and there's better things to do then ruminating over multilateralism versus bilateralism with North Korea. Except that one thing is left from the debates. Kerry had to take the offense, and did. But in doing so, he let slip out a few phrases that will be the sound bites for weeks to come. What did the DNC have to offer? A montage of pictures showing Bush not looking at his finest. (Memo to the DNC. Re The Gore 2000 thingy. Drop it already. Obsession is a perfume, not a political strategy.)

So, only after having time to digest the debates and the spin, Kerry won the battle but will lose the war. Team Bush had a great strategy. Get the point across, again and again. Hit on the key points, make the case, and leave. SInce Bush could only lose, minimize the loss. Going for the knockout blow would have been too risky.

Bush set the trap, and Kerry jumped right in. Kerry gave the president several devastating sound bites. Bush gave Kerry nothing. Guaranteed, the words "global test" will appear on a television ad very shortly. Guaranteed that Kerry's plan to give nuclear fuel to the Iranians will appear in an ad. Guaranteed that Kerry's "mistake" contradiction will appear as well.

What was Kerry's biggest gaffe?

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

This is pure genius. Bush threw out the lure and Kerry swallowed the hook. Pure brilliance. Bush got Kerry to align himself with Michael Moore.

Like the Ardennes offensive in 1944, Kerry mounted a large attack and gained ground. But, over the course of the next week, those gains will slowly become overextended and the flanks will become exposed. Then the counter-attack will begin.

Re-read the transcripts. They are damning. Kerry wins on style, Bush crushed him on substance.

Bush was up by three touchdowns heading into the fourth quarter and just allowed team Kerry to score. No, the game isn't over, Kerry still has gorund to make up, and the initial polls after the debates showed a Kerry victory, yet no movement. But I all can feel right now is disappointment. Team Bush went into prevent defense.

Bush had several opporrtunities to seal the deal. His style didn't matter, only his substance. But he blew it. Going in, he had to make the case that there were Saddam-al Qaeda links, something that even the 9/11 commission said existed. The relationship wasn't "operational", but why wait until it was? There was Salman Pak, Ansar al Islam, al Zarkawi, Ayman al Zawahiri, Ramseh Yousef and the '93 WTC bombing, and others, including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. There was more than just a casual connection. Baghdad was terror central. Bush had the chance and blew it. 3 and out, then a punt.

Kerry said that we rushed to war, that we didn't give the inspectors time to finish. The only reason that we had inspectors there in the first place was becasue we pushed the UN to pass another resolution, and we put 100,000 troops in place. How long were we supposed to keep them there? How long were we supposed to allow Saddam to disrupt the inspections? And, exactly what authority did the UN still command, seeing as more than a dozen resolutions were ignored by Saddam? 3 and out, then a punt.

The sanctions were a failure, and worse, they were due to expire within a year or two. Recently an Iraqi nuclear scientist just said that although Saddam had no WMD's, he had programs ready to go in a moments notice, and when the sanctions were up, he'd restart his program. The UN oil-for-food scandal involved high ranking UN members, and high ranking officials in France and Russia. Given that the sanctions were set to expire, and given that it was an impossibility that sanctions would be renewed, and given that Saddam had the capability to restart his nuclear program quickly, time was no longer on our side. The "interantional community" was not going to act, and how long before nations, primarily France and Russia, began to normalize relations with Iraq? Once relations were normalized and sanctions lifted, how long could be realistically expect to maintina the no fly zone, keep inspectors in Iraq, and "contain" Saddam? Personal foul, roughing the kicker, first down team Kerry.

Kerry called the war a mistake, yet says we need to finish it. Why is it so important to finish a mistake? And he expects other nations to help us out with a mistake. And he expects other nations to help us out with a mistake so we can spend more money on health care and education. What planet does Kerry actually live on? 3 and out, and a punt.

Iran is a textbook example of how Kerry's solutions are doomed to failure. The Europeans put diplomatic pressure on the Iranians, the inspectors were kicked out, and the Iranian government basically said that we have to accept Iran as a member of the nuclear community. This is a multilateral excercise in futility. And Kerry wants to give Iran nuclear fuel for reactors as long as it is tested. This isn't a strategy, its capitulation. 3 and out, and a punt.

During the debate, Kerry questioned Bush's judgement and impugned his character. He even mentioned DeGaulle, the French presidwnt who pulled France out of NATO. Bush let these go. He caught the "global test" comment, but didn't hammer Kerry on it. Kerry claimed General Franks said we diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, when in his book he clearly says we didn't. Bush didn't call him on that. Lastly, Bush had every chance to go after Kerry's senate record especially his opposition to weapon systems and his opposition to Reagan's policies in the cold war.

Bush had a golden opportunity to ask why Kerry voted against Desert Storm, when there was a UN resolution and a large coalition. He missed this chance especially after Kerry had the audacity to mention the book written by Bush Sr.

He missed the chance to mention that we acted unilaterally in the Balkans, military actions that Kerry supported, when there was no UN mandate and no coalition.

He missed the chance to mention the Iraqi Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official US policy. This was signed into law by President Clinton and supported in the Senate by Kerry.

He missed the chance to quote Senator Lieberman's article several months ago where he said Iraq was central to the war on terror.

Bush scored with the "wrong war" comment, $87 billion vote fiasco, the Libyan and Pakistani situations, and with the world is better off. He also pointed out Kerry's inconsistencies and abominable statements regarding PM Allawi. That is what kept him in the game.

Too many missed opportunities. The game isn't over, Bush still leads. However, team Kerry is energized and has a new lease on life. The last two months were disastrous for Kerry. Dropping in polls, inconsistency on Iraq, and campaign staff shake-up had him on the ropes. Going into the debates, Bush needed only to nail the coffin shut. He failed to do so. All I can say is disappointment.

Instapundit link has post about examples of voter fraud. Don't expect this situation to reverse itself. And expect the left to commit more and more fraud.

The reason is simple why the left will commit fraud and the right usually won't.

The right belives the left to be ill-informed and wrong. Thus, fraud is wrong. They win with ideas.

The left (and I exclude liberals, Joe Lieberman being a true liberal, for example) believes the right to be evil. Thus, fraud is fighting evil. However they win is acceptable.

That's why its okay to say Bush wants to lynch Blacks, throw old people out of their homes, starve children, etc. One, they really do believe it, and two, who cares, Bush is evil.

Don't discount the committment the left has. It is their religion. They will do anything possible to subvert democracy to advance their cause. Marxian? Yes, it is.

No, the debates will not matter. Here's why:

Before the DNC, Kerry had a 3-4 point lead, which he failed to extend. In an historic post-convention occurrence, he received no bounce. A month later, after the swift vets ads began, and the reality of Kerry's candidacy took hold, his numbers began to drop. After the RNC, Bush got a decent bounce that he has since maintained. Bush went from 3-4 points down to about 5 points up, for about a 7-8% bounce. In a close election, this is sizable. The vast majority of voters have already decided, so there isn't that large an undecided gorup to address.

Bush has experienced a very difficult year, from escalating violence in Iraq, to less than stellar job growth and high fuel prices. By all rights, he should be down by at least 10 points.

Kerry is faced with a most unique situation. His supporters are split between support for his candidacy and opposition to Bush. Bush supporters on the other hand overwhelmingly support his candidacy. Kerry's voters are split between supoprt for the war in Iraq and opposition to it. Bush supporters overwhelmingly support the war. This situation is similar on most issues.

After months of relentless attacks from MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, all the way to Kerry himself, what has stuck has stuck, what hasn't won't. No matter what Kerry says about Bush, everyone knows it already. Even if he shirked his duty 30 years ago, what matters to people is what he's done since 9/11, for better or worse.

"He misled the country. He went it alone. Iraq is a distraction for the war on terror. He mishandled the war. He alienated our allies. He hasn't caught UBL. He hasn't made us safer. He hasn't this, he hasn't that... "

Sorry Senator, been there, heard that. What can Kerry possibly say that we haven't heard before? What "new" attack line, what "new" problem is Bush's fault? This doesn't imply that there isn't merit to those claims, it's just they aren't new. Repeating the same slogans over and over won't help Kerry.

There is almost nothing John Kerry can say in the debates that isn't diametrically opposed to something he said last week, last month, or last year. He will contradict himself, probably repeatedly, during the debates without a doubt. How could he not. He's been for the war and against it, for the funding and against it, for the Patriot act and against it, etc.

Kerry is also faced with the problem that any "new" plans he has for Iraq will appear done out of expediency and will have little credence. If his strategy is to relentlessly attack Bush's mishandling, etc., that will only satisfy his base. Attacking a wartime president, without being a credible alternative, will only alienate any undecided voters.

Kerry's only hope is to skip Iraq almost altogether. It's an issue on which he can only lose. What he needs to do is talk about what's next, what are the coming issues that the next four years will bring. Will it be Iran, Syria, or North Korea? Will it be promoting reform in Saudi Arabia? What will be the new priorities and policy initiatives? In fact, by focusing on the past, Kerry opens himself up to scrutiny of his past record, especially in the senate. It isn't positive.

Kerry's last problem is that elections should be about incumbents. For much of the debate, Kerry will be on the defensive, from his senate voting record to his multitude of positions. He will also have to explain comments such as the recent quip concerning Iraqi PM Allawi. You don't win on the defensive.

Barring some unforseen blunder, the debates won't matter. You heard it here first.

Today's LA Times article Bush Benefiting From Divided Nation's Unity on Security by Ronald Brownstein:

Since the Vietnam War era, the default position for most voters has been to view the Republicans as tougher than Democrats on national security. That means in any partisan argument over how to keep the country safe, most voters are probably more inclined to trust Republicans until given a good reason not to.
...
The problem for Democrats is that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, security has eclipsed these domestic concerns. In the post-Sept. 11 world, strength trumps empathy.

Back on August 7th, in Kerry's in Big Trouble, I write:

I am hardly a political scientist, and I'm not writing a dissertation, but the conclusion should be obvious. Kerry can't get 50% of the vote, and right now, he is polling as high as he can. He cannot poll higher and he has three months until the election and cannot afford to lose any support. Talk about pressure.
...
In every election since 1960, when foreign policy mattered, Republicans have won. (I wonder what the liberals today would have said about Kennedy's "missile gap" and the effects of that. Russia began rapid expansion and put missiles in Cuba. Oops.) Only when issues are closer to home do democrats have a chance. And this year, what is issue number one? Iraq and the War on Terror.

On 9/18 in An Important Question, Senator I write:

Senator Kerry, you have said that Amreica cannot afford to lose in Iraq. Why?
...
So which is it? Is Iraq part of the global war on terror, as you said back in 2001, or is it the wrong war as Dean said last year you have repeated just recently this year? Was Iraq a center for terrorist activities as you claimed in 2001 and 2002, or is it the wrong war?

And lastly this: What if we lose? What if we take the "advice" of many on the left, and even some onthe right, and just withdraw? What would the impact be? The president has made it clear what he thinks the result would be. Do you concur?

Today, in How to Pick a War President, Fareed Zakaria writes:

The candidates should face three tests that help reveal their strengths and weaknesses as leaders in war. First, how do they define this conflict? Second, how do they define success? Finally, how do they think victory can be achieved? As we watch the debate this week, we should bear these questions in mind, listen for answers and judge the candidates accordingly.

The problem is that with three debates, three John Kerry's could show up, and most likely will. There will only be one George Bush at the debates. And one choice this November.