Looking solely at the arguments and debating skills, most commentators will argue that the third presidential debate came out evenly with the winner determined by the individual’s determination about the facts.  Those from the Left will believe Kerry’s interpretation of reality and those from the Right will know the Truth of Bush’s statements.  Already the pundits are talking about the debate being “wonkish.” 

They would like, of course, for the debate to be even, and there was much talk afterwards about Kerry’s people being “happy.”  They shouldn’t be.

The debate was solidly Bush’s victory because of three decisive and pivotal turning points.

First and foremost, the last question about the women in the candidates’ lives was a knock-out blow –– Bush clobbered Kerry.  Kerry fumbled with lame humor about “marrying up” and spoke dispassionately about his mother’s final, impersonal words about “integrity.” (Was she worried about that in regard to her son?  It certainly was a bit late to give him ethical instruction.)  And, like Dukakis’ answer about theoretical rape, Kerry treated the question with appalling emotional distance.  Most women would be furious and deeply disappointed in that answer if they were in Teresa’s shoes! 

Bush, on the other hand, answered personally with obvious deep affection and love for his wife and daughters.  There is not a woman in America who wouldn’t respond to that kind of remark from her husband, or a daughter who wouldn’t be pleased to hear her father talk about her the way Bush talked about his.  I believe the election could very well hinge on that one response because most undecided voters are women.  Further, people in the battleground states know sincerity when they see it.  They can’t relate to a cold, impersonal answer like Kerry gave to the “women in your life” question and that question is immensely important to women, couples and families.

Bush also scored big on the question about his religious faith.  He answered in personal terms about what his faith means to him and how it sustains him.  American people resonate with that kind of sincerity, especially how the president acknowledged the power of prayer and his appreciation that he “feels” the prayers of the thousands of people who pray specifically for him. Americans also appreciate the service of true believers who are the “armies of compassion.”  They recognize that freedom truly is a “gift of the Almighty.”  Those acknowledgements not only provide “calmness in the middle of the storm” for the president; the fact that the president believes those essential things also provides “calmness” for the nation’s citizens who are living uncertain and stressful lives after 9/11.  Kerry’s rather “political” answer about “differences in how we live out” faith fell flat and his forced “diversity” (talking about receiving a Native American blessing recently) was just too politically correct for an essentially personal question.

Finally, President Bush had the only memorable line of the debate –– his remark that “there’s a mainstream in American politics and you [Kerry] sit right on the far Left bank.”  The president went on to say that Kerry’s “record is such that Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts.”  Throughout the debate, the president hammered home that Kerry is all “rhetoric” without a “record” to back it up.

CNN’s coverage of the debate reinforced the weaknesses in Kerry’s rhetoric. CNN promised in Wolf Blitzer’s pre-debate remarks that it would include a “fact-check,” the most progressive and far-reaching of any previous program. Turns out, Bill Schneider had only one item for President Bush.  The cable network contrasted the president’s debate remark about Osama bin Laden with his March 13, 2002, remark that Osama wasn’t that important.  The problem is that they showed the whole context of the president’s remarks, which made it clear that the president thought Osama wasn’t a threat because his henchmen were getting caught, thus disabling the whole network.  Then, Schneider, in a sort of “oh, by the way” treatment, highlighted three major factual distortions made by John Kerry.

Bob Schieffer, the CBS anchor who moderated the debate, asked a wide variety of questions and produced an excellent exchange that clearly delineated the candidates’ two diametrically opposed worldviews and political positions –– even asking about the shortage of flu vaccine this year.  Kerry constantly echoed his refrain: “I have a plan” and Bush came back each time that the “rhetoric doesn’t match his record.” He cited votes by the senator that contradicted his rhetoric or the lack of a senate record on the issue.

While the three turning points mentioned above were decisive, other issues of major importance were addressed. Before the final debate, the consensus was that it could be “decisive.”  Certainly, domestic issues such as social security were very important. Kerry recited the litany of complaints that have been central to his campaign.  Bush’s response was to, again, say that the “cost of doing nothing far exceeds the cost of saving the system for our children.”

But the major issues that will help determine the election were, again, three:   

Same-Sex Marriage: President Bush seemed genuine when he said that, personally, he didn’t know whether homosexuality was a choice.  Conservatives will wish that he had taken a strong, unwavering position, but he came across sincere and he walked a fine political line very skillfully. He quickly shifted the argument to the central political issue regarding same-sex marriage –– whether judges ought to redefine marriage. 

Kerry, on the other hand, struck a low blow (as John Edwards did in the vice presidential debate) by saying that Vice President Cheney’s daughter is openly lesbian.  Then, he went on to talk about discrimination in the workplace, which is not at issue in the question about same-sex marriages; nor are the questions about hospital visitation and other points that sidetrack the main point that homosexuals currently have human rights.  They are demanding special rights.

Right to Choose/Abortion:  Sen. Kerry quoted Scripture and talked about our role on earth being “God’s work.”  He affirmed that he will, unequivocally, “protect a woman’s right to choose.”  President Bush defended a culture of life and pointed out that Sen. Kerry supported even the “brutal” practice of partial-birth abortion.  President Bush clearly seemed caring and reasonable, whereas Sen. Kerry came across as promoting a special agenda.  Schieffer asked point blank if Bush would overturn Roe v. Wade.  Bush said that he would have no litmus test for judges; Kerry said point blank that he would not overturn the “constitutional right of choice” – in effect saying that he did have a litmus test for judges.

Polarization of the Nation:  Kerry claimed that the nation was more divided than ever and that an “ideological agenda pushes people out.”  Bush talked about “entrenched special interests” that are unique to Washington and contrasted that with the bipartisan cooperation he achieved while governor of Texas.  Both men addressed the polarization in their closing statements, but again, Kerry was dispassionate and Bush very personal.  Kerry focused on problems and the need for hope; Bush was optimistic and hopeful.

Ultimately, the images that will remain for the public are two men at odds on the issues; two men who see the world differently; two men who have opposite reactions and solutions to terrorism and domestic problems.  I believe the public will respond to the personal, optimistic, resolute and hopeful man and reject the cold, critical one. 

This final presidential debate marks a decisive victory for the president that puts the momentum on his side.  He will have numerous opportunities in the next very short weeks to build on that momentum.  Clearly, mainstream, reasonable voters in the battleground states heard what they needed to hear in this debate; it all comes down to whether the Soros money and organization will bring in enough far-Left special-interest partisans to offset the votes of mainstream Americans.