This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

The Debate II

The sickness continues. Anna and I watched the second installment of the presidential debates. This time, there was some actual direct exchange (thus the elimination of the quotes in the title) between the candidates, though it still fell short of an actual debate.

Everyone was playing the expectation game: giving low expectations for Kerry, high expectations for Bush; that for Bush this was a "make or break" moment; and other sorts of hooha. And the spin afterwards was a bunch of deep doodoo. I watched NBC and the ex-Mrs. Prez was so over the top it was mindboggling. I'm sure Kerry supporters thought he won the debate, but Ms. Clinton was so unequivocal in her view that Kerry dominated (her word) the debate, one wonders if she's gone off her meds. That being said, it's clear that not even Sen. Clinton believed her own blathering. Her delivery of her evaluation of the debate was flat and lifeless. She seemed rather bored.

Now Kerry did land a few good ones, particularly on domestic policy, assertions that Bush did not directly respond to: the funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, the loss of health care for many millions, the net job loss during this administration thus far, and so forth. But he also did little more than repeat the same old mantras from last Thursday. Cheney had put to rest the notion of $200 billion for Iraq on Tuesday night, but there Kerry was mindlessing putting it out there again. Last presidential debate, the more Bush talked about how hard the work is, I wanted to throw things at the TV. Last night, the more Kerry said "I have a plan" I wanted to throw the TV out the window. Enough with "the plan" already, Senator. What the frick-frack is your plan? Oh, sure, I know he has a website we can all go to, but he should give us one or two examples. Bush did (note to self: when your opponent is giving details of your own plan, it's not a good thing). Kerry said Bush was mistaken on those details, but then never gave the actual details.

In short, through the whole debate Kerry was reduced to merely saying, "No, what President Bush told you was just wrong," but then instead of explaining why, he went on to say what Bush has been doing is bad and dangerous. In other words, Kerry came off as a big and empty windbag last night--nothing to offer us voters out here anything more than "Bush is bad and I can do better." I guess we just have to take it on faith, because Kerry has given us no reason to believe that his claim (and so far it's little more than that) is actually anything more than mere rhetoric.

As much as Bush sucked last week, last night Bush kicked some political butt. Some of it was show, I know. The springing from the chair--gotta show how energetic and "fired up" he was, donchaknow--the talking over Mr. Gibson at one point so as to respond to one of Kerry's criticisms--gotta show how he's the leader and in control even in the debate--all of that I'm fairly certain was staged. But in point of fact, President Bush had his facts and landed some charges that Kerry just couldn't respond to: how to cover the gap between the revenue Kerry would raise by taxing only the rich, and the full cost of Kerry's proposed budget (a difference, said Bush, of hundreds of billions of dollars); how you create an alliance when you call the world "coerced and bribed" and your enterprise a big mistake (and France and Germany have pointedly said they ain't sending anybody to Iraq); how you can be for our troops, but not vote to give them money for equipment (Kerry was reduced to saying "I said it badly." Huh?); and how Kerry nor Edwards, who claim to be for tort reform, never showed up for a vote on tort reform. And the one on the gap between Kerry's proposed budget and his tax-only-the-rich revenue, this came after Kerry's hokey look-in-the-camera and promise of "no-new-taxes" (hmmmm, I seem to remember another Bush doing something like that; didn't work for him either). Bush did a masterful job of calling up Kerry's record to counter some of the very promises Kerry has been making with regard to health care, taxes, and so forth. Last time it was Bush who was caught flatfooted. Last nght Kerry just came off as the professional politician with nothing meaningful to say.

Yes, they both hit their talking points. It was frustrating to hear them not respond to questions. But such is the nature of the game. Contrary to last time, no one sucked last night.

But still the clear winner was President Bush. 2004 Presidential Debates: Kerry 1, Bush 1. Here's to next Thursday.

One last thought, and this one's pretty subjective, I admit. Still, I think it's pretty indicative. If you watched the candidates greeting the crowd last night, there was a very marked and noticeable difference in how the audience received them. Kerry received polite, and surely heartfelt, applause, and people came up to him to get pictures taken, signatures, and so on. (Although both Anna and I noticed one gentlemen pointedly refusing to shake Kerry's hand.)

But Bush . . . Bush was like a rock star. The applause was hearty and enthusiastic. People rushed to him to shake his hand and get him to pose with them in pictures. It was a clear and telling difference: people love Bush the man, even when they disagree with his policies.

A final and side note: Doesn't the billionaire heiress Ms. Heinz Kerry have more than one presidential debate outfit? It sure looked like the senator's wife was wearing the same frock as a week ago. Maybe it's just me. Then again, at least the candidates wives' didn't look last night like they'd forgotten to call one another and coordinate their outfits. (What was with the matching white outfits last week?)

Posted by Clifton at October 9, 2004 09:30 AM | TrackBack