Charter Member of the Sub-Media

September 30, 2004

The Debates: Quick Hit « Politics As Usual »

Kerry won the style points.
Bush seemed...tired. Defensive. He had amazingly long pauses at really bad times.

On the substance side, though, I think it was a toss-up, but that was totally from Bush. As in, Bush got in some great shots, but he weakened his case by (as you so aptly put it before) merely repeating the advertising point sound-bytes for most of the debate. But Kerry neither added anything of value to the substance, nor detracted.

To be honest, I'm really disappointed. This is the first debate I've ever watched, and Frank Martin and I have had better political discussions with deeper points.
Jo and I would have held people transfixed with the passion, verve, and great points. Each time someone spoke you'd probably say, "Hmmm...that's a good point."
I saw absolutely none of that here. Nothing new was introduced. Kerry keeps saying Bush had no plan to win the peace; I'd like to have seen Bush directly address that by discussing what the plan was from the beginning and showing, point-by-point, how a hostile counter force has affected those plans. Instead we got an indirect "We're fighting an enemy, and once the people of Iraq stand up for themselves, we can get out." Kerry said several times that Bush has no plan for Iraq other than stay the course. I would love to have seen Bush use 2 minutes to lay out, point-by-point (again!), just what we are trying to do. "125k by year's end" isn't specific enough or long-term enough. Doing so would also have revealed the obvious flaws, omissions, and ambiguities in Kerry's "plan".
Missed opportunity: Why didn't President Bush say even once what the point of the Global War on Terror is? He said several times that he understood it and Kerry didn't. But he never addressed it directly, as in, the point of fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq is to literally shrink the geographic area in which terrorists have to operate, and reduce the number of regimes who facilitate, equip, fund, and provide safe locations to terrorists, and to demonstrate that terror is a dead-end and failed ideology.
I'm not that smart: I've seen that on several blogs, so why can't anyone in the Bush Adminstration articulate it that clearly? It's clear, defensible, and explains everything we've done to this point.

I also think Kerry thinks Americans are stupid. He didn't provide much evidence for anything. He repeated three times that the current levels of securing nuclear materials will take 13 years, and promised to do it four (and again didn't begin to explain how.)
But it's no surprise that Kerry thinks Americans are stupid, since he works with and talks to Democrats for the most part....

Okay, I'll have more thoughts tomorrow after I've mused for a while. That should hold you for this evening, eh?

Posted by Nathan at 09:53 PM | Comments (4)
» Allah Is In The House links with: http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/001037.html
» resurrectionsong links with: Responses to the Debates (Updated)
Comments

It was the rules that made this thing such a snore-fest. And they'd intermittently break from the rules, anyway. I hope they re-evaluate the format before the next debate.

As I mentioned at Zomby's: I think Bush's main problem was he appeared flustered, frustrated. I imagine that will go away by the second debate, as he'll be coached out of it. To some folks, getting visibly shaken/frustrated reflects weakness. I myself have never believed this to be true, but of course I also get frustrated regularly yet still consider myself a fairly tough cookie. :)

Posted by: Jo at October 1, 2004 07:21 AM

I agree with you, Jo. I think the rules did affect the spirit of the debate and I also agree that I don't think irritation shows weakness. Kerry makes no sense to W, and it frustrates him.

Honestly, I don't think that George Bush does well off-the-cuff and it makes him appear less knowledgeable and definitely doesn't make for a good debator.

Jo, I also liked what you said about attacking the candidate's wife. I haven't seen much that I like personally about Teresa, but venomous and hateful comments do little but make the commentor look bad.

I still liked Bush, though. I simply didn't like how Kerry kept tossing rose-colored glasses toward the viewers. I think Bush was humble and I was relieved when he corrected several of Kerry's statements.

I am sure that the President will be better prepared for the next debate. :::Sigh::: Back in my lovely home state. Don't they always seem to have debates at Wash U in St. Louis?

Posted by: Rae at October 1, 2004 07:42 AM

Thanks for backing me up on that one, Rae. I just think it's more civilized to leave spouses and children "off limits", or at the very least focus more on the candidates themselves.

Posted by: Jo at October 1, 2004 08:31 AM

Kerry makes no sense to W, and it frustrates him.

:)

Maybe because Dub just cannot understand reasoned, logical thinking.

Posted by: Frank Martin at October 4, 2004 06:32 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?