Bush-0; Kerry-0
Yeah, I watched the whole thing. No, I wasn't impressed.
Neither candidate had a defining moment, neither had a campaign-winning turn of phrase, neither made a real effort to crush the other. Last night was a meeting engagement between two belligerents, and not a decisive battle. Matter of fact, it was almost boring- it even took the edge off the episode of G-String Divas that aired on HBO afterward.
But it could have been something much more.
From where I was sitting (horizontal, couch-bound, serving as heated mattress for Miss Fuzzle Kitty), it seemed Kerry really could have crushed Dubya on Iraq but held back. But his rhetoric was clearly having the desired effect on the president, who was oftentimes visibly irritated by it. Furthermore, his irritation came through in his voice, which actually sounded whiny at times. Similarly, when Bush went off-script he would either freeze completely or fumblingly toss off a statement he'd already said and was only slightly relevant at that point. Overall, Kerry came across as more knowledgeable and with that, more capable. If I knew nothing about either of the men, I'd go Kerry.
The president could have, and should have, made alot more out of Kerry's internationalism. Wariness of foreign influence is a theme that resonates strongly with the right, and Bush missed several chances to capitalize on that. Kerry derided the contribution of allied forces in Iraq, but said he wants more allies. He said there has to be a "global test" of American involvement in foreign conflict, but that will never seek permission to defend America. He said that he would kill terrorists wherever they are, but wrote a book, which he clumsily plugged, about the need for an international organization to fight crime. Bush really could have pressed him on this stuff, and called him on whether Kerry is the world's president or America's, something like that.
So, missed opportunities all 'round. Seemingly the best thing to come from this event was that no one especially embarassed himself, and that's a shame. It could have been alot more.
Oh, and for those of us wondering which accent Kerry was going to use for the debate: he eschewed his Brahmin, Thurston Howell sound for a more standard drone. I think he went with accent 2b, "officious everyman", but I may be off.
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
GL - I'm sorry. You lost me
GL - I'm sorry. You lost me after typing 'Miss Fuzzle Kitty'.
"The president could have,
"The president could have, and should have, made alot more out of Kerry's internationalism."
Yes, he should have, and this was among several missed opportunities to draw clear distinctions between himself and JFK.
Perhaps alone among those with opinions on the matter, while I know that the post-debate spin will attempt to zero in on the things that Bush missed capitalizing on, I will find Monday morning quarterbacking by the candidates (post-debate spin) to be bad form. And most of it will likely come from the right, which should have, but didn't, do better during the actual event.
It's sort of like Mike Tyson claiming that he SHOULD have beaten Buster Douglas. Sure, Douglas was a loser, but he didn't lose that particular fight, and Tyson would have been a douchewad to claim otherwise. I feel the same about such claims from the Republicans.
As I've said elsewhere, neither aspirated on his own vomit, it was roughly a tie, and therefore a bit of a time-waster. So goes the game.
Side note: As a well-brought up idealist, I was quite pleased to see the two of them speak well of one another. That didn't keep me from laughing my arse off at the comment by Tim">http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007610.php]Tim Blair:
N,
N,
Last first again-
-Again, your're confusing what I believe others will perceive with what I personally believe/know/understand. I heard Kerry last night same as you did. I know what he said, and I know what he meant. But what the right wing will seize upon is will be something like this: "Kerry says he will do what is neccessary for American security, but will still seek legitimacy in the broader world for it." And that doesn't go down well with right wingers. Similarly, they're going to make alot of hay out of the "global test" remark.
-Neither of us can absolutely know what Bush flubbed or deliberately blurred. I don't think either of us wants to say, seriously, that Bush masterminded this or deliberatly obscured that- we just don't know. How can we know what goes on in another man's head? If we do start devising these sorts of schemes in a non-satirical or non-playful way, we're going into tinfoil-hatted black helicopter territory, and neither of us has the chops or constitution for that. And I don't disagree Bush was unfocused; in general terms I described him as "fumbling" for responses.
-As for Poland, the inescapable fact is that they are in Iraq, and provided the support the US asked for. As far as I know, they will remain until the mission is finished. President K's remarks are not at all supportive, but the Polish contingent remains.
-What made you conclude I'm "working hard"? I'm only working from what I saw/heard last night and can recall today. You know that I don't care enough about all of this to parse quotes looking for flubs and calling them lies, and I don't have the time or inclination for the "microscope" you mentioned. I leave that to the Limbaughs and Frankens of the world.
Kerry misspeaks. So does Bush. I didn't have a specific example of Bush blowing a term because there are far far too many to choose from. Overload. But it's irritating that Kerry gets a pass on his.
It's no secret that I'm right of center on many issues. But that doesn't make me partisan. I will be sympathetic to the right wing on gun ownership, for example, but I don't see the connection between that and being a Bush supporter. I mean, I just said the president sounded autistic. That's hardly a supportive remark. I also wrote that, based solely on last night's event, I'd go Kerry. That's a Rep stance?
But besides all that, why is this about me?
GL,
GL,
You are working hard to make Kerry look bad, but no really putting Bush under the same microscope. It is not enough to say in one sentence that Bush is not perfect, but detail in twenty others how Kerry's faults. On the surface you may appear non-partisan, but you are not.
With respect to Poland, the president said "They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." If we use Bush's criteria for "supporting the troops", ALEKSANDER Kwasniewski's comments go beyong anything that Kerry has said--they should be considered outrightly subversive.
Bush's remark about "our enemies" reveals an enormous conflation of the facts that reveals the roots of how he mismanages foreign policy and military affairs. HAD KERRY NOT MADE THIS OBSERVATION, BUSH MIGHT NEVER HAVE TALKED ABOUT OBL. If you look at the debate transcript, you will see that Bush never volunteered to talk about OBL. His only mentions were in reaction to direct questions from the moderator in in response to criticism from Kerry. This is no flub, by a deliberate blurring of facts in order to conform to an abstract and unfocused narrative.
With respect to preemptive action, Kerry was crystal clear: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Kerry recognize the history of this doctrine, and explained that it was a right that could not be exercised lightly. Does not responsibility come with every right?
N,
N,
To answer in reverse:
-Poland is on the ground in Iraq, and has been since day one. Isn't that support? If not, what is? Is it the numbers of soldiers commited that counts?
-I don't find it especially embarassing that Bush flubbed that remark. I know you don't really believe that Bush had to literally be "reminded" about OBL. He messes up all the time, nothing new last night. But would you give Kerry a pass for his "voted for it before I voted against it" line? It's not my SUV, it's my family's? I windsurf with carpenters and electricians? I ran the Boston Marathon? I have a Chinese assault rifle- no, I really don't? Both of these guys misspeak all the time- tell you the truth I don't even pay that much attention to it anymore. Bush has sounded mildly autistic since day one, and the longer Kerry's in the unblinking public eye the more he steps in poop too.
-I know what Kerry meant by his "global test", and you know what he meant. My point was that Bush could have made alot out of that among his base, and didn't touch it. And that's sloppy.
Kerry comes across as depending on foreign goodwill or indulgence to get things done- however much truth there may be to that, sheesh you don't broadcast it to the broader public. The sole source of international legitimacy is not Paris or Berlin. But Kerry allows the perception that he believes if France and Germany aren't on board, it's not worthwhile/legal/moral. That doesn't sound good to alot of the population. He should talk about doing things boldly, and taking the initiative like a true American or some such.
-Kerry did plug his book clumsily. Funny he didn't mention his other one.
-Yes, I was unaware of Cheney's shenanigans. But I'm not surprised. At that level of government, they're all snakes. C'mon- I know you didn't see a hugely oversized halo hovering over Kerry last night.
As for the specifics of that remark about international law and fighting terrorism, it was another example of Kerry sounding as if the US needs the permission of unspecified foreign powers to see to American security.
GL,
GL,
Perhaps you do not realize that at the time Kerry wrote about using international law to undermine terrorism, which you describe as "clumsily plugged, about the need for an international organization to fight crime", Cheney was advocating taking down anti-terror legislation in order to improve business opportunities in Iran and Libya.
With respect to the "Global Test", he explained quite clearly that he meant laying down moral and practical reasons for preemptive war--he was arguing for the clarity of purpose, something that Bush has yet to achieve.
Did someone embarrass himself? Kerry had to remind Bush that OBL attacked the US. Furthermore, Bush claimed the support of Poland, whose president recently said that he was deceived by Bush in going to war.