[Previous entry: "Another Bob Roberts?"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Quick Debate Reax"]

09/30/2004 Archived Entry: "Ho hum"

Posted by steve @ 11:08 PM EST [Link]

LESS EXCITING THAN I HOPED: But better than I had expected since both John Kerry and George W. Bush actually debated the issues in a fairly intelligent way. They occasionally dodged questions but for the most part they actually discussed what they were asked.

Both cats seemed pretty well rehearsed coming in but every time Kerry spoke I had to struggle to figure out how he came to the conclusion he has a cohesive policy when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq. He stated he hasn't wavered in his beliefs but I just didn't buy it because I'm still not sure where he stands on several key issues. His position on North Korea, for example, seems to be all things for all people. I want both multilateral and bilateral talks! And by the way Mr. Kerry, the CIA believed North Korea possessed nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration.

Was it just me, or were those questions phrased in a way to question Bush (and I don't mean that in a nice way) and put him on the defensive?

So who won? I have to give it to Bush simply because it was John Kerry who had to come in and hit a homerun. He hit some jabs but he didn't land any big punches. Neither guy lost the debate but Bush won it by not losing. I'll say this: Bush is lucky he never ran against Clinton because he would have been demolished. He's fortunate that he's running against a guy that makes water look exciting.

Hugh Hewitt went all teacher on everyone and graded each candidate on the answers they provided. He grades Kerry a little too harshly in my opinion and he believes Bush won easily.

Replies: 1 Comment

You're right - Hewitt was a little too tough in his grading of Kerry, and a bit too lenient with the president.

Posted by W. James Antle III @ 10/01/2004 01:12 AM EST