[Previous entry: "Ho hum"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "first debate"]

09/30/2004 Archived Entry: "Quick Debate Reax"

Posted by antle @ 11:58 PM EST [Link]

QUICK DEBATE REAX: I agree with our fearless leader that the debate wasn't particularly exciting but was conducted fairly civilly and intelligently. I think it was a draw and here are a few things to take away:

Bush was often simplistic and repetitive, and at times seemed to be struggling for the correct words (more than a few times I felt the need to complete his sentences for him). Yet he did stake out a consistent, discernible position and send a clear message. Kerry, on the other hand, was more articulate and smooth but several of his positions - especially on Iraq - remain totally incoherent. If I understand Kerry correctly, if he becomes president he will skillfully go all out to win a war that is a diversion and a waste of time by bringing in allies other than the insignificant kinds of allies we already have. Or something. I think this Kerry conundrum is the inevitable result of the Democrats' failure to take the risk of running an unambiguously antiwar candidate. It's possible Howard Dean would have flamed out, but at least he could make a full-throated argument against the Iraq war that would have made some kind of sense.

Bush seemed less aware of the cameras when he wasn't speaking, causing him to occasionally be seen smirking or sighing, but he did not do anything comparable to Al Gore's bizzare first debate performance in 2000.

Kerry was nervous at the opening of the debate, while Bush was more confident. But Kerry seemed to relax and gather strength as the debate wore on while Bush started to get tired and cranky. Nevertheless the president made no major mistakes. Kerry didn't either - with the possible exception of his "global test" comment, which is already the source of contention among Democratic and GOP post-debate spinners - but he also didn't generate any winning soundbites either. Those are the kinds of comments that really transform a debate win from an academic point into an election-altering encounter.

Overall, Kerry supporters have reason to be pleased with their candidate's performance but he didn't do anything to alter the fundamentals of the race and I doubt this will erode Bush's lead. Bush turned in a credible performance, but did not put Kerry away as conclusively as one might have expected in a debate devoted to the topic where he polls the best. He missed opportunities to challenge Kerry and drive home the point that there was more to the whole $87 billion vote than his mangled procedural rationale - there is, after all, the vote itself. This has to raise concerns about how he will perform in the next two debates, which are on less favorable terrain for the president. But Bush at least did what he minimally needed to go and I suspect he came out of this debate with his lead intact.

Replies: 2 comments

I noticed Bush's long pauses as well. When it first happened I thought he was searching for the right words but when it kept happening I began to wonder if he drank some powerful cough syrup before the debate.

I would argue though that both were repetitive. Bush droned on and on about "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" while Kerry went on with the "diversion" thing.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 10/01/2004 01:12 AM EST

You're right, but sometimes Bush seemed to run out of material which made his repetition show more.

Posted by W. James Antle III @ 10/01/2004 12:44 PM EST