Debate conclusion

Bush looked like a grownup tonight. This was a draw on performance.

On the factualness of their statements, however, Bush clearly lost. He misstated his Homeland Security spending, saying he tripled it when he didn’t quite double it. He never responded with specifics to key points Kerry made in several areas. One he never answers is about port security, which is exactly the way a nuclear bomb by terrorists would enter the country. Which is my major worry about terrorists.

Three big areas of difference: Bush completely misstated the Dred Scott decision and what it was about. Every Black American with a minimal knowledge of history will find offense in Bush’s claim that the judge interjected a personal opinion into it by treating blacks as property. The judge made it clear the decision was because blacks were Africans and had no rights.

The second was on the issue of stem cells and abortions. Bush defined himself the same way, selling himself to his base. Kerry took the opportunity provided to define his Catholicism, his opinions on a slew of family planning issues, why he voted against a couple of abortion modifiers (both were clearly flawed) in clear and certain terms. I think many more women will be shifting to Kerry because he demonstrated that those flawed bills didn’t protect women’s safety and women’s lives.

The third was provincial. Bush played to the audience and to the national audience. Kerry did, too, but he also had his facts in order over and over about Missouri. It showed he cared enough to do his homework about them, the people, which is more than a handshake and smile can do.

If judged on performance as showmanship, they both looked good and the debate was a tie. After fact checking and news quotes get read in Saturday papers, by Sunday or Monday the polls will clearly show that Kerry won.

5 Comments »

1. He doesn’t dare address port security. Our security there is essentially unchanged from the day he took office. (And to be fair, it needed a lot of work from Clinton, too - noise about port security has been getting the big yawn ever since the attack on the Cole made it clear how vulnerable an area this could be.)

   There are reasons to avoid dealing with it (if you’re the kind of person who fears ‘hard work’) - it’s a very complex and expensive thing to undertake. But I can’t agree with you more - it’s our number one security risk and the one that causes me nightmares. We don’t have an option to keep letting it go because it’s too hard.

   Comment by LyndaB — October 8, 2004 @ 8:49 pm

2. Kevin I have said it before and I will continue to say it. Our ports are our weak underbelly, its where all those cheap walmart imports arrive. We have been steadily building up a determined bunch of zealots that will stop at nothing to cripple us. And because there is no big money just a long hard slog in bring better security to the ports its off the table as far as the current administration is concerned. Just as they were asleep at the wheel when the planes hit the towers, their heads are in the sand where port security is concerned. Too bad his ranch is in the interior of texas.
   And the other guys main residence is in the mountains or when the chickens come to roost they would be some of the people paying the price.

   Comment by Larkinsjapn — October 8, 2004 @ 9:10 pm

3. “The Bush administration has proposed only $46 million for port security grants for 2005, a 63 percent decrease from this year.” - The Economics of War - The Dobbs Report

   Comment by Lorelei thelocalady — October 8, 2004 @ 9:15 pm

4. Unfortunately, the cable TV “fact-checkers” seem bound and determined to pretend that the factual errors are even on both sides.

   Comment by Observer — October 8, 2004 @ 9:30 pm

5. The headline writes itself:

   Timber Temper Tantrum

   Comment by N in Seattle — October 8, 2004 @ 11:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>