Okay. . . so I was wrong!
I predicted that last night's debate between President George Bush and Senator John Kerry was going to be a dull, scripted, 90 minute campaign ad. I'm glad to be able to say that it was not. The debate far exceeded my expectations, and it was, to my way of thinking, one of the finest debates I've seen in my 30 years of political awareness. The two candidates focused on serious, substantive issues - the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism, homeland security, the spread of nuclear weapons in places like Iran and North Korea - and avoided the type of grandstanding and character attacks that so often typify political debates in this country. As a result, there were very few - if any - memorable sound bites for the press to blast across the media (sound bite politics being something the news media deplores on the one hand while gleefully engaging in on the other); instead, the two candidates stuck to the issues at hand, each one attempting to make the case for their own point of view. And I believe that - between the two men - Kerry did a better job of arguing for his point of view.
Not to put too fine a spin on it, though, I think John Kerry smoked George Bush last night, because he delivered his message far more succinctly than the president, and because he simply appeared far more "presidential" than the president.
During last night's debate, John Kerry out-shined President Bush, delivering his answers much more literately than Bush ever could. From the very start, Kerry put Bush on the defensive, accusing him of botching the war in Iraq as well as the greater war on terrorism. Kerry offered clear ideas and sensible plans for winning the war in Iraq and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, peppering his statements with hard facts that the president was unable to refute. The president's only response to Kerry's agenda - which includes the reintegration of the US as a proactive partner in the United Nations as its center piece - was his repeated assertion that Kerry's plan "just won't work." When John Kerry proposed an immediate summit (something this president has never done during his term) with other world leaders to engage their assistance in the Iraq War, Bush again responded that he knew those leaders and they wouldn't agree to that idea. John Kerry won the debate last night by putting forth rational ideas, repeatedly clarifying his position on the war, and keeping President Bush constantly on the offensive.
But John Kerry didn't succeed last night simply by bing a better debator; John Kerry shined because he just looked more presidential than the president. In his crisp suit and his dark red "power tie," Kerry stood tall and straight, presenting a calm, commanding appearance. Bush, on the other hand, with his muted blue tie, appeared tired - he slumped and leaned on the podium repeatedly. Throughout the night, Bush often looked frustrated and - at times - angry when Kerry spoke (the media openly violated the rules which stipulated that they were not to show the responses of one candidate while the other was speaking). While John Kerry delivered his lines calmly and clearly, George Bush often seemed at a complete loss, groping for words, frequently stuttering and muffing his lines. Kerry's charge that Bush allowed the real perpetrator of the 9-11 attack - Osama bin Laden - to slip away by diverting troops and money away from Afghanistan and into Iraq clearly frustrated the president, and Bush's responses often sounded petulant, even whiny. All in all, the president did come across very presidential last night, while Kerry showed that he has the bearing and demeanor to be a true world leader.
So, in spite of my original reservations, I thought last night's debate was both enlightening and substantial, and I'm looking forward to the next one. This debate focused on foreign policy, which is supposed to be President Bush's strong suit, and John Kerry easily out-performed the president. The next debate will focus on domestic issues, an area where Kerry has a definite edge. If John Kerry could out-shine George Bush in a foreign policy debate, he should be able to whip Bush's ass in a debate on domestic policy. At least that's what I'm hoping for, and I'll be tuning in to see if that happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment