Saturday, October 09, 2004
Post-Debate Thoughts
While I didn't liveblog the second debate (I'm in sunny KnoxVegas at my parents' this weekend and access is hit and miss), I did watch the debate.
Scoring it as a stand alone debate purely on substance, I think it was a slight Bush win. However, political debates are more than just substance and style matters and this time the style points go to Bush too. He was clearly much more relaxed and much more forecful in his responses and challenges. Much more in command.
I also think Bush was helped by the questioners many of whom had a, let's say "different" worldview than the typical debate moderator. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard a debate question prefaced with an acknowledgement that many think abortion is murder or a stem cell question that actually addressed both adult stem cells and the ethical issues. Now there were a number of questions that were rough on Bush too, the "name three mistakes" question comes to mind (which Kerry classily chose to help Bush identify his mistakes as opposed to enumerating three of his own), but the key is, unlike the first debate, the vast preponderance of the questions did not immediately put Bush on the defensive.
Also I think Gibson deserves a little recognition for going after both candidates on the illogic of their deficit reduction pledges. Attaboy Charlie.
Because of the mix of questions, Charlie's tough questioning, and the generally good performance put in by both sides (though I am planning on noting some of the difficulties with Kerry's war position) I think this will be one of my all time favorite debates.
Plus for the rest of the campaign, I'll be saying, "Need some wood?"
|
Scoring it as a stand alone debate purely on substance, I think it was a slight Bush win. However, political debates are more than just substance and style matters and this time the style points go to Bush too. He was clearly much more relaxed and much more forecful in his responses and challenges. Much more in command.
I also think Bush was helped by the questioners many of whom had a, let's say "different" worldview than the typical debate moderator. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard a debate question prefaced with an acknowledgement that many think abortion is murder or a stem cell question that actually addressed both adult stem cells and the ethical issues. Now there were a number of questions that were rough on Bush too, the "name three mistakes" question comes to mind (which Kerry classily chose to help Bush identify his mistakes as opposed to enumerating three of his own), but the key is, unlike the first debate, the vast preponderance of the questions did not immediately put Bush on the defensive.
Also I think Gibson deserves a little recognition for going after both candidates on the illogic of their deficit reduction pledges. Attaboy Charlie.
Because of the mix of questions, Charlie's tough questioning, and the generally good performance put in by both sides (though I am planning on noting some of the difficulties with Kerry's war position) I think this will be one of my all time favorite debates.
Plus for the rest of the campaign, I'll be saying, "Need some wood?"
|
