Friday, 1 October 2004

Spin

Well, I watched the debate tonight. Random thoughts after brief reflection follow.

To those of you who want to take my advice below on refusing to be “spun”—don’t click on the “Read More” link.

One thing to start off with: I wasn’t entirely sober this evening and was watching the debate in a room in which it’s safe to say I was the only person openly to the “right” of Paul Krugman. So don’t expect any deep or detailed analysis.

I think Kerry put on enough of a decent performance that—if I were an undecided voter whose main concern was “fixing” Iraq—would be sufficiently reassuring that if, on other issues Kerry was acceptable, the Iraq thing would no longer be a concern. I don’t think Kerry ever satisfactorily answered the “how do we get there from here?” question—in fact, I think that’s the one question that Lehrer didn’t ask that should have been asked. Of course, the “foreign leaders will help me” fantasy was still on full display—he said “I can get these people on board” but essentially required the audience to take it on faith that he could (any evidence of his past ability to do so was certainly absent). Kerry never articulated why bilateral talks with North Korea were good but multilateral talks with Iran* were preferable—a glaring inconsistency that needs to be resolved. Last, but not least, Kerry needs to shut the fuck up about Vietnam… even the liberals were rolling their eyes at that.

On the other hand, I think Bush’s performance was pretty abysmal. As James Joyner points out, except when he was talking about the woman whose son died in Iraq(?), the “charming, congenial side” of Bush never came out, and he never successfully nailed down Kerry on his evasiveness, even in the debate. Bush failed to make a coherent case for the “Bush doctrine”—the American mission in the world of ensuring the spread of liberty, representative government, and the rule of law. Bush let Kerry get away with blatantly misrepresenting both Iran and North Korea. And, frankly, I got the impression that Bush was completely unprepared to go beyond his talking points—I could have made a better defense of his policies, unbriefed. Bush gave an absolutely horrible performance, and one that I suspect may give Kerry the breathing room he needs to rebound. In sum, I don’t think Kerry so much won the debate as Bush lost it.

Finally, a procedural point: the podium thing was a disaster in split-screen. Someone in the Bush-Cheney campaign’s head should roll for that.

* I think Kerry misrepresented the Iran negotiation strategy completely, but that’s neither here nor there.

4 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

Chris,

I’m glad I’m not the only one who was disappointed. I can see why President Bush would get flustered and, given my disposition, I might have been worse (I anger easily).

Having said that, Bush simply let Kerry get away with too much. The North Korea thing irritated me the most because I know the most about that. The six-way talks are the way to go because all of the participants are stakeholders of one sort or another. We have no political influence with the Norks—unlike China, and to a lesser extent, Russia—and can offer only the threat of force or bribery. Nothing more. Doing anything that marginalizes China—like, for instance, bilateral talks—would be devastating.

Bush lost the debate because he failed to address Kerry’s charges directly. He also let Kerry get away with the Kyoto nonsense; Bush never laid a glove on him about that when Kerry voted for the resolution where the Senate said they would reject Kyoto.

The debate itself was one of the better ones of my memory as far as substance goes. Bush just doesn’t think well on his feet.

 

Yeah, the Kyoto comment bugged me too—here’s the evidence that Kerry voted against ratifying the treaty in its current form (and here’s the full information on the resolution).

 

Hey Chris, if the effect of alcohol (or is it something else, wink wink) on yer blogging is that you cussed in a post for the first time since I’ve started reading your blog (not that I’d google through your site just to see instances), I’d send you some more of what you’ve been imbibing.

All I do when drunk is blog nonsensical circumstances in SciFi shows like Stargate SG1 and Atlantis, or exploring the nuances of Food TV. Heck, I want what you’re drinking too. :)

 

Ah, I cuss somewhat frequently. Maybe I’m just on better behavior since I’m now teaching at a Methodist-affiliated college. (I don’t think I’ve cussed in class this semester so far… which is below par for me.)

As for the alcohol: my recollection is that “all” I had was a Sam Adams, a Hieniken, and a Corona. I really don’t drink that often, maybe once every fortnight or so.

 
Comments are now closed on this post.