The 1st Presidential Debate turned out to be mildly informative after all. President Bush was as belligerent as usual, and Senator Kerry actually sounded like he wanted to win the election. From a media standpoint, I really enjoyed the coverage. Jim Lehrer did a remarkable job as moderator, and I loved how the news stations all violated rules from the 30 page debate agreement.
I guess I'll start by declaring a winner, because I hate when critics, news personnel, and campaign members either don't choose a winner or choose their candidate even when their candidate clearly lost.
John Kerry won round one. His comments were pointed and staccato. He pointed out serious flaws in Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq, he separated the War on Terror from the War in Iraq, he attempted to clear up his votes on Iraq, and he began to assuage the notion that he is a flip-flopper. He did, however, leave room for future Republican attacks by making a couple open ended and ambiguous statements. The most notable mis-step was when he mentioned a "global test." Bush keenly jumped on that comment, and I'm sure Kerry will be hearing about it until November 2nd.
As for Bush, he really didn't say anything different than he's been saying the whole campaign season. With Kerry being far less than amazing on the campaign trail, Bush has been able to get away with making the same comments throughout his quest for re-election. Thursday, as John Kerry pointed out, we heard "more of the same" from Bush.
The President recited his ubiquitous sound bites; you know, the ones about the 87 Billion dollars, inconsistency (changing positions)-and his number one hit-"mixed messages." I think that the American public finally realized that Bush is little more than a broken record at this point. If Kerry had a brain, this fact could have been exposed months ago. All Kerry had to do was take the time to actually say something worth listening to.
I also think Kerry did a good thing by pointing out that Bush hasn't exactly been consistent throughout his administration either. For instance, Kerry mentioned that Bush was at first against the development of the Department of Homeland Security, and then for it. He was against the creation of an Intelligence Czar (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission), then he was for it. And maybe the biggest Bush inconsistency was made clear when Kerry said that 35 to 40 other nations had a greater capability of creating Nuclear weapons than Iraq when we invaded Iraq.
Bush's confidence (and arrogance if you ask me) was as prevalent as ever. The very first question that he was asked was, "would electing Kerry mean we'd be attacked again?" Bush's response was, "I don't believe it'll happen (Kerry being elected)." I'll call that confidence. But some of his other comments were either arrogant, ignorant, or both. At one point Bush said that "I know how these people think (World Leaders)." And another time he said, "I just know how the world works." Both very arrogant and ignorant comments.
And as usual, some of Bush's comments were just dumb. To cite one example,
When asked "what were the miscalculations before the war," Bush responded, "we
had such a rapid victory."
I thought that references to protecting Israel were random and irrelevant by both men. I also think that it is interesting that they are so bent on protecting Israel. Why? I've got my thoughts on that, but I'll have to address them at another time.
In these debates, the candidates often get away with making statements that either taint the realities, or just are flat out false. For instance, Kerry mentioned $200 Billion dollars that has been put forth toward the Iraq war when only about $120 Billion has been disbursed. Bush said that over 100,000 Iraqis had been trained in order to keep the peace when Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi clearly stated, just a few days before the debate, that 50,000 had been trained. The message: Make sure you do a fact check after watching these debates.
Finally, I thought it was great that none of the news stations adhered to some of the provisions outlined in the debate agreement. Split screen views were given of both candidates while one spoke. There were also shots taken of the candidates from a rear angle. And, I enjoyed the fact that Lehrer allowed for a one minute discretionary time. All of these things opened the door for a more legitimate debate.
Even though neither candidate seemed to have a plan for Iraq, or the War on Terror (which is a point that is more of a blow to Kerry than to Bush), I found the debate to be way more enjoyable than the proposed format led me to expect.
-Maelstrom
No comments:
Post a Comment