Three Mistakes?

Two down and one to go.

Amazingly, I find myself enjoying these debates. I sit there at attention awaiting each new question and each fruitless response. I'm positive that my excitement is only so great because my expectations for both the debate format and the Presidential candidates was initially so low.

Anyways, Round 2 again went to Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator John Kerry. His responses to each question were particularly candid, and he seemed more confident in each statement he made. He also, at times, seemed to boldly ridicule the President on a number of fronts, which gave him the look of a winner.

Despite Kerry's repeat strong showing, I must admit that the President also gave a quite convincing performance. If I actually believed the garbage that was coming out of his mouth, I might have declared him the victor. However, no matter how well the President presents any arguments in any of these debates, he has a very stinging handicap-a very poor Presidential record.

I'll expound on that point. Simply put, the President can't tell me the War in Iraq was necessary, well planned, and is going well when members in his own cabinet and own Political Party are saying things to the contrary (i.e. Donald Rumsfeld, Senator Lugar, Paul Bremer, et. al.), plus I watch the news. The President can't tout his record on Prescription Drugs when "United Statesians" have to pay up to 4 times as much for drugs that are made here in this country than our geographical neighbor to the north. Finally, the President can't spin this nations outlook on jobs when he will be the 1st President in 72 years to not create jobs on his watch. I'm not stupid, and I'm certainly not blinded by all of his political rhetoric. He has nothing positive to run on.

So, given this handicap, the President did an incredibly remarkable job. I've never witnessed somebody do so well defending absolutely nothing!

Minus the issue of substance, the presentations put forth by both candidates was a virtual draw. What really put Kerry over the top, in my opinion, was how he addressed each question. He made it a point to note who asked the question, and to address them by name in his responses. He was even able to remember names of people who had asked previous questions. Furthermore, he didn't just reel off a response, he took into consideration the impetus behind each question, and then answered it accordingly. For instance, when Stem Cells and Abortion questions came up, he addressed the questions by noting that he understood the "humanity" and "morality" from whence such questions come. This made me to know that Kerry might actually critically consider the other side of the coin before making a major decision-something we have ZERO record of President Bush doing.

And then came the killer question to President Bush, "what are 3 mistakes that you have made as President." Keeping in line with his current policy of not assessing actions, identifying mistakes, and rectifying them, President Bush had no good response. He couldn't come up with 3 mistakes he'd made as President even though, as I mentioned before, many of his Cabinet members have pointed some out. In response, Kerry missed a key opportunity to point out the President's greatest flaw; his inability to admit any mistakes, no matter how obvious. He could have said something like, "There is the problem. When given the opportunity to admit he was wrong about anything, he can't do it!" In any case, I don't think this was a plus for Bush considering that he has multitudinous problems both domestically and internationally.

Finally, I'd like to give props to Charles Gibson, the moderator, for keeping the questions focused and direct. I am particularly glad that he did something that is virtually a lost art in journalism today: He asked the follow-up question. In other words, when a candidate gives an empty response, or a response that doesn't answer the question directly, he restated or redirected the question in order to get the kind of response (a direct answer) that the question warranted. At one point, he asked both candidates the same question twice because both danced around a direct answer in their initial responses. Kudos Chuck!

So now to the 3rd and final debate. I honestly don't think that the candidates have the capacity to get any deeper with any of the issues, but hopefully I'm wrong and something will be miraculously made light of tonight. I also hope that Bob Schieffer, tonight's moderator, will be as focused and candid as both Jim Lehrer and Charles Gibson were in the first two debates.

May the best loser win!

-Maelstrom