Politics 5 - Debate Analysis

First off, neither of the candidates said or did anything ridiculous or embarrassing, or any other related thing that would automatically knock one of them out of the race. Kerry is a better speaker than Bush. He talked a lot faster and seemed to have more things to say, while Bush talked slower, made frequent pauses, and seemed to run out of things to say at points. However, both managed to criticize each other a good deal. They also said key phrases that sound good by themselves, although with some context Kerry's excerpts fall flat.

Bush did a good job of pointing out Kerry's inconsistencies. He mentioned how Kerry looked at the same intelligence Bush did and voted for authorization of force, but now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time (Bush repeated thiat catch phrase almost to the point of annoyance). He discussed Kerry's plans to recruit allies, while at the same time Kerry's criticism of our allies. Bush also did a good job of reminding people why we went to war: The United Nations passed a resolution. Saddam Hussein did not comply. We had to give him a consequence for not complying, so we used force. Simple and logical. It had nothing to do with 9/11.

And therin lies Bush's mistake. He is still trying to make a link where there is none. I winced when he said, the enemy attacked us, thus the war in Iraq. Kerry was quick to pounce on it, too, discussing how we should focus on getting bin Laden instead of the "diversion" of Iraq. Did that give Kerry an edge? Not really.

Kerry firmly said that the war on Iraq was a mistake, that Saddam was a threat, there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with him, and Bush chose the wrong way. Now hold on just a minute. What is this "wrong way" that Bush chose? Using force to get rid of Saddam? Well, Kerry, in Congress you voted to authorize that. Now about this "right way" that Bush didn't choose, what is that? Diplomacy? The UN had already passed 16 resolutions that didn't work, and Saddam didn't comply to the 17th one either. So not only did Kerry choose the same "wrong way" that he accuses Bush of, but the "right way" had already been tried, unsuccessfully. So by calling Iraq and mistake and a diversion, Kerry is just using a bunch of words to make Bush look bad. If only the rest of the world would think that through.

Kerry's second mistake was his vagueness. For example, three times he said that at Bush's pace it would take him 13 years to track down Russia's nuclear stuff, but "I'll do it in four." Yet never once did Kerry even hint at mentioning how he would accomplish this thing. Does he have some sort of plan? Is he gonna go in there himself? Or maybe he's just picking a number like "4" because it sounds better than "13."

Third, Kerry still insisted on making contradictions. In his closing remarks, Kerry proudly said something like, I defended you in Vietnam, and I'll defend you now. Hold up again. When he came back from Vietnam, Kerry was calling that war a mistake and making all sorts of noise against it. And now he's saying he's proud of serving in it? As Bush said, "The only consistent thing about my opponent---is his inconsistency."

So how will this debate affect the polls? If the American people look on the surface, Kerry won the debate. He looked better and smarter, and he made many accusations against Bush in an effort to make himself appear more perfect. If people look deeper, they will see that Kerry's accusations actually point at the inconsistencies and incompetence of himself, and they will think Bush won the debate. However, if everyone did that, Kerry would have no supporters at all. I expect the polls to show Kerry gaining a little bit on Bush.

NEXT UP:
- Tuesday, October 5: Cleveland (A Vice-presedential debate between Cheney and Edwards)
- Friday, October 8: St. Louis (Bush vs. Kerry)
- Wednesday, October 13: Tempe, Arizona (Bush vs. Kerry)

I'll be analyzing those too, if I have time to watch them.

Edmond the Hun