Yeah, but what about Poland?!!
I've been out in Colorado the last few days, unable to post. But luckily I did get the chance to watch a tape of the debate Thursday night.
So, it's official, David Brooks is essentially conceding it, the polls clearly show it - Kerry thoroughly beat Bush. And Bush may have a debater-acting-badly problem because he spent so much effort in making painful faces while Kerry was speaking. (This may be where the six-year-olds and the ball head, though I haven't had much time to watch TV to find out)
Truth is, I didn't notice Bush's faces so much (maybe I just wasn't surprised). But paying more attention to his words, my major question after the debate for Bush is, when the hell did Poland become a top-flight ally? I couldn't believe during the debate that he spent more time talking about Poland's support and Lybia's "disarmament" (which was no great feat) than he did talking about North Korea and Iran.
My overriding impression of the debate was that while Bush is certain, his certainty seems less secure than Kerry's "uncertainty". Bush believes he's right, but it's pretty clear he doesn't know why he's right. Kerry on the other hand, knows the facts on the ground, and while his answers are more nuanced, he knows why they need to be. Hopefully enough voters disagree with Brooks "he sounds like me, and I'm a dope, so it's okay he's a dope too" theory on electoral decision making and will realize that we have a choice - between a candidate who knows we made a mistake and wants to try to fix it, and one who won't admit we made a mistake and thus can't begin to fix it.
Overall, I thought Kerry's performance was solid, and became excellent, especially in comparison to Bush, as the night moved on. Kerry needs though to emphasize more that Bush just doesn't react well to reality.
Finally, the Bush campaign made a mistake holding an all-foreign policy debate. Foreign Policy is Bush's strong point, but it is because he gets to fly to aircraft carriers and made platitudes about sacrifice and character, not because he can defend his positions. During the beginning of his favorability decline, Bush went on Meet the Press and talked mostly about foreign policy and his ratings dropped, because he said mostly the same thing for an hour. Apparently the campaign thought Kerry would look worse than Bush, but why? Kerry has been in the Senate for over a decade, on several committees related to foreign relations and national security. Instead of an all-encompassing debate, where Bush would only have to repeat himself for several questions on foreign policy and other issues might become grist for the media mill, Bush had to stand toe-to-toe with a war veteran, son of a diplomat who has voted on every major foreign policy issue of the lat 20 years. I know they put everything into Kerry's being a flip-flopper, but they should have also realized that to the extent he flops, it's because he's constantly learning about the subjects he votes on.
Well, I've got a hike, so this is all you get for now.
So, it's official, David Brooks is essentially conceding it, the polls clearly show it - Kerry thoroughly beat Bush. And Bush may have a debater-acting-badly problem because he spent so much effort in making painful faces while Kerry was speaking. (This may be where the six-year-olds and the ball head, though I haven't had much time to watch TV to find out)
Truth is, I didn't notice Bush's faces so much (maybe I just wasn't surprised). But paying more attention to his words, my major question after the debate for Bush is, when the hell did Poland become a top-flight ally? I couldn't believe during the debate that he spent more time talking about Poland's support and Lybia's "disarmament" (which was no great feat) than he did talking about North Korea and Iran.
My overriding impression of the debate was that while Bush is certain, his certainty seems less secure than Kerry's "uncertainty". Bush believes he's right, but it's pretty clear he doesn't know why he's right. Kerry on the other hand, knows the facts on the ground, and while his answers are more nuanced, he knows why they need to be. Hopefully enough voters disagree with Brooks "he sounds like me, and I'm a dope, so it's okay he's a dope too" theory on electoral decision making and will realize that we have a choice - between a candidate who knows we made a mistake and wants to try to fix it, and one who won't admit we made a mistake and thus can't begin to fix it.
Overall, I thought Kerry's performance was solid, and became excellent, especially in comparison to Bush, as the night moved on. Kerry needs though to emphasize more that Bush just doesn't react well to reality.
Finally, the Bush campaign made a mistake holding an all-foreign policy debate. Foreign Policy is Bush's strong point, but it is because he gets to fly to aircraft carriers and made platitudes about sacrifice and character, not because he can defend his positions. During the beginning of his favorability decline, Bush went on Meet the Press and talked mostly about foreign policy and his ratings dropped, because he said mostly the same thing for an hour. Apparently the campaign thought Kerry would look worse than Bush, but why? Kerry has been in the Senate for over a decade, on several committees related to foreign relations and national security. Instead of an all-encompassing debate, where Bush would only have to repeat himself for several questions on foreign policy and other issues might become grist for the media mill, Bush had to stand toe-to-toe with a war veteran, son of a diplomat who has voted on every major foreign policy issue of the lat 20 years. I know they put everything into Kerry's being a flip-flopper, but they should have also realized that to the extent he flops, it's because he's constantly learning about the subjects he votes on.
Well, I've got a hike, so this is all you get for now.
posted by SebbyMan at 6:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home