It seemed to me that there were two separate debates going on tonight. What I heard was each candidate trying to appeal to their base, rather than the middle or undecided voter. These were not speeches addressed to all Americans. (Although Andrew Sullivan disagrees with me)
Bush was speaking primarily to Evangelicals and rural voters, while Kerry was going after urban voters and lower middle class workers.
This makes sense considering the make-up of the remaining states that are still in play. Neither one was too interested in being a uniter instead of a divider. I'm a registered Independent, so I was somewhat miffed at being ignored. (Although I'm used to it)
This was definitely Bush's best performance so far. But I thought Kerry was still very strong. Bush didn't make any funny faces this time around, so that is good. Kerry still came off as poised and professional, more elder statesmen-like. The President was doing his down-home plain country folk persona. And he actually appeared relaxed and didn't lose his temper this time around.
On substance, not much as usual. I think the President made a tactical error. When he said that he was negotiating to get some more flu vaccine from Canada, the first thing I thought was, well, then why would he do that if he thinks Canadian drugs are so dangerous that they shouldn't be imported to America at lower costs?
Now, the "gay" question was interesting. I did not expect that it would be brought up in the way that it was. There was not strict question on "gay marriage". I don't think either candidate was prepared for it.
The President said he didn't know if being gay was a choice or something you are born with.
Coming from an Evangelical Christian, that usually means no or even if it is I don't care. Kerry said that he thought it wasn't a choice. Both then prevaricated with the usual tolerance babble.
Bush changed the subject as quickly as possible to "Activist Judges". This ignores the entire question of what if a state actually voted by referendum for "gay marriage". And MA has a strong chance now of not passing an amendment to their Constitution. This would also express the will of the people that he complains is not being heard. It puts down his "Activist Judges" argument as the red herring it is.
And he sure has it in for Massachusetts. He's probably alienated the people of that state even more than he has gays and lesbians. You'd think by the way he refers to Massachusetts that it's Hell itself.
After the debate was over, several TV media pundits took Kerry to task for "outing" Dick Cheney's daughter as a lesbian or for bringing her up in the debate at all. The reactions were interesting to watch.
First of all, she was not "outed". Her orientation is a well known fact, and has been since the 2000 election. She also actively campaigns with her father. I couldn't help but think that there was some not-so-subtle anti-gay prejudice in the media commentary.
Acknowledging that someone is a lesbian is not the same as saying that someone's daughter is a sexual deviant predator. But you wouldn't know that by looking at their reactions, especially Fred Barnes. I couldn't help but think "oh, thats right, you think being gay is bad".
Kerry spoke about the subject in a matter-of-fact way. As if orientation was a neutral character aspect. (Which it is.) That will go over well with Kerry voters, but probably not with the President's constituency.
The President on the other hand was clearly uncomfortable with the question. I had the feeling that he didn't say what he wanted to say, which I suspect is that being gay is a sin. He pretty clearly has never spent enough time around openly gay people to become comfortable in their presence. Kerry clearly has.
On balance, I would give points to Kerry on issues. Bush made it clear that on economic policy his next four years would be the same as his last four years. This may not go over too well with those primarily concerned with jobs.
And Bush still doesn't get the the health care issue at all. When they are talking about the cost of health care going up 65%, they are talking about me. I make about 80,000 a year. If I'm having trouble keeping up with paying my health care costs, I can't imagine how bad it must be for someone who makes only 40,000 a year or less. And I don't even have a family to support. His idea of Health Care savings accounts is also not so great. I have one now, and it has been a real nightmare to get the proper documentation to submit for being reimbursed. My "sick" days are now more spent going around to Doctors and clinics trying to get the right paperwork than anything else.
On the other hand, when talking about God and Faith, Bush was very powerful and I think it will definitely get the Evangelical vote out. I also think there are more Evangelicals or other Christians who will vote on the President's faith alone than there are liberals, moderates etc. who would be more inclined to vote for Kerry. So in the final analysis, I would have to say that strategically, the President won the debate.
However, the winner will be the one who wins the actual Presidency, not the debate.
And it's especially dangerous this year to look at polls. The country is so polarized that it's caused much interest in this election. It may result in a vast influx of new voters. If this turns out to be the case, we won't know who these new voters are and how they tend to vote, until the actual election. So all bets would be off.
Item. LT. Smash is doing a post-debate round-up. Jeez! How does he write so fast and so clearly? I have to re-edit everything a thousand times before I publish it. And then I still have to correct it.
And Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost seems to think that Bob Schieffer of CBS news is a Presidential candidate. ;-) Or at least that Bob thinks so.
Boifromtroy is probably still out drinking. Or he is just drunk, since he spelled "Republican" as "Republcian". Of all people....tsk. Get a spell checker kiddo- it's even free.
Comments