Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate reaction
Most people seem to have score the debate a win for Kerry. I couldn't tell because I've never found Bush persuasive in any presentation, and the question of when other people will recognize him as a conniving, lying idiot who wormed his way to power is a difficult one.
Kerry was better than I expected. He was clear and direct in explaining his positions. He could have gone for the kill more often, but he at least came across as competent and concerned for the fate of our troops, country, and Iraq, things Bush will never be.
Bush relied heavily on two or three themes---Kerry is inconsistent, only consistent and aggressive foreign policy will work---but when Kerry countered them effectively, Bush appeared frustrated and out of ammo.
Kerry's criticisms were mostly on the mark; I wish he'd gone farther in criticizing Bush prosecution of the war in Iraq.
Bush's insistence about being consistent makes little sense to me. What advantage is there to being consistently wrong? What benefit is consistency without credibility?No one trusts us anymore, after our trumped up justification of war, and our botching of reconstruction. Isn't it time to get things right, and win back trust?
Is "consistency" the best we can do for our troops in Iraq? Bush has consistently showed little concern for their well-being. This is a good thing?
I'm amazed these points get taken seriously. But the Bush campaign's reliance on them shows how empty their quiver really is. Remember: "Stay the course" didn't work for Bush I. And the course Bush II has plotted is much worse.
As for specifics, I'll let the web do the writing for me.
Bush howlers:
Tax cuts matter much more than securing the country against nuclear terrorism
A long list of lies, exaggerations, and deceptions.
That Polish president? He feels betrayed by Bush's lies.
At least people are starting to figure out that the emperor is a strategically shaved chimp:
(Poll results collected by Brad DeLong)
Who won the debate? (Kerry-Bush)
CNN: 78-18
MSNBC: 70-30
ABC: 45-36
CBS: 43-28
Gallup: 53-37
Kerry was better than I expected. He was clear and direct in explaining his positions. He could have gone for the kill more often, but he at least came across as competent and concerned for the fate of our troops, country, and Iraq, things Bush will never be.
Bush relied heavily on two or three themes---Kerry is inconsistent, only consistent and aggressive foreign policy will work---but when Kerry countered them effectively, Bush appeared frustrated and out of ammo.
Kerry's criticisms were mostly on the mark; I wish he'd gone farther in criticizing Bush prosecution of the war in Iraq.
Bush's insistence about being consistent makes little sense to me. What advantage is there to being consistently wrong? What benefit is consistency without credibility?No one trusts us anymore, after our trumped up justification of war, and our botching of reconstruction. Isn't it time to get things right, and win back trust?
Is "consistency" the best we can do for our troops in Iraq? Bush has consistently showed little concern for their well-being. This is a good thing?
I'm amazed these points get taken seriously. But the Bush campaign's reliance on them shows how empty their quiver really is. Remember: "Stay the course" didn't work for Bush I. And the course Bush II has plotted is much worse.
As for specifics, I'll let the web do the writing for me.
Bush howlers:
Tax cuts matter much more than securing the country against nuclear terrorism
A long list of lies, exaggerations, and deceptions.
That Polish president? He feels betrayed by Bush's lies.
At least people are starting to figure out that the emperor is a strategically shaved chimp:
(Poll results collected by Brad DeLong)
Who won the debate? (Kerry-Bush)
CNN: 78-18
MSNBC: 70-30
ABC: 45-36
CBS: 43-28
Gallup: 53-37
