October 8, 2004

DEBATE THOUGHTS--PLEASE ADD YOURS:

Transcript of the Second Presidential Debate (October 8, 2004)

* The President has begun to but needs to just hammer away at the Senator's lack of any accomplishments in a twenty year Senate carrer.

* "Red Sox fan"? Holy non sequitir, Batman! Why does the Senator still try to use sports metaphors?

* "I was in Kyoto!" Did the Senator just suggest he was responsible for a treaty he voted against?

* How'd the GOP plant that stem cell question?

* Dred Scott?

* Senator Kerry's abortion answer is just painful. He can't legislate his faith but has to represent the views of everyone? How can he vote for any law that doesn't have unanimous support?

* On stem cells and abortion you can really see why values issues just kill the Democrats.

* And the final question provides crystal clarity: President Bush says the war was the right thing to do, as demonstrated by the Duelfer Report. Senator Kerry says it was a mistake unless the UN approved it.


* The last half hour was simply spectacular for the President, but no one can possibly still be watching.

* Fascinating how in their closing statements the Senator just kept saying "I have a plan" while the President was able to reel off specific actions.

* Overall it would be hard to say that either won but the President did something he very much needed to do, used his own performance to set up the week that will follow. The attacks on Kerry's Senate record, especially his liberalism and lack of accomplishment, will flow into their tv ads and the President's stump speech in much the way that the rejiggered stump speech he gave this week led into the debate themes.

* In the third debate, on domestic issues, the moderator could truly destroy Senator Kerry by focussing on social issues, where his "nuance" matters much more and strikes a far more jarring note than in other areas.

MORE:
Bush defends Iraq war in second debate (NEDRA PICKLER, 10/08/04, Associated Press)

In a debate rematch, President Bush defended his invasion of Iraq and said "I wasn't happy when we found there weren't weapons" that prompted his administration to go to war against Saddam Hussein. Democratic challenger John Kerry responded that Bush had made the world more dangerous "because the president didn't make the right judgments."

The commander in chief insisted that Saddam posed a unique threat and the world was safer without him in power. But Kerry answered that Bush's handling of the war had left Iraq in chaos.

Twenty-five days before the election, Bush and Kerry confronted each other aggressively in a town-hall session before an audience of 140 likely voters. Perched on stools, the candidates were quizzed in the gymnasium at Washington University in St. Louis.

Unlike last week's first debate, which focused on national security issues, Friday's faceoff was open to all subjects.

Criticizing the president's decision to invade Iraq, Kerry said, "If we'd use smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq and right now Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war on terror."


Diplomacy? Did the Senator not read the Duelfer Report?

-Bush, Kerry go toe-to-toe in feisty debate: Aggressive president follows Cheney’s lead in second confrontation (NBC, MSNBC and news services, Oct. 8, 2004)

Pushing ahead with his new, tougher campaign rhetoric, President Bush lit into Sen. John Kerry during the second presidential debate Friday night, saying he could understand why people thought the Democratic challenger “changes positions a lot, because he does.” Kerry answered Bush’s attacks calmly but sternly, accusing Bush of “choosing a tax cut over homeland security” and “going it alone in Iraq.”

Unlike during the first debate, when the candidates were stationed almost motionless behind lecterns, Bush and Kerry were free to walk around Friday night. Bush, clearly energized by the opportunity to interact with the audience, delivered most of his consistently cutting remarks while pacing the edge of the stage as Kerry sat quietly behind him.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 8, 2004 11:37 PM
Comments

So far, the President is looking a lot better than he did last time.

Posted by: Vince at October 8, 2004 9:16 PM

GW, relax, be cool like your VP. Why are you so insecure, this is a slam dunk. I just get the feeling he either has horrible debate advisors or he didn't prepare for this debate, just like the last one, because he could have a convincing strong response to all questions that come at him.

Posted by: neil at October 8, 2004 9:26 PM

John Kerry just mentioned my girlfriend's grandpa, General Baca, when ranting about the military leaders who support him.

Posted by: Hunter Ratliff at October 8, 2004 9:34 PM

The Red Sox reference was so weird I can't figure out if its even a non sequitur.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 8, 2004 10:08 PM

Fred:

Me neither. My guess is that he meant it's okay to live in a "fantasy world" as a baseball fan - baseball isn't as important as, say, being the president.

Who knows.

Posted by: Hunter Ratliff at October 8, 2004 10:11 PM

I'm reading the transcipt on Fox at work...Did Bush appear rude when he walked all over Charlie?

Posted by: Tom at October 8, 2004 10:12 PM

Bush parked the stem cell answer in the bleachers.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 8, 2004 10:18 PM

When Bush had the chance to respond to the Iran/North Korea question he should have said "Who do you think Iran and North Korea are more afraid of, him or me?".

Posted by: carter at October 8, 2004 10:24 PM

oj:

Dred Scott was probably decided correctly under the 1850's, pre-14th Amendment Constitution. But Bush's reference to it was politically smart. Pro-abortion must not be polling too well in the Democratic internals. I can't believe that Kerry didn't mention Roe in response to the Supreme Court appointment question. That's gotta be a first for a Democrat.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 8, 2004 10:25 PM

Kerry is getting buried tonight. I can not believe the questions tonight have been balanced.

Posted by: BJW at October 8, 2004 10:26 PM

I was watching! My wife is asleep though.

Posted by: mc at October 8, 2004 10:39 PM

Speaking of non sequiters--what was with the bizzare "timber company" reference? Bush handled it masterfully--his best non-substantive moment of the debate.

Posted by: Timothy at October 8, 2004 10:42 PM

Didn't Bush "mistakenly" refer to Kerry as "Kennedy" when he was tagging him as a liberal?

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at October 8, 2004 10:46 PM

David:

I missed that but Cheney's made it an art.

Posted by: oj at October 8, 2004 10:51 PM

How about Kerry's line about a father raping his daughter? An unpleasant and desperate reach.

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at October 8, 2004 10:54 PM

The questions were great, and I did not have high hopes for this town hall event. Thank you especially to the woman that made Kerry look into the camera and talk about taxes.

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at October 8, 2004 11:02 PM

I don't know if Kerry wanted any wood or not, but I do know that the President decisively put the wood to him.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at October 8, 2004 11:02 PM

The Red Sox reference was meant to shore up his support in Wisconsin.

After all, the Sox will soon be playing in Lambert Field, now that they have beaten the California Angles.

Posted by: Oswald Booth Czolgosz at October 8, 2004 11:13 PM

Also, can we now start calling Kerry the "Baldrick Candidate"? His every answer seemed to include the line "I have a cunning plan."

Posted by: H.D. Miller at October 8, 2004 11:15 PM

H.D.: You are officially the man.

Posted by: Chris at October 9, 2004 12:00 AM

Fred Jacobsen: You're right, of course.

The Dred Scott reference was unfortunate, AND not quite accurate (a true strict constructionist of the constitution uninformed by natural right and/or the Declaration should defend that decision). But that's a nuanced point that is well above the heads of most people watching.

However, the notion that the Prez can talk intelligently about the decision is debatable, and Orrin was right to toss in the question mark after the reference. Whoever prepped the Prez with that answer should be scolded.

Posted by: kevin whited at October 9, 2004 12:20 AM

The perfect answer to Kerry's parental notification of the father raping the 16 year old is "Sure we'll notify him. We'll notify him as we're reading him his rights."

I thought Bush did well. He looked and sounded energetic and had good answers. I didn't mind how aggressive he got with Gibson. But then, I can't stand Gibson. Kerry looked tired and wan.

I'm glad Bush has taken the tactic to attack Kerry's senate record. About time! Though Hume on Fox says that Kerry voted against the first Gulf War when we had the participation of more countries and the UN's blessing. Please, Mr. Bush, beat him like a pinata with this!

I thought Kerry was stupid to complain about the troops not having enough or the right equipment. Bush was able to clobber him on voting against the 87 billion for the troops and bring up the whole "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote.

I was surprised right to life issues got more time than enviroment. Bush sounded good on these. Sorry, Kerry, but just because Michael J. Fox is sick just doesn't cut it(though I'm sorry he is ill and suffering). I thought Fox made a cute Republican when I was a teen, but I can't justify destroying innocent life to save his life.

I doubt anyone in the audience (there or watching tv) have ever had their rights affected by the Patriot Act. It seemed dumb for Kerry to claim that there were ongoing egregious abuses, that who complained about? The postmaster general? Did he really say that or was I dreaming? I was doing diaper duty, so I could have been dreaming.

Bush knows how to work the crowds.

ABC focused on Kerry's weird Red Sox joke that no one laughed at as an example of Kerry's great wit.

I, too, think H.D. Miller got off the best comment so far.

All in all, a winner for Bush, but I'm a partisan, so what do I know?

Posted by: Buttercup at October 9, 2004 12:23 AM

Bush on points, definitely. No KO moment IMO but he had Kerry staggering by the end...possibly literally, did anyone notice the stiff-legged way the Senator was (literally) lurching around the stage whenever he was on deck? People will be citing "anyone need some wood?" for the rest of the campaign, and Kerry's twists and turns on stem-cell research and abortion are going to hurt him badly with Catholics, etc. especially given that bishops are beginning to issue instructions to their flocks.

Posted by: Joe at October 9, 2004 12:23 AM

Kerry looked like the walking undead tonight.

Where are this guy's medical records for crissakes.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 9, 2004 1:37 AM

Both guys definitely brought their "A" games.

Tom, no, Bush wasn't particularly rude, although he did seem a little overanxious to rebut. In fact, Bush did that several times, whereas Kerry always stopped to listen to Gibson, which by the end of the night struck me as being a touch passive.

I have no idea how a truly undecided person would choose between these two men, based on that solid and substantial debate.

Kerry's explanation of why he voted against the Iraqi supplement and partial birth abortion measure was thoughtful, wise, and not well suited to national politics. Kerry is right, the issues aren't as simple as Bush is making them out to be, but candidates have to find a simple way to convey their positions on complex issues, and Kerry & Co. have so far failed to do so.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 9, 2004 1:39 AM

A clear win for Bush. Michael is right that some of the issues aren't simple, but the people who are undecided at this point will be affected most by a straight-forward, short, and reasonable sounding argument -- which Bush delivered and Kerry did not. I'm really tired of "I have a (apparently secret) plan."

Posted by: jd watson at October 9, 2004 2:10 AM

Well Orrin, since you asked :-)

1) I scored this a very strong performance by GWB and an adequate performance (no better) by JFK. My wife, more perceptive than I on non-verbal cues, thought it was a draw. I suspect GWB's performance tonight is enough to stop the small slide in the polls, but not enough to get that 6 point lead back.

2) GWB did walk on Charlie a couple times but it didn't appear to be rude so much as a little impatient to get out of the gate and get at JFK.

3) Excellent questions for the most part, the kinds of questions middle America has (and should have). Charlie Gibson has been the best of the three moderators, I think precisely because he didn't have to write the questions himself.

4) GWB still comes across as defensive and rushed in explaining his Iraq decisions. I wish he'd settle a little more and do a little more background (perhaps in his stump speech tomorrow?). But he got his points across much better tonight than last time. Pound home the Duelfer report, George! And preface it with, "Now, you might not have heard this part of the report on the evening news, but ..." Make the MSM cover the report better, it only helps GWB.

5) Face it, JFK is smooth, just as a trial lawyer and senator should be. A policy wonk, particularly a conservative one, can pick him apart, but the average American is going to be impressed. I wonder why Karl Rove and Co. haven't been finding ways to get the words 'glib' and 'facile' tagged onto this man.

6) GWB did much better in the 30 second retorts than JFK did. I think he does better when he has something to feed off of, whether it's a response or eye contact with the audience. He's a people person; JFK seems like he'd be comforable talking at considerable length with himself.

Posted by: Steve White at October 9, 2004 2:16 AM

Kevin Whited:

Most 2004 voters neither know nor care to know the jurisprudential and constitutional basis of Dred Scott. But minority voters care, and thus likely to be comforted by Bush's pledge not to nominate 'Dred Scott' justices to the Supreme Court. This is why I thought the President's answer was politically smart. After all, is the Kerry campaign going to argue that Bush is wrong, and that Dred Scott was correctly decided?

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 9, 2004 2:45 AM

Professor Miller and jd watson:

The second time (and thereafter) I heard Kerry refer to his plan for this-or-that, I kept thinking of Kevin Bacon in 'Tremors': "I got me a plan!"

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 9, 2004 2:53 AM

I totally agree with jd watson--it is tiresome to hear, "I have a plan" without any particulars. What struck me, however, was the humor. Bush connected. People laughed with him (and in a way at Kerry). Kerry's attempt at humor failed. Humor breads 'likeability' and that translates into votes.

Posted by: sd watson at October 9, 2004 8:46 AM
  • I didn't watch the whole thing, but I gave Bush a narrow win on the foreign policy half. Kerry wasn't quite as good as last time, and Bush was much better. If Bush was as good in the last half hour as oj says, then he won.

  • The initial polls are interesting. Very close, yet very few called it a tie. ABC had it 44-41 and Gallup 47-45, both slightly for Kerry, but statistically tied.
  • The best indication that Bush won is that Andrew Sullivan called it a draw.
  • The best live-blogging line of the night was from Jim Geraghty on "I have a plan ...": "Everyone who had that line in the Debate Drinking Game is now being treated for alcohol poisoning."
Posted by: Tom L at October 9, 2004 8:53 AM

While the Dread Scott reference did come across as a bit of a tortured effort by Bush to releate it to the point at hand, Kerry got him off the hook to close out the debate by his even more tortured effort to avoid the abortion funding question by taking Mario Cuomo's boilerplate "While I'm personally opposed to abortion..." answer and stretching it out into a 90 second-plus 30 mess.

(And just as a side note -- If Minnesota comes back to beat the Yankees in their series, what does lifelong and steadfast Red Sox Nation supporter John Kerry do during the ALCS -- show his support of the Sox against an underdog team in a swing state, or drop the whole subject like a hot potato?)

Posted by: John at October 9, 2004 9:40 AM

John Kerry bravely and courageously looked staight into the camera and pledged to the american people a big fat nothing and stammered hard while doing it. I think his knees buckled a bit as well when he realized he just stepped into a pile of "read my lips, no new..."

The President was showing a bit to much cowboy, probably a result of being in Missoura, but I have no doubt this debate will stop any slide and maybe gain him 2 0r 3 back. It makes the next debate relatively unimportant as both candidates will play it safe.

October surprise is now only hope for Kerry
-Perry

Posted by: Perry at October 9, 2004 10:29 AM

Perry:

Most Missourians -hate- "Missoura"... At least that's my experience from being a Missourian for 18 years.

Although I've noticed people in the news often saying "Mish-surry," which is infinitely worse.

But yeah, this is off-topic.

Posted by: Hunter Ratliff at October 9, 2004 10:46 AM

Yes Hunter, I'm sure you are correct, but doubt Pres could help it - Perry

Posted by: Perry at October 9, 2004 11:01 AM

Mr. Ratliff: The president has pretty well inoculated himself against verbal gaffes of this sort due to the unrelenting criticism of how he pronounces just about everything. By now, his "Bushisms" have become endearing, expected and basically a joke (but a joke we laugh with him, not at him).

Posted by: Buttercup at October 9, 2004 11:21 AM

It wasn't a great performance by Bush, but it was much, much better than the showing at the first debate, which IMO was little short of disastrous. And Kerry is clearly less comfortable in this format. I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise, but I rather expected him to do better because the Democrats made such a point of having a Town Hall-style debate in the first place.

Posted by: Josh Silverman at October 9, 2004 2:07 PM
« THE HUMAN VS. THE CIGAR STORE INDIAN: | Main | AL QAEDA'S WINNING?: »