Second Presidential Debate 2004: Kerry 2 - Bush 0 Oct 08 '04 (Updated Oct 12 '04)    Write an essay on this topic. Tweet The Bottom Line It may have been closer this time, but the victory goes to the same guy. Not sure if it changes anything though. With the news this week, George W. Bush sure must have thought about canceling this second debate, especially after the marginal performance of the president in the first debate. Now we know for sure that there were no WMDs anywhere in Iraq and the republican majority leader Delay sure didn't do his party a favor with the recent repeated issues he had with the ethics committee. (Ethics? What an irony!) BEFORE THE 'DEBATE' The election machine is running hot and both candidates are judged by not only their campaign but also by their ability to handle the unscripted event(s) as well as by their body language. The latter is one of the most reliable indications of a person's 'real' thoughts. The town hall format is supposed to benefit the president, but all prior analysis indicated that John Kerry may be the stronger debater no matter what setting. After the below average performance of the president in the first debate, today it was supposed to be different. Myths are part of almost everything that happens in public. Truth, myths and lies seem to be even more so a fixture in election debates. Campaigns sure do their part on the "truth and lies" front, but the American public adds the myths like "honorable politician" and "flawless personality". So here we are again, in search of the perfect candidate that doesn't lie, speaks his mind, is always right, could win a beauty contest and is both feared and respected in the world. Anybody interested in an educated president? So let's forget the news from this week and focus on the debate. Ohhh, "What news?" you're asking? Well ... 1. Release of official CIA report on (NO!) WMD 2. Less than expected job growth (95k instead of 150k) 3. Increased violence throughout the Middle East 4. Representative DeLay's system abuse (ethics) But that would lead us off subject. We're here to discuss the second presidential debate. (I guess I should call it "presentation", but I am not going to buy anything.) Anyway, one of the most burning topics of course was to come up in this debate as well: Iraq. Honestly, I keep hearing that Germany, Russia and France would never join us in Iraq anyway, but using Afghanistan as an example Germany sure has troops on the ground there to help. Right, because of one 'insignificant' difference: There was good evidence! But enough of that. THE 2ND 'DEBATE' A town hall filled with 'undecided' voters? Hmmm, that's where they're hiding. Frankly, I think there may be swing voters but at this point in time I have yet to meet anybody who honestly doesn't know -- beyond those who don't vote anyway. (Not to confuse with the standard "I don't know." to avoid confrontation.) Bush was supposed to feel more comfortable in this setup, and sure enough started more self-confident. This is the way Republican voters needed to see the president. He mostly kept it up, but sometimes seemed defensive and almost preachy -- a far cry from Dick Cheney's performance. Nevertheless, the Bush camp will be pleased with their candidate, as this is probably as good as he gets. However, addressing the people in the room by "that lady" is not what creates a connection to the audience. Expectations for Kerry were somewhat low and all he supposedly had to do was to keep the momentum. However, body language and factual argumentation indicated that the challenger sure was here to win and not just defend. In fact, one basic rule of debating seems to be known to Kerry only, and that's to address the person asking you a question by name. Both made strong cases for their ideas, but with fundamentally different arguments. While Bush kept to his strategy of using principles rather than facts, Kerry continued to use a wealth of statistics and facts to answer questions and of course attack the president. The latter sometimes seemed a little lost in his rebuttal attempts, with even one "faux pas" when the moderator really had to raise his voice to enforce the agreed upon format. The president's creativity one more time has been displayed by referring to "rumors on the internets" (no typo) and that "we need to be more facile" regarding the deployment of our troops. Now is it just my dictionary or does it have 'Freudian Slip' written all over it? [Merriam-Webster]: "facile - ... quick, often lacking in sincerity or depth..." ;-) THE TOPICS Beyond the typical twist, there were plenty new topics and while most of them were expected there was still plenty room to challenge both candidates. Iraq: Nothing really new here and both parties reaffirmed their positions. The only thing that confuses me here is that after the CIA report Bush still insists that Saddam intended to share WMD technology with terrorists. Now I may be wrong but wasn't there a 9/11 report that showed that Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda? So how would he distribute something he doesn't have to somebody he doesn't get along with? But I guess it's just me. Abortion: Kerry started with what I thought was a strong position on abortion, one that I share and has been practiced in my home country for a long time. It's obvious that there is more than black and white to this issue. So I may be biased but I do respect his position against abortion as a Christian while trying to se other side where these morals don't apply. Bush did as expected from him, of course he is against abortion which is fine with me, but I was missing statements how to deal with exceptions. Stem Cell Research: Similar to abortion this topic is of ethical nature and again I do support research especially since there is 'material' obviously available which otherwise would be scrapped or remains frozen. Anybody who wants to define that as life? As expected, Bush took general exception to destroying life for research and that's a honorable position. He just confused me with his claim to be the first president ever to fund stem cell research, and then when defending waffle charges by Kerry with "they were already there". So what is it, first ever or not? European dismay w/ America: As a foreigner my view may be warped but my wife is Texan and I am a resident for 10 years, so I am not completely in the dark either. Anyway, Bush insists that by making unpopular decision he drives progress for a greater good. Nevertheless, that's not the real issue. It's the attitude to tell our allies to either join or hit the road, while all they needed to join was reliable proof -- which was never delivered and today we know why. Bill Clinton was obviously not perfect, but he managed to drive goals while engaging allies. Currently, all we achieved is to set a precedence that preemptive strikes without justification are okay if you're strong enough. (Other countries are already picking up on that. Just think of Putin's attempt to change constitution to basically allow preemptive war without approval.) Taxes: A favorite topic for everybody and an easy way to please people. As the German "Kaiser" already knew when he implemented the "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" (Candy and Whip) politics -- just give a little to take more. Hence the last tax cuts may benefit mostly the top 2% but a few bucks more sure convince even those who don't even pay taxes. Nevertheless, Kerry is moving onto thin ice by offically pledging that he will not raise taxes for anybody below $200k income. (Make sure you keep this fact as one and don't omit the $200k.) However, with the current deficit and who knows what might happen in the next 4 years, this pledge sure has the potential to come back and haunt him. CONCLUSION While the candidates were more even this time than in the first debate, a more aggressive and sassy president doesn't convince me. I prefer facts and respect of international rules and human rights. Immediately after debate the spin machines started running hot again but I have to agree with the initial polls right after the debate. One more time the question "Who won the debate?" got answered with Kerry in the lead with 60% - 80%. In other words ... Kerry 2 - Bush 0 Nevertheless, that's the politcally interested audience only. The majority sure enough doesn't watch debates like that and will most likely vote because of habit, the moon or what they ate that day. My name is Thomas*, and I approve this message. *... not affiliated with any of the mentioned parties. PS: On a side note, Dick Cheney's confusion regarding an independent website by the real name FactCheck.ORG may have backfired since the company behind FactCheck.COM decided to redirect visitors to http://www.georgesoros.com/ due to overwhelming traffic. The significance? Well, judge for yourself from the headlines: "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values." [George Soros] & "Why we must not elect re-elect George W. Bush..." [George Soros] Here is what factcheck.org had to say about the second debate: [Excerpt]"Both candidates played loose with the facts at the second Presidential Debate in St. Louis Oct. 8. Bush claimed Kerry's health-care plan would lead to rationing and "ruin the quality of health care in America," a claim unsupported by neutral experts. Kerry claimed the Bush administration had forced the Army Chief of Staff to retire for pushing to send more troops to Iraq, but in fact he retired on schedule. We offer a sampler of the dubious and sometimes false statements made by each of the candidates..." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html HUMOR ... a slightly different spin: http://www2.warnerbros.com/madmagazine/files/onthestands/ots_446/jesus.html http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/goodtobeindc/frameset.html

Read all comments (15)|Write your own comment

Write an essay on this topic.