Genii Weblog
Both Bush and Kerry start too shrill - Kerry wins by a bit
Fri 8 Oct 2004, 11:03 PM
Tweetby Ben Langhinrichs
I have to tell you the truth, political junkie that I am, I almost turned off the debate tonight. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry were way too shrill, way too argumentative and way too combative for the first forty five minutes.
It might have been a draw, but Bush managed on the last question to completely lose the debate. Asked to name three mistakes he has made out of the "thousands of decisions" he has had to make in the past four years, he couldn't come up with one. He tried to deflect it all, then tried to say he "stood on his record", then he tried to say "history will judge", and he finally made a weak and cowardly comment about having made some bad appointments but did not want to hurt people's feelings. He exposed the biggest single issue many people have with him, his total unwillingness, and possibly even inability, to admit that he ever has or ever could make a mistake. I think this one will blow up, especially as the last question. Who can't name three mistakes they have made in four years, much less a president who has presided over huge job losses, a war predicated on false justifications, a huge terrorist attack, etc. etc. etc. It is like being in a job interview when they ask what your greatest weakness is. Almost anybody can name something that will be both good and bad, but George Bush seems unable to even say the words, "I made a mistake". It is like he really believes he was appointed by God.
Again, I think Bush could have pulled it out, even though both were way off for the first half of the debate, but that question... and that non-answer. Sheesh!
Copyright © 2004 Genii Software Ltd.
What has been said:
220.1. David Bailey (10/09/2004 07:50 AM)
Unfortunately, Kerry missed the chance in his follow-up to name his own mistakes. Had he done that, he would have really clobbered Bush.
220.2. Ben Langhinrichs (10/09/2004 08:19 AM)
Absolutely! My wife and I were yelling at the TV for Kerry to list three mistakes, but he missed it. His answer wasn't bad, but it could have been better if he had done that.
220.3. Christopher Byrne (10/09/2004 09:17 PM)
I am not sure what was worse, Bush constantly attacj=king with the same old rhetoric or Kerry reapaeting "I Have a Plan" without spelling out even one detail. Does he not frealize that people do not want to go to his website and they want to hear it out of his mouth.
SNL did a great rip on both of them tonite. Especially on the $84 Timber Company profit bit.
From FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
"Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article."
220.4. Ben Langhinrichs (10/10/2004 07:01 PM)
Kerry's point on the $84 was not communicated as well as most of his points, but whether it was from forestry or oil and gas, it still means that with only $84 in "business income", he counts as a "small business" by the definition that gets 900,000 small business. Obviously, that is silliness, and it is even more silliness to think that most of those sorts of small businesses provide many jobs.
I do agree about Kerry's "I have a plan" platitudes. It is tough for any candidate to actually specify much in today's world of min-responses and sound bites, but Kerry could do with fewer pronouncements and more details. Of course, George Bush could do with any actually accurate details, but he seems alergic to them.
220.5. Tom Franks (10/11/2004 05:14 AM)
Ben,
I have to agree about the tone of the debates in general. Very little substance is being debated. Especially not much "I would..." content, and way too much "He would...".
Is it just me, or does Kerry [i]always[/i] sound angry?
220.6. Christopher Byrne (10/12/2004 08:14 AM)
Many years ago in another life, I interned with the Ohio Department of Development in the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The grants that cracked me up were the ones where they had to set a goal for target jobs created and then measure later. The bottom line is that jobs are a nebilous measurement at best. What do you count? Full Time? Part Time? Seasonal?
I was not defending Bush with my post above, I just think it was ridiculous that the discussion came down to that and he reacted like a child. And to point out that it is hard to get to the real facts when the fact checkers get it wrong.
I voted yesterday (absentee) and my daughter asked me who I voted for and my answer to her was "I Voted for You".
220.7. Ben Langhinrichs (10/12/2004 08:18 AM)
Well, I'm glad you came around to voting for Kerry in the end at least. <grin>
220.8. bonj (10/12/2004 08:48 AM)
I agree it would have been nice to hear an answer on the "three mistakes" question, but unfortunately I believe a lot, if not most politicians would probably have tried skating around that question. If you throw out that you made a mistake, it would be blown up, taken out of context, and be used against you by every political opponent you have in every way it could be.
It seems many politicians don't want the public to know that they, just like the rest of us, are human and fallible.
Hello, we know!
I think it would have been good if they would have followed what I have often been told is a good practice when being asked questions from an audience:
1. Re-state or paraphrase the question confirming with the person asking the question that your understanding of the question is correct. (This practie is also good with most audiences as the person in the audience asking the question usually does not have a microphone, thus the rest of the audience members probably did not heard the question. I don't think hearing the question was a problem with the debate as they did have microphones, but it would have been good to confirm the understanding of the question.)
2. Answer the question.
3. Clarify with the person asking the question, that you answered it to their satisfaction.
Of course, following this strategy would probably mean that the 90 minute time limit would have been used up trying to get through the first question.