BUSH WINS DEBATE #2

My immediate reaction to the debate was that both of them did a good job and the debate was probably a draw. A good debate. Good questions. You got an idea of the differing political philosophies. Despite Andrew Sullivan's whining that small-government conservatism is dead, I think Bush talked about low taxes making the economy grow enough to reverberate. Of course, he also talked about spending on this and spending on that in a positive way.

Points that will last.

1) Kerry offended a lot of people tonight by talking about his Catholic faith and then defending partial-birth abortion almost as if the two were linked. I'm not one of those who would never vote for a pro-choice politician. I'd even consider voting for a politician who was Catholic and pro-choice, if he were discreet about it. But I was really offended by seeing him emphasize his Catholic faith and his support for abortion in the same speech was an insult to Catholics. That's for the pope to decide. Maybe Kerry had lost all the devout Catholics already. But if not, he lost more tonight. Then juxtapose that against Bush's eloquent and heartfelt defense of the "culture of life."

2) Hopefully Kerry will get fried for his mention of "bringing allies to the table." He acknowledged a couple of days ago that he knows Germany and France won't send troops. Will this get through to the voters?

3) "I own a lumber company? That's news to me!" (Long pause.) "Need some wood?" Hilarious. Most memorable line of the debate for me.

If you want the government to provide health care for you, you should have been convinced by Kerry tonight. If you believe that low taxes grow the economy, go with Bush. If you're pro-choice, you were liking Kerry; pro-life, Bush. If you think it's a good idea to tax the rich at a higher rate and redistribute, you were convinced by Kerry. If you don't believe in redistribution, you'll prefer Bush. If you think the war in Iraq was a good idea, Bush convinced you. If you think it was a mistake, you're with Kerry. On all those issues, the candidates laid out their differences clearly, and the voters can decide. That obviates the issue of winning and losing the debates.

On Iraq, despite the constant re-covering of the same turf, it's still not clear, because Kerry doesn't want it to be. "Plan plan plan" he says, a "fresh approach" as opposed to "more of the same," but the only detail he can give is "train troops more quickly," when Bush is training them as quickly as feasible. Oh yes, and "bring allies to the table," but Bush has already pulled together all the allies who will come. Kerry has no plan, or rather, he would just continue Bush's policies. He could, in theory, acknowledge this. "I'll do the same thing now that Bush would do, because he's blundered us into such a bind that there are no other options left." Would that help or hurt, I wonder? Instead, he's decided to pretend he has a plan, hoping that the American people will pick a "plan" that remains mysterious over a present that they're convinced (maybe) is very bad. The real difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq is that Kerry might cut and run. He's made some noises that way. Also, a Bush win might demoralize the insurgents, a Kerry win might embolden them. If Kerry wins, the insurgents will have a valuable ally in the young John Kerry, whose voice will echo across the decades: "How do you ask a person to be the last man to die for a mistake?" On the other hand, even if nobody's going to send troops, maybe Kerry would bring some global political capital to the office, which might help in some way not presently foreseeable.

Kerry could say, "I'll bring our boys home." Cut-and-runners would vote for him.

He could say, "The only option now is to do pretty much what Bush is doing, unfortunately." Iraq would then be neutralized as an issue.

Instead, Kerry says "We need a fresh approach," without telling us what it is, while saying a few things that could be taken as hints that we'll leave. He hopes to get 1) cut-and-runners, 2) people who are willing to go for the mystery plan, and 3) neutralize the issue for those (probably a majority) who want to stay the course. All at the price of being disingenuous. This is unfortunate.

Andrew Sullivan says that single-issue fiscal hawks have only one choice, Kerry. That's stupid. Kerry is proposing far more new spending than Bush is. Period. He wants to tax the rich more, but cut taxes on the middle class-- it's a wash. Neither candidate gave a straight answer on the deficit tonight, despite Charles Gibson pressing them both (good job!) I was impressed that Kerry said specifically he had already rolled back some of the programs he wanted. But fiscal hawks should vote for Bush.

Mostly, though, you heard two political philosophies tonight, articulated pretty well in response to great questions. Draw as debate; but I think Bush is closer to the mainstream, so he'll probably win with more of the public than Kerry will. In that sense, this could be a blow-out.