One week following the first presidential debate, we are still hearing reviews of President Bush's "performance". Many repubs are frustrated and disappointed by his apparent lack of interest. Others feel that he simply was tired from a day of meeting with hurricane victims. (John Kerry is said to have had manicure and facial while memorizing fresh flip-flop statements.) As someone new to the art of politics, I really want to know everyone's thoughts on the first debate, particularly on Bush's part. Why did he debate the way he did?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I heard different explanaitons:
One is that Kerry has memorized only talking points, while Bush has had sometimes had a lot of in depth briefings about the subjects and was a)frustrated at overly simplified and in his view foolish statements and b) was so "musclebound" by his knowledge of the situation that he could not quickly come up with a way to sum up what he knew into 2 minutes. Either or both of these still mean that Bush was not prepared for the debate the way he should have been.
Another is that Bush's strategy was to repeat over and over the "flip flop" message and that it is going to be a hard job in Iraq. Both of which the American public have already heard so much of and wanted to here something new. Basically Bush's plan was poor, his planning was poor, and he was poorly coached.
Now for some ranting:
Look for a more consentrated attack on Kerry's senate voting record and lack of attendance at certain committee meetings that he was supposed to be at. Some had to do with security. Not an original thought by me (Hannity and Combs)
Also "Oil for Food" program debacle at the UN may come into play (Maybe bush should bring it into play).
What about the rest of the world
What about the rest of the world where the war on terror is also going on. Columbia is interesting for a look there president is in his second term, is trying to get his own house in order while fighting drug lords that control about half of the country. He has an 80% approval rating. Has had about 13 assassination attempts on him, 4 of which while he was president. Interesting problem is that their constitution limits to 2 terms and the 2% economy growth the past year (which they are thrilled with and the goal next year is 4%) they have been experiencing along with some foreign investment is linked to him.
Interesting how both sides are staying away form Israel/Palestine, Abu Grav (or however the prison is spelled, russia's terrorism (other than the children in the school) and trend to dictatorship.
Can anyone think of some others.
Some have pointed out that the first Reagan-Mondale debate went badly for Reagan like this one did for Bush. It is certainly true that Bush is more informed than Kerry on the issues. Bush is either on or off though and he was off bif time for that debate. Bush would be a bad congressman I think, and probably a bad lawyer. Good thing that is not what the election is for. I mean, he is a leader and a good one. He sets the goal and perserveres. Also, it is said that in small meetings he is great: perfect for dealing with other countries in an effective way
However, we do need a president who can articulate our policies to the people. Now, he has done this better than Clinton ever did (I won't mention how excruciatingly bad Kerry is at this) and at times better even than Reagan. But, he failed to do so in the debate. Why? I don't know. What Steve and Laurin said makes sense to me, but like I said, he is just not always "on".
Beth has pointed out that his behaviour may be explained by the SNL fake Dukakis line "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." How can anyone vote for a guy who answers "what is the biigest threat to America" with "Nuclear Proliferation". Uh, hello! It is not the 80's anymore! 9/11? Its the Terrorists stupid!
Post a Comment