round 2

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Overview: Bush and Kerry Trade Attacks in Their Second Presidential Debate

i thought tonight's debate was better than the last one. i mean, the cheesy and often uninformed questions from the audience aside -- and forgetting the whole good morning america kinda feel -- both of the candidates seemed a little bit more like themselves. bush wasn't as stupid as he had been before. and kerry seemed like he was a little bit more comfortable running for president.

but other than that, i didn't really see a lot. i did, however, see enough to believe that bush may not win this election. and yes, i realize i have been saying that for a while now, but i think i believe it for the second time (the first being as the audience stood up and clapped for fahrenheit 9/11 during the opening showing).

but i did think that both candidates cemented even further in my mind of why i cannot vote for either. bush was bush ... and i guess i will get to that. but kerry continued his hawkish threats to "terrorists" around the world. no matter how much time passes, you will never convince me of anything other than that justice is just another word for revenge, and that gandhi was right: and eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

there will never be any sort of amicable solution to our troubles in the middle east until we have a radical change in our foreign policy, and i am just convinced that kerry is not a radical change. i am not convinced that the money behind him is any different than the money behind bush. he is just as religious (though in a way that i find less frightening). and he is willing to accept this notion that the appropriate step from here is to continue an open-ended war against an indefinable enemy. this is sad.

the one chance that i saw for kerry (according to me): there was a point in the end of the debate where a woman asked bush to name three instances in his tenure as commander in chief in which he could say that he felt he had done the wrong thing. what she was asking was simple, in my mind, "are you man enough to admit when you have made a mistake?" bush responded with a resounding "no." and that's cool, that's pretty much what i had thought of him anyway.

but i felt kerry had an opportunity at that point in time to gain a little respect in my mind. all he had to do was to stand up and say, "i understand your question, ma'am. you want to know if your president is man enough to admit when he has made a mistake. and the answer, ma'am, is no -- he isn't. but i stand here before you as a man who has made many mistakes, and pledge that if i were in his position, i would always be willing to stand up for what i believe is the truth, as misled as i may have been before."

needless to say, his answer was far less elegant. he did highlight that he had made mistakes, but that's about as close as he got to any redemption in my mind. and that's all good. i don't really think it matters who i vote for. i think it's a forgone conclusion that kerry will win california. i know that i won't get suckered into voting for another peeg, they way that i fell i was suckered into voting for gore.

i am holding fast to my pledge to never again vote for a man who believes that war is a viable option to peace. and moreover, i am sticking to my more recent resolution to never again vote for a democrat or republican -- though i am officially a republican now.

i found bush to be quite interesting tonight as well. he seemed to be very angry. he came into the debate with this approach that he was going to make kerry suffer for his record as a senator, and he held fast to that approach, even when it had clearly fallen apart. as the evening went on, he seemed like a little kid who thinks that he has found the solution to a complex argument. he kept pushing, holding kerry's stumping for the presidency (and therefore absence in the senate for voting) against him.

and i thought about it for a while. why isn't kerry in the senate doing his job? but i don't get caught up on that for too long. i am certainly under the impression that a good legislature is inactive. and i would jump to kerry's defense and say that i believe that all national elections should be federally funded -- however they have to work it. and in that case, no one would need to run all over the country, instead of being present in a legislature that spends too much time in washington as it is.

but bush proved himself to be angry and simple minded ... something that he has done time and time before, but ... he did not look as bad as one might think. i would tend to say that kerry won the debate, being that i am more likely to reward intelligence in a match centered around rhetoric. but that's just me. and i am unfortunately in a very small minority in this world.