Presidential Debate Part 2

A rainy Saturday afternoon provided me an opportunity to watch the second presidential debate in its entirety. It gave me a fuller appreciation of the time limitations, the nature of the questions asked and the way the two men conducted themselves over the full 90 minutes. Limiting myself to highlights, especially when coupled with “expert” commentary, certainly influences my opinion and I was grateful to have viewed the debate in its raw form.

What immediately struck me was how the candidates used the questions, no matter how specific, to launch into prepared rhetoric that either twisted the question grotesquely or avoided it all together. Both Kerry and Bush were guilty but the final question to George Bush still resonates in my mind. A member or the audience asked Mr. Bush to provide three examples of mistakes that he has made during his four years while president.

First, he made light of the fact that he makes thousands of decisions a day, some trivial, others of great significance. Then, in an attempt to obfuscate the question, he theorized that in the future, historians might judge some of his actions to be mistakes. However, Mr. Bush insisted that in his mind, all his decisions have been correct and he would not categorize any of them as mistakes.

Admitting a mistake is always a hard thing to do and one might postulate that for a president to do so would be political suicide especially when you purport yourself to be the all-seeing, all-knowing, never-wavering Commander-in-Chief and “leader of the free world”. However, with the recent revelations concerning the multiple failures in intelligence, the premature declaration of “Mission Accomplished”, the inability to capture America’s Number One enemy, Osama Bin Laden, and the lack of precautions taken prior to September 11th despite the warnings of an imminent terrorist attack, Bush certainly had many mistakes to choose from; yet, in his political mind, he had done everything correctly.

Could Bush have admitted to three mistakes and survived politically? That is a difficult question given how the media and competition would have jumped on a clip of Bush saying we made a mistake and replayed it ad naseum. It would have been particularly damning for Bush as he always portrays himself as a strong leader and someone who reduces issues to simple yes-and-no, black-and-white dichotomies.

In the debate, Bush hammered home this simplistic view of issues throughout the evening particularly when criticizing Kerry’s voting record in the Senate. Frequently, Bush would point to a vote in the Senate and deduce Kerry’s position from how he voted. For example, during the debate over abortion, President Bush criticized Kerry over not voting for the bill ending funding for partial birth abortions. Bills are not simple documents. They contain complex legalese and often deal with multiple, but related issues, at once. Thus, included in the partial-birth legislation were other anti-abortion-related articles that Mr. Kerry did not agree with. Thus, he voted no and he explained his reasoning in the debate. As Mr. Kerry spoke, Bush, rather than listening politely, turned to the audience, shrugged his shoulders, whispered the word “What?!” and shook his head in apparent mock of his opponents reply. Again, sophomoric debating techniques were on display.

During the debate on stem cell research, Bush made a remark that he does not believe in sacrificing the life of an unborn in an attempt to cure diseases that afflict the living. Thus, he endorsed a bill that severely limited embryonic stem cell research to the currently available stem cell lines. Although he may be against the “killing of the unborn”, Bush seems to have no qualms about sacrificing the living in his quest to rid the world of “evil” and deliver “freedom”. His sponsorship of the war on Iraq has murdered thousands of Iraqi children, women, and other innocent civilians, not to mention over 1000 young Americans. It seems severely hypocritical to prevent the killing of unborn embryos while simultaneously sanctioning the murder of the living.

Regarding abortion, Mr. Kerry made it clear that he does possess religious beliefs having been raised as a Catholic. He emphasized, however, that he cannot press these views upon everyone and legislation should be free of religious ideology. He commented that an ideal judicial decision should be unbiased and the background of the author indeterminable. In other words, there should be a clear separation of religion and government. I do not recall Bush directly commenting upon the issue of religion and government but the final two words of his closing statement were “God Bless”. I have never quite understood this phrase. To me, it seems something that should only be uttered by a religious leader who deems himself to be doing the work of god and not someone who should be looking out for the interests of all Americans, regardless of religion. Certainly, the term god can mean many different things, but I am sure that the god George was calling on to bless his audience was very defined, was spelled with a capital “g”, and particular to his religious views.

Overall, I do feel Kerry won this debate although I felt he could have been more pointed in his criticism of George Bush. However, given the time limitations and the pressure of having to compress everything into two minute statements or 30 second rebuttals, many things must be left unsaid. In terms of character, I cannot recall John Kerry making a joke or cracking a smile throughout the debate. He came across as concerned, serious, and eloquent but perhaps unable to connect with the average person. George Bush seemed confident during his prepared monologues but seemed to falter when required to formulate his own rebuttals which usually began with a light-hearted joke. In contrast to the mask of composure that covered Kerry’s face while being criticized, George looked far more uncomfortable; his hands were clenched and the frequency of blinking increased markedly. It would be interesting to watch the face of each candidate throughout the debate regardless of who was talking since it would give a more revealing picture of each man.
Overall, I found the debate interesting and relatively entertaining. Realizing the structural limitations, I did not expect to be dazzled with in-depth discussions or have my opinions of the two men radically altered. In Canada, given the multi-party nature of our parliament, there are usually four or five candidates vying for airtime in a televised debate. Thus, each person is allotted a limited amount of time and it often becomes a contest over which opposition party leader can deliver the sharpest barb at the incumbent leader and score the most points with the electorate. A televised debate between just two leaders seems to be far more effective and entertaining format. This certainly does not mean I favour a two party system. How two parties, especially when they both lean to the right of the political spectrum, can possibly represent the interests of all Americans is unfathomable and a probable cause of the apathy towards politics in general.