The Frinklin and Fred Show

Get Your Debate On Aftermath

The opening debate of 2004 has to go to the challenger. This was as effective as I have seen John Kerry. He certainly wasn’t scintillating, but better than he has been since his acceptance speech in Iowa. He gave appropriately succinct answers most of the time, and was fairly straightforward most of the time. The best thing for Democrats was that he looked and sounded distinguished and damn near Presidential.

This was not the President’s best showing, not by a long shot. He seemed extraordinarily uncomfortable on stage. His body language was very negative, grimacing, flaring his nostrils, and crouching over the podium. Overall, it gave the impression that he didn’t want to be there, and he was actually angry over having to face questions. His answers seemed to match that. They were usually short, he seemed to rely very much on the idea that being the President is hard, he knows what to do, and he’s going to do it. He left details out of the mix completely. According to MSNBC, he used the term “hard job” eleven times. We get it already. He also after one rebuttal, demanded time to respond, got it, and then….nothing. He stood for a solid four-second interval, which is an eternity in TV-Time. If you aren’t a Bush supporter, the analogy is clear. He rushed in, had no idea what to do when he got there, and stumbled out. Sounds like the Iraq War to some people.

As expected, most of the discussion was on Iraq. The odd thing was it centered a lot more on the past than it did the present. For the most part, both Kerry and Bush want to do much the same thing in Iraq. That was glossed over. As a side note, whenever Kerry mentions his “Four Point Plan” I can’t help but think of Nixon’s secret plan to end Vietnam. Anyway, a lot of this debate focused on what has already happened. This is where Kerry stumbles a bit. Essentially his stand boils down to this: He supported the war, but only sorta.

His administration would have expanded our alliance. How? The French wanted Saddam to stay in power, mostly because he owed them a lot of money, but also because of some kickbacks from the oil-for-food program. The Germans showed no interest whatsoever in fighting Saddam. The Russians are too busy kicking the hell out of Chechnya. So, whom exactly does Kerry think he could have convinced to join? Second, Kerry says we should have worked more through the UN. We worked with the UN for 12 years, and 16 Security Council Resolutions. Our French and Russian allies on the Security Council were more inclined to leave Saddam be. What more could have been done?

Where Kerry fared better is the conduct of the war itself. It is ludicrous that sealing the borders wasn’t the first priority, quickly followed by establishing some sense of domestic peace. Neither of those happened, and we are paying for it. One of the odder moments of the debate was where Bush mentioned that some of the Baathists escaped due to Tommy Franks speed in persecuting the offensive. What in the hell can that mean? Moreover, if it is the truth, then it was a horrible war plan to begin with.

The first debate goes to Kerry. Next up are the Veeps, the odd pairing of Dick Cheney: Evil Banker, and John Edwards: Ritchie Cunningham Clone. Then we get my least favorite debate, the “Town Hall”. This would be where ordinary Americans get to ask questions. The most famous Town Hall Debate moment is from the 1992 election, where a voter asked George H.W., “How the deficit affects him.” What most remember is Bush’s stumbling answer, which confirmed him as out of touch for many people, and Clinton’s deft response. What should also be remembered is that the woman who asked the question had no freakin’ idea of what she was talking about and that the question made no sense whatsoever. This is not a drive-time radio call in show, this the real deal, so please, can we leave it to the professionals?

Posted by Frinklin at October 1, 2004 05:33 PM