Debate Thoughts

My general view on the second debate is that it probably was a draw all things considered. Even though Kerry clearly was right on many issues, how much being correct really matters is questionable. Bush's style undoubtedly fed his base. That kind of aggressive masculinity really may appeal to certain males. But Kerry did a good job thwarting anything Bush said and it didn't to me seem like Bush really got any points on Kerry.

I did think the logging reference was stupid. Why mention something like that? It just gives the Republicans something to make fun of Kerry for. Not sure what the perceived advantage of that was?

What in the hell was Bush talking about when he said he wouldn't appoint the kind of Supreme Court judge that would approve of the Dred Scott decision? It's really good to know that Bush has no intention of appointing judges that would reinstitute slavery in the United States. Maybe that's what it means to be a compassionate conservative. Seriously, that was an extremely weak answer by Bush who if he was ever honest would have said something like, "I want to name judges that will interpret the Constitution according to present neo-conservative priniciples and that will protect the investments of me and my friends."

Kerry's weakest moment was on the environment. He should have just destroyed Bush on this, pointing out the many ways that Bush is a horrible environmental president. He could have said that this presidency has done more damage to the environment than any in the last 100 years. But he didn't. I hope he is more aggressive on that point in the final debate.

If nothing else, this debate continued to show that Kerry is competent and would be a better president than Bush. We'll see if the improvement in the polls continues. Finally, Kerry is really a fine debater, much better than I thought he would be.

UPDATE: See Lawyers Guns Money for much better analysis of the Dred Scott reference than I could possibly ever give.