Riker's Mailbox

Friday, October 08, 2004


I was unable to view the Vice-Presidential debate because of a scheduling conflict with an important family matter. While I intend to finish reading the transcript from that debate and comment afterward, it will have to wait, as I was fortunate enough to catch the second Presidential debate live. So while the opinions are fresh, I'll harvest the crop of them first and return to the VPs later. Comments tonight will be far diferent than those in my review of the first debate, primarily due to their condensed content. I'll get right to the point* this time.

Presidential Debate (again)
Bush-Kerry Round 2 was a dead heat. I will thusly award one half-point to each candidate, bringing the points total (as awarded, once again, by myself and myself only) to:

Kerry: 1.5 Points
Bush: 0.5 Points

I'll speak on Kerry first. The man had some zingers, again, but he conversely performed the verbal equivalent of holding his own hands behind his back to alow George to punch repeatedly at his unprotected midsection. Specifically, when Kerry allows Bush to use "The Wrong War At The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time
" as a present-tense, ongoing sentiment. Bush said, "I don't think the leaders of the world will follow a man who says his war is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time," and Kerry just let him go with it. Kerry said what he said, once and only once, in response to a specific statement, and when read in context it showed nothing more than Kerry's disagreement with the way Bush chose to progress in the war. Bush, with no resistance whatsoever, has been allowed over and over again to use the claim as if it's Kerry's current and forever stance on the War On Terror®, implying that Kerry as president would ask nations to come join in a war by advertising it as the wrong war. Would anyone
Kerry was almost too offensive at times

Bush charismatic and witty, engrossed the audience, handled himself much more confidently than last debate, referred to the canned phrases less than last debate as well. Trying to convince people that it's simple yes/no in every case. Can't say 'raised taxes 200 times' and use that as foundation to say Kerry will therefore raise taxes for people he promised cuts to. We don't know what taxes Kerry voted to raise. What if they were all for the rich?

*This is largely because I can't make much of a point this time around. While I felt like an enlightened intellectual with useful information with regard to Round 1, this time I'm much more of a squirming amateur with

No comments:

Post a Comment