H -°, L 55° | Tomorrow: 
H 85°, L 67°ST. LOUIS — Apparently taking a cue from Vice President Dick Cheney's forceful schooling of Sen. John Edwards in Cleveland Tuesday evening, President George W. Bush took to the stage here Friday with a newfound aggression fueled by a certain air of presidential self-confidence. Sen. John F. Kerry, conversely, graced Washington University in St. Louis with his same long-faced routine of flip-flops so contradictory in nature that his platform appears to be getting made over more often than his Botox-infused cheeks. And while there can be little question that the latter candidate is a skilled orator whose posture and form were nearly impeccable, the fact remains that Mr. Kerry lacks the moral convictions and ideological consistency to package in that pristine rhetorical wrapping.
Indeed, as New York Governor George Pataki noted in a post-debate interview with this writer, Mr. Bush " … was able to point out Senator Kerry's … record in the Senate, voting to weaken our military, slash our intelligence, raise our taxes." It becomes easier to understand the near-rage manifested in the commander in chief during the debate when one considers that his opponent proceeded to answer question after question with positions even fresher than his condescending attitude.
In response to the evening's ninth question, Mr. Kerry asserted, "John Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that as lawyers — I'm a lawyer too — and I believe that we will be able to get a fix that had eluded everybody else because we know how to do it." This reply seemed to shock Mr. Bush, and it should have, considering that Mr. Kerry has a Senate record of voting against tort reform on at least 10 occasions and skipping both medical liability reform votes this year.
Equally baffling is the Massachusetts senator's claim that he has held firm on his stance on the Patriot Act in response to the evening's first question, "Now, the three things they try to say I've changed position on are the Patriot Act; I haven't. I support it … "
This begs the question: if Mr. Kerry supports the Patriot Act, why did he call it a "blind spot in the American justice system" on NPR's "Morning Edition" last August?
There were plenty more flip-flops over the course of the 90 minutes — at least 10 by the count of Bush volunteers furiously dropping rapid-response press releases in "spin alley" during the debate. And Mr. Bush did a deft job of pointing out his opponent's bouncing claims during the meeting in St. Louis, as Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie noted in a post-debate interview with this writer. "[President Bush] had Senator Kerry on the defensive over his 20 years in the Senate."
But, alas, to further delve into the many flip-flops of Senator Kerry would be to lend more ink to his sorrowful language than is surely proper.
Yet, in a way, the mere staging of these debates serves to dignify that very language. It was evident that before the first presidential debate in Miami Mr. Bush sat on a comfortable lead in the polls, likely due in part to the electorate's trouble taking his challenger seriously. But by merely appearing on stage with Mr. Kerry, the president has sadly offered a certain dignified credibility to the previously self-destructing campaign of his challenger — anyone who appears on national television at the president's side for 90 minutes is bound to appear in some way respectable, as the bully aura of the commander in chief seems partially contagious.
Moreover, the Democratic nominee clearly stood to gain from the format of the debate. Not only did many of the questions appear to lean heavily to the left, but the ability of audience members to challenge Mr. Bush on his record to date (including a question demanding that he list three mistakes he has made) was lopsided, since Mr. Kerry never had to face an inquisition into his Senate voting record (a more nuanced history that is less available to many Americans than the very public service of the president). And, while one question — a query about stem cell research — clearly sought to pin the Democratic nominee on the ropes, the overall agenda of the supposedly undecided audience was scathingly evident.
But the dirtiest trick of the evening was Mr. Kerry's propensity for fiction. It is one thing for the candidate to have more sudden changes of heart than the cardiac wing of a hospital, but it is another for him to altogether depart the plane of reality and engage in scurrilous lies. While there may have been a certain modicum of comic relief in Mr. Bush's dazed reaction when Mr. Kerry accused him of owning a timber company, the fact is that the bizarre allegation is either indicative of a campaign taken to disparity or a wholly naíve candidate. And while, for the sake of the American democracy, this writer would like to assume that the Democratic Party hasn't taken to nominating a candidate fully out of touch, it must be noted that later in the debate Mr. Kerry failed to properly identify the chairman of the Republican National Committee — a man who should be more than a minor figure to a career politician like the Massachusetts senator.
And yet, despite the ducking and weaving flip-flops of Mr. Kerry, a stacked audience and his opponent's propensity for slander, Mr. Bush emerges from Friday's debate still very much a contender in the election. The polls nationally continue to sit at about even, with certain key swing states still leaning towards Mr. Bush (raising the distinct possibility that he could become the first two-term president to never win a popular vote).
Still, the fly-by-night ethics of the Kerry campaign are clearly taking a toll on Mr. Bush and the American people, respectively. The Bush campaign could well suffer a fatal blow Wednesday if Mr. Kerry shows up to the final debate in as unscrupulous a mood as he has the first two. And so the Bush camp might consider proposing a slight addition to the notorious 30-plus-page document of rules the two candidates must adhere to during these encounters: require both men to wear polygraph machines.
If Mr. Kerry were made to speak only the truth, he might just find himself shutting up and listening to his rather honorable opponent.
Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in rhetoric.
IP hash: 122a42d5
WOW….what is the point of even printing articles like this? Mac, It’s pretty clear that you are supporting Bush, but I feel that you are so one-sided in your arguement, that it makes it very hard for readers to view your opinion as something that is sound, well rounded, and well thought out.
It’s clear to most people that very few things are cut and dry. This election and this debate is certainly not one of those few things. Both men have strong points and weak points…..and in this particular debate, both men did some good things and had some mis-steps. For you to completely ignore the fact that Kerry did have some good points and that Bush didn’t do so well on some things……forces me to see your opinion as one-sided and for the most part….invalid.
If you want people to see you as a person with a valid opinion….you have to show them that you can view things objectively and then make sound judgements. In this article you just showed people that you really like Bush.
~Nate
IP hash: ca1c6f6a
The near-rage of Bush shows his incessant need to control the thoughts of voters. He obviously cannot handle any other opinions, however, watch him flip-flop without a Republican Congress. Bush acts as though he has a mandate from the American people, when really we are split quite evenly.
From Bush trying to jumpstart the economy every year (ie. tax cuts are ideological not economical) to Bush’s horrendous job in Iraq, we see that many of his promises in 2000 were just lies.
Besides you should polish up on your talking points, Kerry is no longer a flip-flopper, but the most liberal senator in the senate. One thing is sure, Kerry cares about his constituency.
IP hash: 677f5879
Mac, are we to believe that it is somehow a bad thing for a sitting president to answer questions from the public?
How is asking tough questions of leaders indicative of a partisan agenda? If I was to take you at your word, I would have to believe that President Bush does not need to be answer for his actions for the sole reason that he is already the president. This is not good enough. Elections -are- referrenda on the incumbents. No matter the circumstances of the 2000 election, President Bush was given four years to prove he should win a second term. Just because he is currently the president should not shield him, or anyone, from questions.
If Bush really wanted to win, he would regularly take questions from a hostile, partisan crowd, and prove that he is a leader who can handle criticism.
IP hash: 2cdaa4b6
Bush’s bully aura as commander in chief? I’m sorry, but Bush’s aura is more bullshit than bully. Just using that word conveys more credibility to Bush than he has ever earned in his lifetime. Come on, Bush is a jackass, a puppet, someone who clearly can’t think for himself. At all. About anything. As Rob Cordrry said on The Daily Show, by some standardized tests he’s actually retarded.
Bush is so full of crap, he has bombed at all of these debates, that the only thing Republicans like yourself can do is tear him down because the famous Kerry late surge-mojo is in full effect baby!
Honestly, I think most of us were a little worried when the Swift Veterans Full of Shit came out with their TV ads and we thought that Bush’s (Rove’s) traditional dirty campaigning would fool the American public. But then reality hit and after the first debate we all went “Oh wait, Bush really is totally maniacal, ideological, and stoopid!” Standing next to Kerry for 90 minutes is the worst possible thing than can happen to Bush, it hurts him every time he gets compared to Kerry because he comes up wanting in every category possible.
Man, this election is so getting away from Bush that it’s fucking awesome.
See ya Bushie!
IP hash: 50d176b7
Mac: “Bush won the debate.”
Two-thirds of American voters: “Kerry won the debate.”
I wonder which is right…
IP hash: 50d176b7
Anyone else wondering what Bush’s idiotic Dred Scott reference was about?
It turns out he was promising his extremist base that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Don’t believe me? Go to the following URL:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=%22dred+scott%22+abortion+-paperwight&btnG=Search
Or read a good blog about it here:
http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dredscottroe_.html
IP hash: 90358ef0
I think people in madison spend more time talking politics than telling the people they care about how they feel about them and far more time reading than actually engaging the social fabric.
If Bush gets elected again, the world will not fall apart, at least, not my world.
But then again, I was born dirt poor so I don’t expect other people to change my life.
IP hash: 1fcc32c9
what the hell is that supposed to mean?
IP hash: 006e69b7
Very interesting, and pretty on-point. It is unfortunate your message is obscured by needlessly ornate sentences. It is a newspaper, not you doctoral thesis. I would imaging if you boil this article down, trim the fat and such, it would rival most coverage given to the debate in the national rags.
IP hash: 019afc50
You are a junior majoring in incessantly long student newspaper articles. The Washington Times would exceed its ink budget for a week in a day if they hired you.
IP hash: 90358ef0
What it means is that I find it suprising that a bunch of privilaged twits who would have a good life either way would get so worked up about things that they have only experienced through the eyes of sociologists and journalists and spend 65% of their time getting worked up about it.
Even more suprising is all the time people put into responding to someone they obviously disagree with. That’s why conservatives win. While liberals are busy writing letters to the editor, they’re busy making money and their political allies, crafting their next strategy — while liberals are still thinking about their counter-point letter to answer two moves ago.
Bottom line is, whether we like it or not, Kerry has no balls or at least, doesn’t show that he has them.
Sometimes, the world isn’t as complicated as you make it out to be. When you’ve experienced the difference between a starving stomach and an empty stomach…you’ll understand that.
Self-interest, baby, self-interest. It’s what makes the world go round.
IP hash: 9db2493e
Cares about his constituency? John Kerry is a populist, just like his vice-presidential running mate. Just look at the embarrased, smug look on John F. Kerry’s face when Bush calls him out on his lies. Sorry fact is Kerry is no neo-liberal like Clinton and trying to be would be fooling the American people.
If he had embraced the New Dems he might be winning in the polls, but once again a Democratic candidate who does not embrace the ideals of the New Democrats.
IP hash: d8835090
Yeah, it’s a groundless attack, I know…but with colors like that it just HAS to be said…
Mac, George Will called. He wants his tie back. But he said you could burn the coat for all he cared.