I figure I'll give an opinion: A bloody fight to the finish with insipid questions but an occasionally good moderator; call it a draw for the heck of it.
It was about time that someone called Bush on the carpet for his spending, although I found it highly ironic that a taxing-spending liberal Democrat from Massachusetts was playing the role of deficit & budget hawk.
I was busy in the Commissar's live blogging effort, so I primarily listened to the debate. I hear better than I see these days, so I went with the ear. (Yes, I'm more partial to voice than image; I'm still sore about the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960...)
As for the President's exasperation, part of me likes that in politics. Admittedly, that may be one of my weaknesses; a teacher I sort of had in high school said that I didn't suffer fools gladly. This was, according to someone, a weakness of Thomas E. Dewey that caused him trouble. (I think I read this anecdote in one of President Nixon's books.) Age, experience, and training have improved my tolerance for fools---primarily so I can make more use out of them, or have more fun with them---but there's still a more or less fixed hard line limit to how much I'll put up with. Suffice it to say that I would have blown up at Senator Kerry a long time ago, and probably with a streak of profanity. It's not for nothing that I'm reading a biography of General George S. Patton, Jr.
For the foregoing reason, I will probably stand opposed to the electorate when I say that I don't care that the President cut Mr. Gibson off. St. Louis wasn't a courtroom and there can be advantage in pulling something like the President did. It can be, however, a double-edged sword. I'm certain we'll hear something about this part of the debate.
I was glad that the President jumped all over the bilateral v. multilateral talks with the North Koreans. Moreso than these nebulous summit meetings that appear to be the centerpiece of a Kerry Administration foreign policy, the proposed direct bilateral talks constitute a grave weakness. And I came up with the "the Red Chinese'll drop out" bit either ahead of the President's response, or closely thereto, so I'm not taking his line.
Oddly enough, it would seem that these bilateral talks would have the effect of undermining existing diplomatic efforts. I would expect such a statement to issue from the Kerry campaign, not be a direct result of their proposed policy. It may be that Senator Kerry honestly believes that multilateral talks aren't in the defense interest of America. On that point, I strongly disagree. Not much is going to happen on the Korean peninsula involving Pyongyang without the Red Chinese, and it is wiser to keep the Chinese Communists involved. North Korea is one situation where I'd prefer to talk the issue to death. If doing that requires the presence of other nations around the bargaining table and some money flowing Dear Leader's way, well, scowl and bear it.
One thing I did take exception with the President was on the question of business competitiveness. The President (and Senator Kerry) can blow as much smoke about insurance reform this, tort reform that, and the like, but their platitudes run aground on hard numbers. So long as the American people value low price over everything, then there is no way for an American-based company that has to pay each worker the equivalent of fifty bucks an hour (including health care, Social Security contributions, insurance costs, et cetera) to compete with a manufacturer in Guatemala whose entire weekly payroll is fifty bucks. This mindless devotion to "every day low prices" has pretty much destroyed any hopes we've got of competing in a globalized manufacturing market where wage standards are so grossly asymmetric. Either Americans learn to pay more and keep jobs in America, or they keep their cheap goods and shut their mouths as jobs evaporate in this country.
In any event, I have to head off to a wedding party later today, so I'll be out of town for God knows how long; if I don't have an up-to-the minute Saturday posting schedule, that's why.
Posted by Country Pundit at October 9, 2004 12:24 AM