Bush-Kerry II was a true-to-form middle episode of a yet-to-be-finished trilogy. In Episode I, the newcomer bested the holder of the throne. In the sequel, the humiliated leader fought back--but at the same time the challenger improved his chops and kept alive the threat to the established order. This all sets up next Wednesday's debate--the final confrontation--as a potentially dramatic finale. Then again, the two might just pummel each other to a draw and disappoint those few remaining undecided voters who yearn for a climactic scene that will reveal the ultimate clue indicating who deserves their vote.
I don't want to push the metaphor too far or dismiss the content of the debate. There was no clear winner in conventional terms at this substance-heavy, townhall-style debate at Washington University in St. Louis (though the first ABC News snapshot poll gave John Kerry a slight edge over George W. Bush, 44 to 41 percent). Bush performed better than he did in the first contest. He still smirked and knitted his brow, looking irritated (or aggrieved) when Kerry attacked, but he did so less than last time, and the television commentators did not even bother to comment on his face moves. At times, Bush was overly defensive. But perhaps to some in the audience that appeared a sign of decisive feistiness. He was more sharp-edged in his criticism of Kerry. For his part, Kerry maintained his forceful criticism of Bush--on Iraq, on jobs, on tax cuts, on health care--and repeatedly declared he has was a man of convictions. He continued to look (to many viewers, I assume) as an equal of Bush.
But--as even a good middle act cannot do--the debate did not resolve the conflicts shaping the dynamic of the race. Bush positioned himself as the more upbeat candidate. The economy, he declared, "is on the move" and overseas "freedom is on the march." Kerry is the critic. He claimed America is in the midst of a "middle-class crisis" and that Bush had committed "a catastrophic mistake" by invading Iraq. This is a rather severe divide. And those mythical undecided voters are going to have to choose which side of this big fence they are on.
The second debate also reinforced a stylistic divide that is far from superficial. Kerry deployed facts to land blows on Bush. He came across as the prosecutor he once was. Bush relied more on meta-principles. His goal was to emphasize his I-know-what-I-believe quality, which he claims is essential to strong leadership. In fact, these two men are offering different methods of leadership. Kerry embraces--he embodies--rational analysis. Bush sells himself as a cut-to-the-chase guy.
An exchange late in the debate on abortion characterized the stark contrast. Sarah Degenhart, one of the "soft" voters selected by the Gallup outfit to be the questioners at the debate, asked Kerry if he could tell abortion-rights opponents that their tax dollars would not be used to pay for abortions (say, for poor woman who rely on Medicaid). Kerry began by noting he respected Degenhart's obvious antiabortion sentiments, and he explained that he even though he is a Catholic he believes he cannot impose his own "article on faith" upon others. Kerry discussed actions that could be taken to diminish the demand for abortion. And, finally answering the woman's query, he said, "As a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation….You don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." Kerry did not duck the question, but he did answer it with plenty of context.
How did Bush counter? As soon as Kerry was done, Bush quipped, "I'm trying to decipher that." As if there was something to decode. He then shot out, "My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion." Next--playing to his base--he outlined his support for the ban on late-term abortions and legislation that would compel minors to gain the consent of a parent before being allowed to undergo an abortion. Kerry, he said, was against both measures. In response, Kerry explained that he would support a ban on late-term abortion if it included exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother and that he would back a parental notification measure if it permitted a minor to go to a judge, instead of a parent, in certain cases. "I'm not going to require a 16-or 17- year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father," he explained, adding, "it's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe."
Bush took issue with that: "Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?" Simple or not. That may be one way of summing up this race.
Concerning the so-called war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, Bush is the we're-going-to-do-it candidate. Kerry is the let-me-explain-in-detail- what's gone-wrong contender. The two continued their fight over all this, and Kerry continued to hold his own. The first question of the night was put to Kerry: did he have a response to people who claim he is "too wishy-washy." Kerry immediately took the opportunity to defend himself and accuse Bush of having mislead the country:
The president didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he's really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass deception. And the result is that you've been bombarded with advertisements suggesting that I've changed a position on this or that or the other.
Now, the three things they try to say I've changed position on are the Patriot Act; I haven't. I support it. I just don't like the way John Ashcroft has applied it, and we're going to change a few things. The chairman of the Republican Party thinks we ought to change a few things.
No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it. I support it. I support the goals. But the president has underfunded it by $28 billion. Right here in St. Louis, you've laid off 350 teachers. You're...about $100 million shy of what you ought to be under the No Child Left Behind Act to help your education system here. So I complain about that. I've argued that we should fully funded it. The president says I've changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind: I'm going to fully fund it.
Bush promoted his favorite talking point: Kerry has been inconsistent on Iraq--by voting for one version of the $87 billion appropriations bill that funded military operations in Iraq and then voting against another version, by calling Saddam Hussein a threat but then saying the war to remove him was a mistake. And such a waverer, Bush said, is not commander-in-chief material. Bush continued to justify his war in Iraq by citing Hussein as a "unique threat." He maintained that Hussein was a danger because "he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like al Qaeda," ignoring the recently-released Duelfer report, which concluded Hussein had no WMDs and no active WMD programs. Kerry explained once more that he had indeed considered Hussein a threat but that he would have allowed the inspections process to continue, would have attempted to form a larger multilateral alliance, would have planned more extensively for the aftermath before deciding to launch a war.
The Bush campaign has succeeded in making Kerry's alleged flip- floppery an issue in the campaign, in this debate--as in the first--Kerry pushed back hard, defending his own stance and blasting Bush for blundering in Iraq. And in one of his best shots of the night, Kerry said to the crowd,
I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was: build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the UN process to its end and go to war as a last resort.
I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut- check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort? The president rushed our nation to war without a plan to win the peace.
And when Bush tried to rewrite history by claiming that the war was justified because the "sanctions were not working; the United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein," Kerry sharply retorted,
The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror.
Kerry delivered an even more vigorous critique of Bush's decision to launch the war in Iraq than he did in the first debate. At times, this seemed to piss off Bush, and he did scowl. By relentlessly returning to the point that Bush rushed to war and did not plan adequately for the post- invasion period, Kerry placed his foe on the defensive--perhaps slightly more so than Bush was able to do to by accusing Kerry of being an unsteady and indecisive pol. But Kerry had fresh ammo: the Duelfer report. Bush was recycling the material he had already deployed numerous times. When Bush attacked Kerry for having denigrated the coalition in Iraq, declaring that "there are 30 countries there," Kerry replied, "Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not join. Eight countries have left it."
*********
When you're done reading this article,visit David Corn's WEBLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent entries on the fuss over the latest WMD report, Cheney's fibs, and my debut in The Onion.
******** |
