First Debate Recap

Some thoughts on the first presidential debate tonight (transcript here), based on comments I left over at Bill Hobbs' site:

1. Kerry insisted that we should have bilateral talks with North Korea. George Bush stuck to his guns on the 6-way talks that have been on-going. I'm with Bush on this, for sure. Bilateral talks with North Korea? We've been there and done that during the Clinton administration.  It got us nothing. China and other Asian powers must be involved. They have better leverage on the North Koreans, and it's good foreign policy to include them. Kerry blew this big-time.
2. Kerry wants a "global test" on U.S. military action.
   

   KERRY: No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
   
   But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

   He has got to be kidding. This is exactly the kind of stuff that gives me no doubt that Kerry is just not serious about defending U.S. interests. He has not learned the lessons of 9/11/2001. The Bush campaign is going to have a field day with that nonsense.

3. Kerry proposes handing Iran nuclear fuel to see what they do with it. Is Kerry nuts? Why don't we just give them a couple of nukes to see what they do with those? It's, frankly, one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard from a politician. This is another serious policy gaffe that the Republicans can skewer Kerry with. I can't believe he really thinks this is a good idea.
4. Others may disagree, but I just don't see nuclear proliferation as the biggest threat to our security, and in my opinion, it shows just how much Kerry just doesn't get it. The biggest threat is terrorism. The kind of weapons the terrorists use is a secondary (but still important) issue. Chemical and biological weapons kill people just as dead as a nuke. So do car bombs, suicide bombers, and airplanes flown into buildings. President Bush should have hammered Kerry on this, but he missed the opportunity, and his response to Kerry wasn't as strong as it could have been.
5. Kerry claims he will do a better job at international diplomacy, but he has, time and again, insulted our allies and discounted their contributions, and President Bush called him on it tonight. Kerry keeps on saying he'll be a more effective diplomat, and then proves to the American people that he won't, by saying stupid things about our allies and our coalition. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the things Kerry has been saying aren't going to win us any friends. Kerry keeps undermining his own message ("More Respected In the World" - yeah, right). He's showing the American people that he isn't trustworthy when it comes to foreign policy.

President Bush, on the other hand, was very much on message. He also gave Kerry some strong rebuttals, especially on negotiating with North Korea and on the "global test" thing. He did, though, miss some clear opportunities to knock one out of the park, because his delivery wasn't all that strong. It's unfortunate that he isn't better at thinking on his feet; if he was, he'd have demolished Kerry. His lack of polished extemporaneous speaking skills (as opposed to his speechmaking, which is pretty good, but not great) sometimes overshadows his message and his ideas, which are clearly superior to Kerry's.

So overall, I'd grade Kerry a B on style and delivery and a D- on substance and policy. I'd give Bush a C+ or perhaps a B- on style and delivery and a B+ on substance and policy.

The more I think about it, the worse I think Kerry did. Not because Bush's performance was better - it wasn't. George Bush is just not a strong extemporaneous speaker, and Kerry is better in that regard.

On substance, though, Kerry is really, really bad. The things I outlined above (bilateral talks with the North Koreans, a "global test" for U.S. military action, giving nuclear fuel to the Iranians, his misunderstanding of the threats facing us, disrespect of our allies) give the Bush campaign lots of ammunition to work with.

To add fuel to the fire, even during the debate Kerry continued his usual flip-flopping on Iraq, while insisting that he has had one consistent position:

An example (go read the transcript):

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

[Emphasis mine to point out that he believes the war in Iraq was a mistake. The next quote is from just one question later!]

LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

Within the space of three sentences, John Kerry insisted that invading Iraq was a mistake, but that Americans are not dying for a mistake. Which is it, Senator Kerry, a mistake or not a mistake? This is why people don't trust what he says on Iraq or on defense; he is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I expect President Bush and his campaign to hammer on these Kerry substance problems and his flip-flopping relentlessly. So, over the next few days watch for the early conventional wisdom that Kerry won to turn around. In the long run, better ideas count, and President Bush's ideas are better. (When I read the transcript, where lack of polish isn't apparent, Bush looks even stronger). It might not look like it initially, but Bush clearly won the debate.

Permanent link