Now that was one of the best debates I've ever seen. I liked the format much better than that of the first debate; the questions were far superior, and it was much more confrontational. The only question that felt particularly unfair was the last one to President Bush in which a lady asked him to name three mistakes he had made over the past four years. It was a fine question, but when Senator Kerry answered it he should have offered up some mistakes that he -- the Senator -- had made over the past four years, not simply taken the opportunity to attack Bush again.
First off, the President had a much better performance than he did in the first debate, there can be no question about that. He was more confident, more passionate, more collected, more clear, and more on the offense. There must have been a calculated decision to avoid mentioning France's and Germany's announcements that they would not help in Iraq no matter who is elected president, but aside from that omission I think Bush did very well. He also could have mentioned that Saddam was bribing members of the security council to oppose America, but again, there must have been a conscious decision to avoid that for fear of alienating our precious "allies".
Senator Kerry did very well also. There were a couple of instances in which he avoided answering or veered off on a tangent -- such as the question about the environment and the one about Iranian nukes -- but he hasn't had any trouble being concise, which many people expected. Obviously I don't agree with many of his positions, but his attacks on Bush's lack of fiscal discipline were well-placed... if only there were any hope that Kerry would do better. He spoke tough about the war on terror, but he focused on Bin Laden too heavily; I think most Americans realize that OBL and al Qaeda are just one aspect of the greater war. He also twisted like a pretzel to avoid the abortion-funding question, but in the end I think his position was pretty clear, as was the President's.
Although neither candidate really means it, I was amazed to hear them fighting over who would be tighter with my money. I'm not a fan of child tax credits (people with children use more government services, not less) but that a Democrat is offering to cut taxes on anyone is astounding, and a clear sign that old-style socialism is dead, in word anyway. Of course, Kerry's federal health care program plan gives lie to the hope, but then Bush is hardly better on that score what with the recent prescription drug zepplin. Bush claimed that aside from Homeland Security and the War on Terror, discretionary spending grew at only 1% per year -- is that right? I think he may be fudging the numbers somehow, but I'm sure some other blogger will dig into it.
Overall, I think America has two clear choices. In the past people (generally on the fringes) have claimed that the Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical, but in 2004 I think the candidates have laid out starkly contrasting visions for America. The decision we make as a nation will send profound reverberations ringing through history.
Check out Hugh Hewitt's scorecard for more detailed information on all the questions.
The point of promoting children through tax credits is that they are the only guarantee that the present system can continue intergenerationally. If there aren't enough kids, our intergenerational pyramid schemes collapse. It's that simple. So a tax credit is worth it so you don't have to deal with the reality that you've conned the entire polity into an unsustainable system.
The scorecard is pretty lame. Picking apart each response and assigning a grade letter to it reeks of subjectivity and ideological bias.
By contrast, your more generalized view, Michael, was much better.
I don't have a strong opinion of this debate one way or the other. I think that people's determination of who won will depend on what side of the table they more closely identify with.
You're right about the discretionary spending. This discretionary spending has a name... the $820 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill that was passed a few months ago.... and there's no way that this bill is 1% of the federal budget.
.. and that brings me back to the VP debate. After watching that debate, I realized how much I admire and respect Dick Cheney. I think he's very savvy on the issues... which is a stark contrast to W... who I don't think actually understands the details of such issues.
If it were Cheney running for President, he may very well have gotten my vote.. for two reasons:
1.) He doesn't support the FMA. Serving "at the pleasure of the President" means he has to support what W supports... but if it were his decision, he wouldn't support the FMA.
2.) He knows what he's talking about. Cheney is everything I wish Dubya was... and enough of what W isn't... to possibly persuade me to vote for him.
For example: A Cheney/Giuliani or Giuliani/Cheney ticket would stand a good chance of getting my vote. With W on it this time around, though, there's no way they're getting my vote.
Mark: The Omnibus bill wasn't 1% of the budget, clearly, but I think Bush was only saying that the year-by-year increase to non-defense discretionary spending was 1%.
I like Cheney too, and I think he'd make a great President. I think Bush displayed a pretty good grasp of the issues in the first two debates though. I don't think I was the only one surprised that he knew when the rainy season in Darfur began, and he understood what was up with the stem cell research question, North Korea negotiations, and some of the other detail-oriented debate questions thus far. I think you'll selling him short.
Giuliani would have a tough time in the Republican primaries for the same reason Rice would: they're too far to the left socially. Which is of course why you'd probably like them :)
Bush's talk on the details of the issues seemed too much like a memorization thing than an actual understanding and comprehension thing.
Yes, I like Giuliani because he's not a social conservative.
I'm sure in some manner the 1% figure is right, though definitely using the lies, damn lies and statistics paradigm. Lest we forget, that the centerpiece of the Bush domestic policy was the medicare prescription drug plan which we won't be paying until 2006 and (nice for him) wouldn't be counted as non-defense, non-homeland, non-discretionary spending...now that I write that out completely..how large is the government if you exclude entitlements, defense and homeland security?