Following is an email exchange between me and my kid brother Jeff about last night’s debate. It’s similar to the debate itself in that my brother, like Kerry, is more intellectual, more articulate, not to mention more long-winded, than George Bush and I are. He’s also taller than me. But George and I are right, and Kerry and my brother, tall and tan though they may be, are wrong. Jeff is a political science professor with a bachelor’s from the University of Texas and a phd from Stanford, where he used to play tennis with Condoleeza Rice. We used to agree about politics, except maybe I was an even more radical leftist. Now, since 9/11, we disagree about politics almost completely, which is actually more fun.
DATE: 2004-09-28 01:39:27
FROM: sewardj@pacificu.edu
TO: jns@pubblog.com
I liked this take on the war on terror, which seems to be neither Bushite nor Kerryian.
DATE: 2004-09-30 22:00:08
FROM: john seward
TO: sewardj@pacificu.edu
I liked this article too, so I guess it is neither Bushite or Kerryian.
Just watched the debate (on my computer cuz we don’t have a tv).
Kerry did better than I expected. All in all I thought it was the most
intelligent, substantive presidential debate I’ve ever seen. I was
quite surprised. I don’t think it will change many minds. They both
did quite well. Kerry is more articulate, but Bush seems more real,
but that may just be cuz I think he’s right.
DATE: 2004-09-30 22:24:49
FROM: john seward
TO: sewardj@pacificu.edu
I don’t want you to get the wrong impression. I can’t stand Kerry.
He’s such a lying, opportunistic weasel, he makes me want to puke, but
he did very well. It’s not easy to hold your own in a debate when you
have to defend the wrong position. And his tan didn’t look weird at
all.
DATE: 2004-10-01 00:02:08
FROM: Seward, Jeff
TO: john seward
I thought Kerry clearly won the substantive debate. Bush didn’t really respond very well to Kerry’s attacks except to keep talking about ‘mixed messages.’ That wasn’t very persuasive in the context of the debate because Kerry was pretty clear and consistent within the 90 minutes. All the post-debate analyses I watched agreed that Kerry had won, including all the analysts on Fox and also Joe Scarbrough on MSNBC, who is a very conservative Republican and strong Bush supporter. ABC’s instant poll had the public saying Kerry won (45-36 percent with 17 percent calling it a tie). MSNBC’s website poll had Kerry winning 59-37; the American Research Group’s poll of the public had Kerry winning 51-41, and their website visitors had Kerry up something like 57-39. I’m not so sure. I think Kerry probably managed to reassure his base that he’s worth supporting and gave some undecided voters a better impression of him. The Bush campaign has managed to push his negatives to a very high level (over 40 percent), and I think this debate (and the subsequent two) should bring those down substantially.
But I thought Bush came across as firm in his convictions and, unlike the 2000 debates, plausible as a President. He seems comfortable being President, very sure of what he wants to do, and very determined to do it. All the polls show that most people want him to operate very differently in his second term than in his first, but they see him as a strong leader. I thought he reinforced both of those views probably tonight. Kerry, on the other hand, seemed like he was trying to win a debate and appear presidential. He did win the debate, and he did appear more presidential than usual, but it wasn’t a completely convincing performance. I don’t think he inspired confidence that he would be as comfortable and confident being President as Bush now seems to be. Maybe he would be; he seems to have a history of rising to the occasion, whatever the occasion happens to be. But right now, he still seems to me as if he is saying, ‘I am not really a President, but I play one on TV.’ I’m not sure that’s enough to close the gap between him and Bush on the ‘who is a stronger leader’ question.
This debate, I think, just keeps him in the game. If he wins the next two debates as clearly and, more importantly, looks more comfortable and genuine doing so, I think he can still win–especially if there keeps happening bad news every day in Iraq, gasoline prices follow oil prices up, the October employment report tomorrow is weak, and the stock market slumps a little. I’m looking forward to Edwards/Cheney. They are two such different characters that that debate is really unpredictable. It might produce some really strange moments. These four debates come pretty fast one upon another. For the next two weeks, there won’t be space in the press for anything else from the campaign. If Kerry/Edwards go four for four, they could really shake the Bush campaign and shake Bush’s image. If he can’t stand up to Kerry, people will be more inclined to buy Kerry’s theme that Bush isn’t really being an effective president. And if Kerry can stand up to the ‘tough’ Bush, then maybe he is a strong enough leader to handle the terrorists. But it seems to me like a longshot. Tonight’s performance, though, was good enough to give me some hope. I don’t know what sort of President Kerry would be, but I think Bush’s presidency is a catastrophe both at home and abroad, and I think Kerry’s administration would at least be mediocre and tolerable.
DATE: 2004-10-01 12:08:59
FROM: john seward
TO: Seward, Jeff
Yeah, I basically agree with all that, except for ‘I thought Kerry
clearly won the substantive debate.’ Kerry’s ‘plan’ seems to consist
of holding summits. Is this what you mean by substantive:
‘I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit
with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved,
not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.’
‘I’m going to hold that summit.’
‘But this president hasn’t even held the kind of statesman-like summits
that pull people together and get them to invest in those states.’
‘I’ve laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq:
with a summit, by doing better training, faster, by cutting — by doing
what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections.’
‘What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open
firehouses in Iraq, but we’re shutting firehouses who are the first-
responders here in America.’
‘The time line that I’ve set out — and again, I want to correct the
president, because he’s misled again this evening on what I’ve said. I
didn’t say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the
things that I’ve set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw
the troops down in six months.’
‘I can do better.’
When asked by Jim Lehrer whether he favored the current multilateral 5
nation talks with North Korea, or the bilateral negotiations demanded
by Kim Jong Il, Kerry replied, ‘Both.’
‘I have no intention of wilting. I’ve never wilted in my life. And I’ve
never wavered in my life.’