The Debates:

The political debates, for me, a decided voter, are still a fascinating spectatcle.

Here are some of Bob Novak's notes from the debate, on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/blog/09/30/novak.blog/

Hugh Hewitt's blog weighs in with commentary and a scorecard:

http://hughhewitt.com/#postid973


My thoughts:

In the beginning I was a little disappointed in Bush, because I found him repeating the same theme in the same way too often. He kept pressing Kerry's view on Iraq, some times in ways I thought were unnecessary. An addendum might be that I am not your swing voter, and so my responses may not be accurately generalized.

Kerry's view of Iraq came off very weak, all the same. He refused to say that Iraq was a mistake, when he was asked, and tried to synthesize his old statments, of Iraq being a threat, and agreeing we needed to go in, while condemning Bush's choice and lamenting our mess over there. I found his synthesis required straight out contradiction, and was ultimately convoluted untruths. It would be better if he committed one way or the other. Bush does not have this problem.

Interestingly, Kerry claims greater subtlety than Bush. Bush is not subtle in the debate, true, he is straightforward. Kerry is less direct, but I don't see him as being subtle in any consistent or logical way. Major bummer for him.

I had wished that Bush had addressed the development of tactical nuclear weapons jab. It was a good move on Kerry's part. It reflects powerfully his view of the world, which is much less US-centric than Bush's. For example: the "global test" cited by Kerry for discerning the proper time for pre-emptive strike.

I used to think that way, until I read Shakespeare's King John. Now I'm convinced that serving another people above your own would be a wicked way to lead. Bush's duty is to his country, and he recognizes this. To what does Kerry owe his allegiance first and foremost?