After last night, can anyone still seriously question which candidate is more qualified to be president? Bush, with the advantage of four years as the president under his belt, still managed to look and sound far less presidential than the man vying to replace him. And this isn't just me talking: every post-debate poll shows a Kerry victory, and those who scored it round-by-round, like Keith Olbermann, saw a decisive Kerry win as well.
This is probably because Kerry did what he needed to do last night. He hammered away at the themes he and his campaign judge to be their most effective onroads against Bush--his record on health care, the economy, and Iraq--while making almost transparent appeals to the women and minorities whose support he needs in order to overcome the Bubba vote guaranteed to accrue to Bush no matter what either candidate says or does.
Kerry quietly made a lot of points for a lot of audiences tonight. For the religious, he reminded them that they're called to love their neighbors, and showed that he's ready to call them on this, saying, "Frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet." For those concerned with the right to choose, he promised what Bush could not:
I‘ll answer it straight to America. I‘m not going to appoint a judge to the Court who‘s going to undo a constitutional right, whether it‘s the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that‘s given under our courts today—under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.For those who seek strength in a president--and isn't that everyone?--he subtly called Bush a wimp for failing to push Congress into extending the ban on assault weapons, following up his experience as a hunter and a prosecutor and the personal story of an officer faced with an AK-47 with this:
So I don‘t intend to see it undone.
Clearly, the president wants to leave an ambivalence or intends to undo it.
If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, "Sorry, we don‘t have the votes,” I‘d have said, “Then we‘re going to have a fight."Reminiscent of Michael Douglas in American President, isn't it?
And I‘d have taken it out to the country and I‘d have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We‘d have won what Bill Clinton won.
Meanwhile, Bush apparently thinks anyone who isn't already rich is too stupid to have a job. Every time he got a question about jobs, he immediately pivoted to job training. That's right, America: You're too expensive to do the jobs you have now and too dumb to do any job that might pay you well enough to support yourself and your family. Let's all go to community college! Forget about honoring the dignity of work by curbing the cruelty of capitalism and enforcing fair labor standards like a meaningful minimum wage, or aiming to ensure that anyone who works full-time makes enough to support a family. Let's send everyone to school! That'll make for more of the precious family time that the family-values candidate ought to support, right? And while we're at it, let's force these poor working schlubs to also: (a) make their own way through the minefields of the health care system, trying to evaluate the real value of services about which they have no understanding; and (b) force people to figure out for themselves how they should get maximum return on their Social Security investment, which is supposed to be the minimum that any retiree will have available to them. Between constant job training and the eternal quest for better rates, will people have any time at all to think about anything but work and survival?
I GET IT! That's the whole idea: If the poor and the middle class are completely caught up in the struggle to survive, they won't have time to realize who's screwing them and do something about it. Grand plan, Republicans.
Of course, distraction is their game. Lynne Cheney had a little flip-out last night because Kerry had the gall to bring up her gay daughter while discussing whether homosexuality is a choice. But Dick Cheney has discussed this--you've got an openly gay daughter, and you're proud of her. Lynne, are you ashamed of something? Are you afraid that the kind of people likely to vote for your husband might not look kindly on your gay daughter? Maybe, in that case, you should reevaluate your support for the president rather than turning on the man who wants to give your daughter equality under the law--unless you're not really as proud of her as you claim to be? If Kerry's remark happens to peel away supporters of the Republicans, or keeps evangelicals at home on November 2nd, it serves them right for being hypocritical on this issue. Kerry isn't perfect, but he's light years ahead of Bush, who said last night that we should treat everyone with respect and dignity, but still can't bring himself to use the words "gay" or "lesbian." You'd clearly like to pretend I don't exist, Mr. President. If that's your idea of respect and dignity, here's mine: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
1 comment:
I agree that it ain't over 'til it's over. I do think, though, that Kerry is in a stronger position to push back against attacks now than he was before. When the Swift Boat Vets came out with their lies, Kerry was an unknown quantity. But millions and millions of people have watched these debates; they've seen Kerry as a steady man, ready with the facts, armed with plans, and more confident than Bush. Attempting to define him now, three weeks out from the election, will be a much more difficult task. I'm not saying the Republicans won't try, or even that they won't succeed. I am saying that I like our chances a lot more now than I did a few weeks ago.
Post a Comment