Archives
October 2004
10/31/04
10/30/04
10/30/04
10/29/04
10/28/04
10/28/04
10/28/04
10/27/04
10/26/04
10/25/04
10/24/04
10/24/04
10/23/04
10/22/04
10/19/04
10/12/04
10/9/04
10/9/04
10/9/04
10/6/04
10/5/04
10/5/04
Thoughts on Last Week's Debate
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
Overall, last week’s debate created no news but was successful in re-reporting what has been in the news regarding foreign policy and the campaign for anyone that has not been paying attention. The blame lies with Jim Lehrer because he asked poor concrete-bound questions that were either retrospective or focused on the moment. He should have asked conceptual questions that would have provided information about how each candidate would act in the next four years.
For Bush, "What have you learned during the build up to, execution of, and aftermath of the war in Iraq that will affect your future policies?" So much better than the what-mistakes-will-you-admit question.
For Kerry, "You criticize President Bush for not having enough allies on the ground fighting in Iraq, but you also criticize President Bush for over relying on allies to fight on the ground in Afghanistan. What is the difference? What principles would guide your judgments regarding the use of allies in battle as President?"
Regarding Kerry, he lacked consistent principles if you compare response to different questions with similar but different concretes (see question above). On Iraq, he was much clearer than he has been, but also clearly wrong on all issues of judgment related to Iraq and the War against Terrorism.
Regarding Bush, he did poorly. He had a couple really good conclusions that were asserted without fuller explanations. Unfortunately, he did not speak enough to his foreign policy vision. He has one and rhetorically it is good, but he needs to be more consistent implementing it in reality (like the Bush doctrine on terrorism). An opening statement would have helped him do that, but that was a flaw with the format. If he had spoken to his vision, he would have been able to both demonstrate that he had a plan and fill the time. He should have answered questions by first speaking about how the question related to his general vision and then talked about particulars.
Stylistically each candidate took a different approach. Kerry had to give long argumentative answers because he had to explain himself. Bush gave short repetitive declarative statements because he was issuing judgments without an attempt to persuade. Bush's debate plan was wrong because he should have attempted to educate and thereby break Kerry’s concrete bound rhetoric.
jwoodswce at 10:08:00 AM EDT Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
Thoughts on Last Week's Debate
Overall, last week’s debate created no news but was successful in re-reporting what has been in the news regarding foreign policy and the campaign for anyone that has not been paying attention. The blame lies with Jim Lehrer because he asked poor concrete-bound questions that were either retrospective or focused on the moment. He should have asked conceptual questions that would have provided information about how each candidate would act in the next four years.
For Bush, "What have you learned during the build up to, execution of, and aftermath of the war in Iraq that will affect your future policies?" So much better than the what-mistakes-will-you-admit question.
For Kerry, "You criticize President Bush for not having enough allies on the ground fighting in Iraq, but you also criticize President Bush for over relying on allies to fight on the ground in Afghanistan. What is the difference? What principles would guide your judgments regarding the use of allies in battle as President?"
Regarding Kerry, he lacked consistent principles if you compare response to different questions with similar but different concretes (see question above). On Iraq, he was much clearer than he has been, but also clearly wrong on all issues of judgment related to Iraq and the War against Terrorism.
Regarding Bush, he did poorly. He had a couple really good conclusions that were asserted without fuller explanations. Unfortunately, he did not speak enough to his foreign policy vision. He has one and rhetorically it is good, but he needs to be more consistent implementing it in reality (like the Bush doctrine on terrorism). An opening statement would have helped him do that, but that was a flaw with the format. If he had spoken to his vision, he would have been able to both demonstrate that he had a plan and fill the time. He should have answered questions by first speaking about how the question related to his general vision and then talked about particulars.
Stylistically each candidate took a different approach. Kerry had to give long argumentative answers because he had to explain himself. Bush gave short repetitive declarative statements because he was issuing judgments without an attempt to persuade. Bush's debate plan was wrong because he should have attempted to educate and thereby break Kerry’s concrete bound rhetoric.
jwoodswce at 10:08:00 AM EDT Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
