The second debate just ended. It was great. We can say without doubt that Kerry is the better debater. He expresses himself well and he's got an impressive array of facts immediately available. I read somewhere that his debate coach at Yale said Kerry was the second best debater he's ever taught; the first was William F. Buckley.
Bush did better this time around. He was more animated, nor did he repeat himself as much as he did the first time, though he's simply not as good a speaker as Kerry. For all his shortcomings as a speaker, however, I am convinced that he would be, and is, the better leader.
He said a few things that were telling. For example,in answer to the question about stem-cell research, he was clear that we are somehow trying to find the balance between ethics and science. Kerry didn't make that distinction, though it is a really important one.
Kerry's endless criticism of Bush became wearing. There's nothing easier to do than criticize. Kerry was full of promises about how he'd do better, but rather vague how he'd actually do it. He has to be vague, of course. He's been a senator for twenty years, surely he's observed the difficulties of the presidential job. He knows it is incredibly complex. He knows that the promises will be very difficult to fulfill. It's easy to make them, though.
Bush seems to be the kind of man who has strong convictions, and who, after consultation with advisors, will make a decision or take a stand that may be unpopular; who won't back off from what he feels is right to do. I appreciate that about him.
No comments:
Post a Comment