The second debate

Alright, I'll post on the debate tonight. Once again, I had the distractions of work around me, but I did jot down a few points on the debate. I'll try and review the transcript and add more sometime tomorrow if needed.

I think Bush has a big problem from the beginning. We've heard everything he has to say on Iraq and the war on terror before. We've heard him trying to justify the thing since the invasion occurred, so most of his points on these topics are tired rhetoric, and in a debate that doesn't work well. Bush attempted to overcome this by talking loudly and forcefully, angry and arrogant. It's as if he is calling me stupid for not agreeing with him.

That's why Kerry smoked Bush in the first part of the debate. He was strong, concise, and decisive. I was giddy with excitement for the first twenty minutes or so and wondered how Bush could come back. He did, however. Kerry could not keep the energy up, and Bush slowly calmed down and sounded like the normal guy he pretends to be. So the last hour or so became a draw.

Bush did make one major gaffe. He could not admit to mistakes. He claimed all his mistakes were appointmental, a lack of judgment on people in general and not himself. He probably could have sidestepped it, claiming that he was initially against something, but through his hard work with the Congress, he got it done right. He is gracious and capable. End of story.

But Bush was not the only one who failed that question. Two different people said Kerry should have done two different things in his response that would have won him the debate. One told me if Kerry had pointed out Bush had dodged the question, he would have been better off. Another told me Kerry should have ate his humble pie as a stark contrast to the President's answer. Either would have worked. Chalk up this answer as a mistake both candidates can now mention if ever asked this again.

Moving on, two things I think will help win the post debate spin. One is Bush's rage, especially the moment where he throws off Charles Gibson in order to answer his own question. That was ridiculous.

The other was the moment Kerry laid the lumber on Bush. Kerry, in the midst of pointing out another Bush campaign distortion noted that Bush received money from a timber company that he would be considered an owner of using Bush's definition. Bush was bemused. "I own a timber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?"

When I saw this I went nuts. I thought Kerry had just lost the election. 'Please,' I said to myself, 'let this statement have some truth.'

I'm not sure why I ever doubted:

President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)

Spun right, this could make Kerry a winner. This is a moment that I'm sure stood out for a number of people. And it seems most fact checking articles have included this moment and chosen to verify it. It's a memorable moment that turns in favor of John Kerry. Those moments help win the post debate spin.

Here's how. It can be used to reaffirm Bush is out of touch with reality. First, it shows his claim about 900,000 small business being taxed is false. Second, it downstream Bush is unaware of the kind of claims his campaign is making. Third, he doesn't know that he owns part of a timber company. It's a complete disconnect moment for the President, much like the Cheney claim that he never met Edwards even though he had.

One last note. Before the debate I heard the pundits claim this event would favor Bush because it played into his style. And John Kerry stood up there and looked just as comfortable as Bush if not more so. He connected with people as he answered questions, calling them by name multiple times and even getting a chuckle or two out of the whole thing. While it was nice for Bush to show up this time, I think Kerry handled this second incarnation of Bush well enough for the win.

P.S. Someone on MSNBC pointed out how they were discussing Bush's demeanor in the debates so far mush like they had about Gore in 2000. It didn't do him much good back then, and I can't imagine it's going to help Bush now.

*UPDATE* Zogby internals:

Democrats rallied behind Kerry's performance by 87% to 8%, while Republicans rallied behind Bush's performance by a slightly smaller margin, 83% to 10%. But independents chose Kerry by a 16-point margin, 53% to 37%.

The reason the overall figures show only a slight advantage for Kerry, despite his greater margin among his own party and winning the independent vote, is that the sample of viewers had more Republicans (38%) than Democrats (32%) or independents (30%). Also, the sample of viewers support Bush over Kerry in the presidential race by 50% to 46%.

Solidifying the base and winning independents by a 16 point margin? I'd call that a definite Kerry win.

*UPDATE II* Kevin Drum catches a Bush spending lie, and here's an explanation of Bush's cryptic Dred Scott comment.

*UPDATE III* A lot of traffic has come over here based on that Dred Scot = abortion link. So I've cleaned up the post a little bit for easier reading. I wish I had something further to add on the issue, but I think the initial post you linked from does an excellent job that requires little comment. But feel free to look around and discuss things.

I can also now report my post debate spin hopes were dashed, no doubt due to a Friday night before a long weekend. One day I'll get it right.