We watched the second presidential debate last night, and I'm definitely glad I've been watching. Each time I see them I feel better about voting for Kerry—he presents himself very well, he's clearly intelligent, he's respectful, he's not a robot like Gore was, and he is able to clearly articulate definite plans. Bush keeps looking bad in the debates: he gets flustered and angry, steamrolls the moderator, and mostly doesn't have concrete rebuttals. For example, they've had several exchanges that essentially went like this:
Bush: My opponent is wishy-washy! He's flip-flopped on the issue of <whatever>
Kerry: No, I've been consistent, and here's exactly why I made each of those decisions and how it fits with my overall convictions. <clear and concise explanation>
Bush: He's inconsistent! That's just how it is!
Why doesn't he just jump up and down and say “Are too! Are too!”? Obviously I'm biased, but I truly believe that Kerry's points are significantly more based in facts, whereas Bush's are more based in rhetoric. And while it's not like I'm an undecided voter, I'm really glad I can feel good about voting for Kerry, instead of being resigned to voting for him.
Now two moments that struck me most: the funniest moment and the scariest moment.
The funniest moment was Bush's comment about the sort of judges he wanted on the Supreme Court. He basically said he wants constitutional literalists. Then as an example of what he doesn't want, he talked about the Dred Scott decision:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
This is priceless stuff. He was clearly about to say that the Constitution says that we're all equal. So... he wants judges on the Supreme Court who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? I don't think that a document that at the time counted some people as three-fifths of a person can really be said to be one that “speaks to the equality of America.”
The scariest moment was when Bush spoke about the Patriot Act:
Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad before they hurt us again. That's the task of the 21st century. And so, I don't think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.
Wow. He could have said something about why it's important, and then talked about making sure it's done carefully and adjusted as necessary to protect rights, but he didn't. Instead he said several times that he doesn't believe it treads on our rights at all. That's a disturbing stance, as is his statement that “every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny”, in light of the fact that part of the Patriot Act was ruled unconstitutional for lack of judicial oversight. The fact that he thinks that preserving our rights is the same as giving law enforcement “every tool necessary”—would he say that a police state wouldn't infringe our rights because it's necessary to keep us safe from the terrorists, then? I'm not saying that I think he really wants a complete police state, but the idea of being led for another four years by someone who thinks that giving more power to law enforcement is the same thing as preserving our rights is very scary.
Subscribe