New York Post
October 14, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush exploded two pieces of conventional wisdom last night: 1) that he is stronger on foreign than on domestic policy, and 2) that John Kerry is the candidate who is the "strong closer."
Bush blew the first debate, which was on foreign policy. He did better in the second debate, which covered both. But during that debate, Bush's best answers came on domestic policy. Last night's debate, the last one, was almost entirely about domestic issues — and Bush won.
He won even though the questions Bob Schieffer were stacked against him. When Schieffer asked Kerry how he would bring the country together, it was an invitation for Kerry to bash Bush for dividing us. Schieffer extended no similar invitation to Bush.
Yet Bush got off to a strong start, neatly summarizing the principles that animate his war on terrorism: "Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world."
He never really let up. He made Kerry out to be a carping whiner: "I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints." He pounded Kerry for his liberal voting record, for his vote against the first Gulf war and his view that our goal in the war should be to reduce terrorism to a "nuisance." Kerry, shockingly, didn't try to rebut this last accusation.
There were, of course, exchanges that Kerry won. Kerry beat Bush on the outsourcing question, which was framed in the worst possible way for the president. (What's the president supposed to say to a guy who's just lost his job? A lot of jobs are being outsourced from other countries to companies here. Why don't you go interview one of them?) Bush was a little unsteady in his answers on abortion and the courts. He let Kerry's charge about letting Osama bin Laden go at Tora Bora go unanswered — for the third debate in a row. He even let Kerry, again, get away with presenting himself as a great admirer of Ronald Reagan.
But overall Bush showed himself to be knowledgeable, with well-considered and attractive positions, and he effectively attacked Kerry. When the debate turned to the candidates' religious faith, Bush seemed — at least to me — more genuine and less calculating than Kerry.
The media has decided that Bush is running a dirty campaign, one that is playing fast and loose with the truth. In some cases, Bush has stretched things. Last night, however, it was Kerry who was distorting the issues.
* Kerry claimed that the Congressional Budget Office has "said very clearly" that the type of reform plan Bush wants for Social Security — letting workers invest some of their taxes — would result in benefit cuts. That's not true. The CBO found that benefit cuts would happen under certain (highly unlikely) assumptions.
* Kerry said that during the Clinton years, "we fixed" affirmative action. He repeated Clinton's slogan: "Mend it, don't end it." But Clinton's real policy was to defend and extend it: The only changes made to the programs that put a thumb on the scale depending on people's race or gender came from Congress and the courts. The federal government practices and promotes racial preferences in many, many ways, and few them were changed during Clinton's tenure.
Health care and Social Security are supposed to be Democratic issues. But Bush won the exchanges on those issues, too. He critiqued Kerry's health-care plan, and Kerry defended it. Then Bush outlined his own plan, and Kerry didn't hit it.
Kerry pointed to the potential downside of Bush's Social Security plan. Then Bush answered his objection and pointed to his plan's upside — better returns for young people — and Kerry had no answer. Nor did he have an alternative plan, other than the classic dodge: form a commission.
It was the first time since the Republican convention that Bush has prominently made the case for promoting personal ownership of health and retirement plans. And that theme helped to lay the groundwork for Bush's optimistic closing statement. (Kerry tried a bit of optimism in his closing statement, too, but had to defend himself, for the umpteenth time, on letting other countries veto our national-security policies.)
If Bush had done this well during the first debate, the election would probably be over now. As it was, he generated some badly needed Republican optimism about his own future.
No comments:
Post a Comment