Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Thinking about the Debates
Tom Blankely has this neat editorial on the "Melodrama in Miami" at the Washington Times.
This part is particularly worth thinking about:
Presidential debates tend to confirm an election trend — not reverse it. Ronald Reagan had gained steadily all year against the calamitous Jimmy Carter. The debate merely confirmed the public's inclination to kick Mr. Carter out and hire Mr. Reagan.
Jerry Ford's clumsy debate discussion about Poland's alleged liberty only confirmed his image as a stumblebum who regularly fell down stairs, hit golf balls into crowds far from the fairway, and most clumsily of all was Watergate Nixon's selected boy. From the day Nixon resigned in 1974, no serious Republican really expected to hold the White House in the next election. How else could a fool such as Jimmy Carter get elected president, if it weren't preordained?
Even the storied Kennedy/ Nixon debate only confirmed an instinct for change. After eight gray, avuncular Eisenhower/ Nixon years, two recessions and a sense of exhaustion, Nixon's un-made-up gray pallor played right into Kennedy's seeming youthful vigor and call to get the country moving again. Would a lively, cheerful Nixon have made any difference? Would such a thing have been possible?
The trend in this election is clear. Despite (or perhaps, because of) all the great issues facing our weary, bleeding old world, this election is about character. By a small majority, the American public will have considered Mr. Kerry and rejected him for lack of presidential character. They just don't trust him to lead us through the mortal storm in which we are engulfed. Mr. Kerry's measure has been taken, and been found wanting.
No clever, last-minute words can change that national judgment, any more than a woman can be persuaded by strict logical argument to fall in love. It is not open to debate.
This part is particularly worth thinking about:
Presidential debates tend to confirm an election trend — not reverse it. Ronald Reagan had gained steadily all year against the calamitous Jimmy Carter. The debate merely confirmed the public's inclination to kick Mr. Carter out and hire Mr. Reagan.
Jerry Ford's clumsy debate discussion about Poland's alleged liberty only confirmed his image as a stumblebum who regularly fell down stairs, hit golf balls into crowds far from the fairway, and most clumsily of all was Watergate Nixon's selected boy. From the day Nixon resigned in 1974, no serious Republican really expected to hold the White House in the next election. How else could a fool such as Jimmy Carter get elected president, if it weren't preordained?
Even the storied Kennedy/ Nixon debate only confirmed an instinct for change. After eight gray, avuncular Eisenhower/ Nixon years, two recessions and a sense of exhaustion, Nixon's un-made-up gray pallor played right into Kennedy's seeming youthful vigor and call to get the country moving again. Would a lively, cheerful Nixon have made any difference? Would such a thing have been possible?
The trend in this election is clear. Despite (or perhaps, because of) all the great issues facing our weary, bleeding old world, this election is about character. By a small majority, the American public will have considered Mr. Kerry and rejected him for lack of presidential character. They just don't trust him to lead us through the mortal storm in which we are engulfed. Mr. Kerry's measure has been taken, and been found wanting.
No clever, last-minute words can change that national judgment, any more than a woman can be persuaded by strict logical argument to fall in love. It is not open to debate.
# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 7:23 AM 
