The Debates #1

Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.

Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"

This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.

Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.

Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.

Question 2
"Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"

Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.

For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."