Fox’s panel of experts was just introduced: Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke and William Kristol. Balanced — and diverse!
Demonstrator’s sign seen over Wolf Blitzer’s shoulder during CNN pre-debate: “What’s the frequency, W?”
The GOPfather
Today we learned about President Bush’s promise to “keep his foot on Kerry’s throat,” and Bill O’Reilly’s claim that one day “Al Franken is going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever.”
Conservatives or gangsters? Political party or organized crime? We report, you decide.
Live from San Francisco
I had such fun live-blogging the last debate, I’m gonna do it again.
The words start to flow around 6 pm PST. See you there…
Mistakes, mistakes
One last thought on that “three mistakes” question that Bush ducked.
This is a really basic, standard-issue job interview question that every job-hunting college graduate learns to deal with. (It’s a variant of the “Tell me about your weaknesses” line of inquiry.) You know the interviewers want to hear something about how you deal with failure or criticism or learning from error. You need to show them that you are a little self-reflective. You’re obviously not going to reveal something that’s so damaging it disqualifies you from the job, and no one expects you to. But the very nature of the question is a test of tact and self-awareness.
The one thing you know never to do is what Bush did tonight: You don’t rattle off a list of your successes when you’re asked about your mistakes. You don’t say, “Let’s not talk about where I was wrong — here’s where I was right.” Say that and you flunk the test.
I was honestly surprised Bush was so obviously unprepared for the question. (As my colleague Geraldine Sealey points out over in Salon’s War Room, the president was asked a similar question at an April press conference, so he’s had some time to think it through.)
Then I thought about it and realized, gee, George W. Bush is a man who never in his life had to prepare for a real job interview — one that actually would determine whether he could pay his bills. Maybe he had interviews, but you’ve got to figure the family name and the pedigree opened the door and sealed the deal. The interview would always have been a formality. Fortunately, this debate was more than that.
Josh Marshall’s commentary on this matter is also illuminating:
“In the Bush world you never admit mistakes. The only mistakes the president can think of are the times he appointed people who admitted mistakes — who put reality above loyalty to the president.”
Kerry’s prize, just for showing up!
I imagine the Bush people are happy tonight — this debate wasn’t the obvious rout the last one was. But I still think the essential dynamic here helps Kerry. The problem for Bush is simple: The more time he spends in front of the American people in a forum that is not handpicked and tightly controlled by his own handlers, the more it’s clear that there’s nothing more to Bush.
If you already support him, well, you already support him, you’re probably not going to change. If you’re a Kerry supporter, like me, you’re just going to keep shaking your head in disbelief. So all that matters is the slim wedge of people outside of the two camps. And with each debate, those people are seeing that, with Bush, that’s all there is, folks. His lines are writ in stone, and we’ve heard them already. Here they were again: “He changed positions.” (As if that in itself were a crime.) “I know how these people think.” (The line reeked of dismissive condescension in the first debate, yet here it was again: does it play to the know-nothing xenophobic heartland?) “We’ve already got 75% of al-Qaida.”(Oh, so why are we so worried about a terror attack? Ah, that’s right, we got 75% of the leadership as of 9/11/2001 — then we gave them some real effective recruiting help by invading Iraq.) Love him or hate him, you couldn’t come away from this debate feeling that you’d heard or learned a single new thing from Bush.
Meanwhile, with each debate Kerry gets to display more of himself, gets to prove — simply by virtue of showing up, being fast on his feet and articulate and smart and able to stand up for himself — that he is nothing like the insane caricature of himself that the Bush ads have portrayed.
The time Bush spends in the spotlight diminishes him; the time Kerry spends in the spotlight enhances him. Since a political campaign can’t hide the candidate, this leaves Bush in a bind. No wonder Kerry’s strategists were willing to compromise on so many details of the debate formats to get Bush to commit to a third engagement. On to the next debate!
Well, Bush’s team fixed their candidate’s veneer since the first debate: No smirks, no grimaces, lots of smiles. Still, they can give the guy a paint job, they can patch the cracks; but the timbers are still rotten, and the whole structure is sagging. Kerry once more seemed more alert, more connected with reality and in touch with the complexity of the world any president faces.
Questioner has asked Bush to name three mistakes he made, and he basically stonewalled. Iraq was right, the tax cut was right. Maybe he made a few bad appointments, but he won’t say who. No mistakes worth naming. There you have it: President Bush — “I’m perfect.”
Kerry: “Gut check time: Was this really going to war as a last resort? “
Surely President Bush could have thought twice about saying to Kerry, regarding his position on partial-birth abortions, “You can run but you can’t hide.” Sound familiar? If memory serves, it’s what he said about Osama bin Laden back when he was willing to mention that name in public. So far, bin Laden has managed to hide quite well.
Kos has the scoop on the lumber thing: “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.”