Good debate. The whole apartment (and more) was watching it. I had a good 45-minute talk about politics with Gary at the Gazette to close out the day today, so my appetite was whetted for more political fanfare.
I thought Bush acquitted himself reasonably well. I’d obviously have to give the stylistic nod to Kerry, but the principles and core beliefs for which each man stand, in the end, operate independently of communication style. The problem with the nature of debates is that they’re necessarily a test of each man’s ability to communicate effectively what he stands for…and oftentimes in the popular mind that ability is placed higher than the issues themselves. I’ll never claim Bush to be a good communicator, and I’ll concede that I think that’s an important quality in a leader, most definitely the effective leader of the free world, but I think we have to be aware of the hierarchy in which we’re placing the criteria by which we evalute our leaders. We can’t afford to confuse awkwardness in expressing an understanding of the issues with a lack of understanding of the issues. I’ll wager many extremely competent engineers, for example, couldn’t communicate very effectively, even with the jargon removed, what it is they do–but that doesn’t negate their ability. Point being: Bush’s awkwardness on the stump shouldn’t be a deterrent to our decision on which way to vote.
Word.
I agree with that. Bush seemed really awkward. Where Kerry seemed a bit more confident. But we should note what each has done while being a political leader both in office and in congress…this vote is going to be another close and hard one.