Much Better
The consensus analysis seems to be the second debate was a draw, with some, including Mort Kondrake and Bill Kristol, saying Kerry edged out Bush.
I think they're wrong, but I appreciate their point that perhaps, in a vacuum, Kerry did slightly better. But the debate did not happen in a vacuum, it happened in the context of the 2004 election cycle, and following a truly miserable performance by Bush in the first debate.
After Bush stumbled in Round 1, the race appeared neck-and-neck, with Bush losing ground since the Republican convention. My belief, going into Round 2, was that a loss would not hurt Bush as much as a win would help him. If Bush was a lousy debater in the first debate, and a lousy debater in the second, what would have changed?
On the other hand, if Bush showed significant improvement over last time, he could go a long way in reassuring the voters who were leaning toward him after the convention, but became undecided after his last performance.
Bush more than held his own against the more skilled debater, and the format helped him greatly. He varied his attacks, bringing up Kerry's Senate record, and effectively charging that Kerry's Iraq "plan" is nothing new at all. To his credit he also brought up oil-for-food, but left his most lethal war-related arrow in his quiver, namely that Kerry now lauds Bush 41 for the coalition he built in 1991, but voted against the war at the time.
Like Cheney, Bush brought up the fact that Kerry's "no" vote on the $87 billion occurred at a time when anti-war Howard Dean was the darling of the Democrats. He did not, however, mention the circumstances of Kerry's "yes" vote to authorize the use of force. That vote came less than a month before the 2002 election, at a time when approval for the war was running near 70%. It would be an easy case to make that Kerry has always been anti-war, but voted "yes" simply to preserve his political career, knowing he'd have ample opportunity to backtrack later.
The one major stumble from Bush, in my opinion, was related to importing drugs from Canada. Bush cited safety concerns as the only reason for not allowing the imports. This was a major mistake. Safety concerns are bogus, because we're talking, for the most part, about drugs made by American companies. That concern can be easily erased, and then we're stuck with the ludicrous prospect of Canada being the middleman for a significant portion of U.S. drug purchases.
I suppose I knew Bush would take that route, but it's bad policy and a bad debate tactic. Everyone in the room knew safety was not an issue, so the explanation Kerry gave, that Bush is a patsy for big drug companies, is hard not to accept without a viable alternative argument.
True, Bush had only a couple of minutes to discuss, but he surely could have somehow brought up that if we have to import American drugs from Canada, there is some sort of problem, and making importing easier does not fix that problem. The problem, in essence, is that drug companies have enormous R&D costs, while the cost of producing the pills themselves is minimal. The Canadian government has capped what it will pay for drugs. If that cap is above what it costs to manufature the pills, it's worth it for the drug companies to sell there, but it means the brunt of R&D must be paid for by someone else, namely Americans.
The real question is not why Americans can't import drugs from Canada, but why Canadian drugs should be subsidized by American consumers in the first place. The economics of the drug industry are hard to convey in two minutes, but ceding the point that importing is a valid idea, and offering no credible arguments against it, will harm American consumers (long-term anyway), the American economy, and the health of billions as new drugs are indroduced less and less frequently.
Aside from the drug issue though, I thought Bush did so well, at least in comparison to his previous performance, that it will at least seem like a victory to America, even if technically the debate was a stalemate.
I think they're wrong, but I appreciate their point that perhaps, in a vacuum, Kerry did slightly better. But the debate did not happen in a vacuum, it happened in the context of the 2004 election cycle, and following a truly miserable performance by Bush in the first debate.
After Bush stumbled in Round 1, the race appeared neck-and-neck, with Bush losing ground since the Republican convention. My belief, going into Round 2, was that a loss would not hurt Bush as much as a win would help him. If Bush was a lousy debater in the first debate, and a lousy debater in the second, what would have changed?
On the other hand, if Bush showed significant improvement over last time, he could go a long way in reassuring the voters who were leaning toward him after the convention, but became undecided after his last performance.
Bush more than held his own against the more skilled debater, and the format helped him greatly. He varied his attacks, bringing up Kerry's Senate record, and effectively charging that Kerry's Iraq "plan" is nothing new at all. To his credit he also brought up oil-for-food, but left his most lethal war-related arrow in his quiver, namely that Kerry now lauds Bush 41 for the coalition he built in 1991, but voted against the war at the time.
Like Cheney, Bush brought up the fact that Kerry's "no" vote on the $87 billion occurred at a time when anti-war Howard Dean was the darling of the Democrats. He did not, however, mention the circumstances of Kerry's "yes" vote to authorize the use of force. That vote came less than a month before the 2002 election, at a time when approval for the war was running near 70%. It would be an easy case to make that Kerry has always been anti-war, but voted "yes" simply to preserve his political career, knowing he'd have ample opportunity to backtrack later.
The one major stumble from Bush, in my opinion, was related to importing drugs from Canada. Bush cited safety concerns as the only reason for not allowing the imports. This was a major mistake. Safety concerns are bogus, because we're talking, for the most part, about drugs made by American companies. That concern can be easily erased, and then we're stuck with the ludicrous prospect of Canada being the middleman for a significant portion of U.S. drug purchases.
I suppose I knew Bush would take that route, but it's bad policy and a bad debate tactic. Everyone in the room knew safety was not an issue, so the explanation Kerry gave, that Bush is a patsy for big drug companies, is hard not to accept without a viable alternative argument.
True, Bush had only a couple of minutes to discuss, but he surely could have somehow brought up that if we have to import American drugs from Canada, there is some sort of problem, and making importing easier does not fix that problem. The problem, in essence, is that drug companies have enormous R&D costs, while the cost of producing the pills themselves is minimal. The Canadian government has capped what it will pay for drugs. If that cap is above what it costs to manufature the pills, it's worth it for the drug companies to sell there, but it means the brunt of R&D must be paid for by someone else, namely Americans.
The real question is not why Americans can't import drugs from Canada, but why Canadian drugs should be subsidized by American consumers in the first place. The economics of the drug industry are hard to convey in two minutes, but ceding the point that importing is a valid idea, and offering no credible arguments against it, will harm American consumers (long-term anyway), the American economy, and the health of billions as new drugs are indroduced less and less frequently.
Aside from the drug issue though, I thought Bush did so well, at least in comparison to his previous performance, that it will at least seem like a victory to America, even if technically the debate was a stalemate.
Comments