September 28, 2004

Very, very dumb. Also, as bad as Hitler.

Gersh explains why there will be no debate.

"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions." So, Kerry can't ask, "Mr. President, what are you going to do to ensure a swift transition to democracy in Iraq," but he can ask, "Just how dumb are you?" -- a rhetorical question that always stumped me when I was a kid. I mean, if you think about it, there really is no good answer.

For weeks I've been telling my more optimistic friends that Bush is going to trounce Kerry in the debates.

He's just undeniably better at connecting with an audience in these situations, which is how he beat Al Gore, despite Gore's obviously more impressive grasp of the issues.

Interestingly, if anything is going to hurt Bush, it's the very rules he insisted on to prevent any actual debating from taking place. What we'll see on Thursday will be parallel press conferences. And press conferences have never been Bush's strong suit. It all depends, of course, on how tough the questioning is. Which is why I'm still predicting a pretty comfortable Bush win.

Kerry's best hope is to raise one or two questions that are serious enough that even if Bush is able to dodge them during the debates themselves, they'll become part of the campaign for the next few weeks, throwing Bush off his game.

Posted by Daniel Radosh


I think Bush will win, too. I was watching C-Span yesterday, and they were reviewing both candidates debates and I was shocked to see that against Ann Richards Bush was awesome. He didn't talk like he does now, spoke nice english and had command of the subjects. 2000 he wanted the dumb factor, I guess. If Bush comes out like he did against Ann Richards, it might be a landslide. Rove is smart that way, perhaps waiting 4 years to bring out the "smart Bush" strategy and trounce Kerry.

The "smart Bush" strategy is still in the works, I guess! Far from the trouncing I predicted!

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2