Second presidential debate, Dred Scott & abortion

My quick review of tonight's second presidential debate in Missouri, as well as my last post, I've decided.

Bush essentially had to not fall down in order to garner a more positive review of his performance after last week's debacle at Coral Gables. He managed to do so tonight, but just barely. The first fifteen minutes of the debate were distinctly uncomfortable, as Bush bordered on ranting as he lectured the audience with the "WMD intent" rationale. Bush's borderline aggression towards the audience was disturbing, but he calmed down after the first few questions. His treatment of the moderator was rude and inappropriate.

However, Kerry again dominated this debate. One of the reasons was that he always retained the initiative, as Bush again was forced on the defense on both international and domestic policy. Kerry's biggest vulnerability will probably come out of his abortion response, which pointedly did not answer the question asked, but if that will actually affect swing voters is doubtful.

Probably the biggest batch of nonsense came with Bush's stem cell answer. It was tortured, convoluted, and adorned with self-congratulatory moralism, to no surprise. Kerry skillfully answered a borderline hostile question respectfully, while Bush's answered was unintelligible. Kerry was right to call Bush for waffling, and his own reply actually reflected some thought on the issue, rather than merely noting how 'tough' it is to balance hot button political issues.

Bush will probably spend the next few days having to live down his utterly bizarre commentary on judicial appointments. He was obviously prepped to deliver the reply, but it made no sense whatsoever--at least on the surface. Saying he wouldn't appoint judges who supported the Dred Scott v. Stanford reasoning was one of the weirdest things I've ever heard. It was so strange. Of course Bush wasn't answering spontaneously; that's not what he does, after all. So what was the motivation of having this mid-1800s, pre-Civil War case cited as Bush's litmus test for judicial appointment? The Dred Scott case was an 1857 Supreme Court opinion that legitimized the ownership of slaves, denied that freed slaves enjoyed the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship, and argued slave owners' Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated by individual states' outlaw of slavery. Why does this case play a role in George Bush's Supreme Court litmus test?

I thought about it a bit, and decided that it was probably a ham-handed code for pro-lifers' benefit. This should definitely be decoded though, which probably requires some more research into pro-life circles, but I wonder if this citation was meant to refer in code to the status of the unborn versus the rights of the mother. Giving the unborn autonomous rights and protections, and denying that carrying mothers have rights--protected by the due process clauses in the Constitution--over the children they carry would seem to have some tangential relationship to the President's bold rejection of the idea that humans can be considered property. Why was Bush obviously prepared with this answer? Since the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments settled this debate in the 1860s, for crying out loud, what is the point of bringing this up? Why else would George Bush be bravely taking a stand in favor of the abolition of slavery? It's my guess that Bush is sending an implicit, unspoken signal about what his judicial litmus test really is, and that any Supreme Court nominee from a second Bush Administration would thus have to categorically reject Roe v. Wade, and the rights of women to determine their reproductive rights. Of course he won't come out and say it, though. Charming, eh? [UPDATE: See my saturday post exploring this topic more.]

Also, Bush sanctimoniously declares that he has a health plan: liability reform. That's it, folks. No more, no less. Seniors especially need to wonder, is that all? No structural reforms? No funding or spending reforms?

The real winners of this debate, though, were the average Americans, who in 2004 were shown to be able to stand up and ask hard questions of their candidates. Both men faced difficult questions. Those voters did a damn fine job coming up with good questions, and I think the country benefited. Compared to the fatuous performance of Gwen Ifill in the vice-presidential debate, tonight was impressive. I realized that tonight was the first time somebody bothered to ask these guys about Supreme Court appointments. We owe this one guy, who stood up and asked it, a great debt. This vital issue is finally injected into this election, right were it needed to be.

Bush's last question, demanding he admit to mistakes, was clear and necessary. It's been on a lot of minds since last Thursday, and Bush's glib and dodgy answer spoke volumes. Good for that woman to sit in the front row, look a President in the eye, and get straight to the point. Good on the fellow that quoted the Duelfur Report and demanded his President come clean. Good for the young woman who was able to stand up and ask John Kerry to give a straight answer on abortion funding (which he didn't), overcoming her nervousness. I'm proud.

In the end, I think Kerry won. I think that we are seeing the after-effects of the first debate, becuase Kerry has redefined the entire election after last Thursday. Kerry, along with this week's collapse of Administration credibility on Iraq, has completely redefined this campaign, and obviously refocused the attention of the American public. Kerry needed to take his momentum and build on it. I think tonight he accomplished that.

We'll see in November, though. Adios.

Comments

[tootboy]

Styg,

First off if you are having flat readership can I recommend coming back to mindsay. It's not perfect but it keeps you in the loop.

I think you and I watched a different debate. You thank several audience members for their questions but it was Charles Gibson that picked them. Some I thought were silly questions such as the Supreme court pick. These guys will not pick people until they get a list from their team. A better question is who they plan to have in their cabinet especially Kerry. Remember Bush got a big boost in 2000 when it became common knowledge that he was going to ask Colin Powell to join his admin.

Please read my post on the debate. Both candidates make strange quotes. One of these (the Dred Scott comment by Bush) you've tried with great enthusiasm to explain. Kerry's comments in some instances were not jsut strange but somewhat scary. Especially when he insulted the audience.
As you know I am a supporting the President in this election but I believe I was quite fair in my assessment in the debate, knocking Bush almost as much as I knocked Kerry.

[Stygius]

Tooter,

Thanks. For me it's less the issue of readership (if I worked at it, I could probably generate more visits), but rather making priorities in the non-Internet world.

I agree both candidates made confusing comments in the debate. I'm not even interested in pretending I'm fair and balanced towards them. Frankly, I wouldn't elect George Bush to a school board, let alone the presidency.

But I disagree the Supreme Court question wasn't important. I think it's very important, and for the reasons you can see in my other posts. A president's power to shape the judiciary isn't very understood in the public, and the effects long outlasts a President's term. There are good thinkers out there that consider the current Court as a Nixon Court. Republicans--especially after the lessons of Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren--have done a better job trying to shape the judiciary ideologically than any Democratic president. Asking candidates to talk about their ideas of the law and the judiciary is more important than ever.