If one takes a look at various interpretations of last night's debate by looking at some of the Kerry-friendly sites on my blogroll, you will yet again get mixed results. It is important when analyzing a debate that you do not let the strength of one's side's substantive arguments per se overwhelm you, as suggested by atheist Richard Carrier, who sometimes hands mixed reviews to fellow travelers when they debate theists. Style, the expectations games, differing goals, and technique all matter.
Bush seemed to have benefited from lower expectations (or generous grading by those who wanted to believe) and Kerry from higher expectations (various people noted he didn't go for the kill as much as he could have -- this includes those over at Slate who speak of Bush's "truth" problem). At any rate, I think all the news about Iraq, including the WMD material, will go hand in hand with the debates to give Kerry/Edwards a good push in the right direction. For instance, National Review has a cover about "What Went Wrong In Iraq" -- not good for W. The debates are a net positive, especially as a way to rally up the doubters who deep down want to vote for Kerry/Edwards and need to be reminded why.
Overall, if the spin is that Kerry/Edwards could have been more lethal, it's pretty good, given recently the spin was that voters was not much impressed Kerry (Edwards seemed a bit MIA) at all. And, I think watching the President in debates like this will make it hard for certain people to vote for the guy. Who is more presidential? Who would you rather be your President?
Uh, let me give you a couple of examples I guess of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
This might be an example that actually impresses a few people, though it would be a sad reflection of our educational system. Dred Scott was actually about slaves going into free territory and back to a slave state, which raised complex questions that greatly divided the nation in the 1850s. Slavery was also "allowed" ("mandated" would fit better for the President's purposes) by the Constitution at the time, unless you had a pretty radical view of things that would run counter to the apparent intent of the example. The main opinion also is often used as a prime example of the flaws of an exaggerated "strict interpretation" method. Teachers throughout the country must have grimaced at the simplistic and wrongheaded summary, especially given the fact the Equal Protection Clause wasn't in place at the time.
But, it's a pretty typical simplistic view -- the idea that the opinion was wrong because it upheld slavery. No, that wasn't the problem at all. It was how it did so, including a convoluted reading of original intent that didn't even convince all of the majority justices. Ditto on the Pledge issue. For instance, prayer can be said in schools. The problem is when there is improper involvement by the state. That is the real issue of the case, though as a soundbite, Bush's summary was better than his perversion of Dred Scott.
And he [Justice Stewart] said the mark of a good judge, a good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
What I want to find if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen, the future of things that matter to you in terms of civil rights: what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are our constitutional rights.
And I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
Kerry's response probably is of the sort that got him mediocre grades. First off, it doesn't really point out how bad the President's response was, though at some point this criticism can be taken too far. [He did bring up how Bush likes Scalia and Thomas.] Second, it's a bit contradictory, since some of the things listed in the second paragraph suggest a liberal leaning opinion writer. "Good" here suggests "good result," which is fine, but you cannot quite have it both ways. Still, good response, might help answer Naderite sorts of this nature.*
Q. Senator Kerry, suppose you're speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person? ...
[A.] But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people, I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife, Teresa, does, about making other choices and about abstinence and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment.
This is a good response, though it annoyed some liberals. Note that the question regards an pro-life voter, so those who felt the answer was unnecessarily geared to pro-life swing voters kind of miss the point. It shows how someone can be a Catholic but support pro-choice policies because the issue is an "article of faith" that is a great matter of debate. A matter that the First Amendment leaves to individual voters to decide on their own. And, his own faith might compel him to a certain stance, as the President's might, but it cannot be used to force everyone to follow the same path. President Bush seems to miss such nuances:
Mr. Kerry: Well, again, the president just said categorically my opponent's against this, my opponents against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not. I'm against the partial birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother. ....
Mr. Bush: It's pretty simple when they say are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no. And he was given a chance to vote. And he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's the vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run but you can't hide. It's reality.
No, it's not "pretty simple" when you get down to it. It's sad though. These days, it isn't just liberal/conservative. No. It's more troubling. It's simplistic vs. complex. It's trustworthy vs. untrustworthy. It's competent vs. incompetent. And, I myself do not need a semi-debate (Lincoln/Douglas are turning over in their graves with these ninety second bites) to tell me what one falls on the right side. What one that actually is on the side of reality.
For those who might, hopefully it helped them toward the better path.
---
* Probably not. They will take the first half that speaks of no litmus tests and imply a vote for Kerry will be a vote for pro-life voting judges. The article reaffirms that Kerry is not as "liberal" as one might presume, but uses this to jump a few steps, and make him out to be an unprincipled Bush clone. As one might note, it is unclear how voting against the Defense of Marriage Act and a partial birth abortion ban meets this test. Ultimately, the article basically implies many Kerry voters are dupes given their interests are not really protected. Said voters probably can (sometimes in earthy language) school such missing the forest for the trees idealist sorts better than I.