[Mb-civic] EDITORIAL Overall, a Convincing Winner LATimes

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-debate14oct14.story

EDITORIAL

Overall, a Convincing Winner

 October 14, 2004

 President Bush's handlers tried to minimize the significance of his three
debates with Sen. John F. Kerry, exaggerating Bush's lack of debating skills
while insisting that he is the stronger leader. The trouble with this spin
is that tens of millions of Americans watching the debates didn't feel they
were watching a mere academic exercise. Stitched together, these three
extraordinary exchanges amounted to a powerful indictment of the president's
leadership. 

 Even on foreign policy and national security, supposedly the president's
strong suit, Kerry had Bush on the defensive in the first debate, attacking
him for fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to capture Osama
bin Laden and to prevent the acceleration of nuclear weapons programs in
Iran and North Korea.

 That the president was on the defensive again Wednesday night, in a debate
devoted to domestic policy, is less surprising. Again, Kerry made a
compelling case that, for all his plain-talkin' West Texas bravado, Bush had
failed to lead. When asked about healthy budget surpluses turning to huge
deficits on his watch, the president said the nation needed "fiscal sanity
in the halls of the Congress" in a plaintive tone that suggested he had as
much influence over what happened there as he did over Jacques Chirac. But
Bush's loyal Republican lieutenants are running both chambers of Congress.
Moreover, as Kerry noted in debate No. 2, Bush is about to become the first
president since the 19th century who failed to veto a single bill in an
entire four-year term. That is an abrogation of a president's power to
impose "fiscal sanity" on Congress.

 Bush's weakness as a leader was also manifest in his response to a question
about why he failed to renew the ban on assault weapons, which he professed
to support. He basically said he didn't have the votes on Capitol Hill, even
though the ban would have passed had GOP leaders allowed a vote, something
Bush should have ordered.

 That isn't to say that Kerry has all the answers, or that Bush's charm was
not in evidence, particularly in Wednesday's meeting. Kerry was in full
pander mode on Social Security, and Bush was both profound and sincere in
discussing his religious faith and its influence on his policies. But
overall, Bush doesn't have a strong hand, and both his opponent and his
advisors know it. Bush led the nation to a war that much of the rest of the
world, as well as a small majority of Americans, now thinks was unjustified.
He wrecked the Treasury's finances with reckless tax cuts that still failed
to prevent him from becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to
preside over a net loss of jobs.

 It's no wonder the Bush team, hobbled by such a record, acts as if it can
win only if voters treat this election as a referendum on Kerry's fitness
for office. It should be clear by now that Kerry is not for some Stalinist
government healthcare system, that he won't give Paris a veto over U.S.
foreign policy and that he doesn't think terrorism is merely a nuisance. He
was thoughtful and firm in all three debates, despite his enduring
stiffness. The shrillness of the Bush camp's attacks on Kerry betrays an
unbecoming desperation, and adds to the sense that the challenger came out
the convincing winner.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times