Debate II: Bush's mind on full display (It's a messy room with dust bunnies under the bed)

I watched tonight's debates twice. Kerry is so much more literate, so much more coherent than Bush I don't really understand how one can proclaim Bush the winner. Kerry won on the basis of his cogent, connected answers. If language is the dress of thought, the President needs a new tailor.

Both candidates played to their bases. The President's vaunted tough-guy steadfastness was on high display. But I thought the President lacked new answers. If you had followed his stump speeches leading up to the debate this week, you would have heard his first few responses. A few particulars:

How can Bush continue to ask:

And what is he going to say to those people that show up at the summit? Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you've called a mistake.

As I have pointed out, invading Iraq was a mistake. Now it is the largest terrorist training camp in the world. Solving the crisis Bush created is the number one priority ifor nations everywhere. There will be plenty of national service and death required to resolve it. Allies will join because it is now in their national interest to do so. But only Kerry can ask them to join us. They will ignore Bush because he walked insulted most of them in his hurry to invade.

There is nothing unreasonable about Kerry's vote to give the President authority to take military action to enforce broken UN resolutions in Iraq. There is nothing unreasonable about his utter dismay at how Bush used that authority. When you give your kid the keys to the car, do you expect him to use it to drag race down main street? When you give your spouse a credit card do you expect him/her to run to the casino and run it up to the limit? Based on the recent comments of Rummsfeld, Bremmer and the unequivocal findings of the Duelfer report that Iraq was empty of WMD for a decade before the invasion, there is now absolutely no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Bush abused the trust of the congress and the American people.

Listen very carefully to as President Bush describes his views on picking new Supreme Court Justices:

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 a 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 a 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.

There are three things drastically wrong, actually scary, with this response. First, the President said he would apply a religious litmus test to his appointees to the Supreme Court. Where, in the strict interpretation of the Constitution does the word "God" appear? I think the President is implying that he does not believe in the separation of church and state, like other prominent republicans. Secondly, Dred Scott [via Atrios] had everything to do with racism, not property rights. Third, listen carefully folks, Bush believes the constitution "does not speak to the equality of America." Funny, I thought the consitution enshrined equality in America.

Bush is incapable of constructing reasonable compromises. I am very uncomfortable with this quality. In this exchange, Kerry explained very clearly why he voted against the partial birth abortion bill. The proposed legislation did not include an exemptions for protecting the life of the mother and for parental notification protecting incest victims.

Bush's response is telling:

Well, 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 a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.

My way or the highway. Yes or no. With us or against us. This mentality may be perfect for bumper stickers and fairy tales. But it is why our international relationships are in tatters. It is why the country is divided so passionately along partisan lines. Bush has demanded we choose a side. He will brook no disagreement.

And how about this gem:

I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice.

75% of Al Qaeda has been brought to justice? Oh really. Prove it.

Finally, in a nod to the third-world country to our north, Canada, Bush seems to say that their drugs will kill us:

I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.

Oh my. Candadian drug killers commin at ya.

Enough said. Kerry won tonight and will win on Nov. 2. I simply believe a plurality of Americans are ready for a President with an keen, organized mind, loyalty to the constitution and international, yet thouroughly American sensibilities.