America's Lost Respect by Paul Krugman
As a result of the American military," President Bush declared last week, "the Taliban is no longer in existence."
It's unclear whether Mr. Bush misspoke, or whether he really is that clueless. But his claim was in keeping with his re-election strategy, demonstrated once again in last night's debate: a president who has done immense damage to America's position in the world hopes to brazen it out by claiming that failure is success.
Three years ago, the United States was both feared and respected: feared because of its military supremacy, respected because of its traditional commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
Since then, Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American military power, and has tied up much of that power in a grinding guerrilla war. This has emboldened regimes that pose a real threat. Three years ago, would North Korea have felt so free to trumpet its conversion of fuel rods into bombs?
But even more important is the loss of respect. After the official rationales for the Iraq war proved false, and after America failed to make good on its promise to foster democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq - and, not least, after Abu Ghraib - the world no longer believes that we are the good guys. [more]
Unlike, probably, most of you, I don't have television (by choice). I listened to the debate on the radio. Having read many of the post debate reactions and spin, I apparently missed a lot of what many "viewers" focused on. Bush seems to have come off badly compared to Kerry on body language and facial expressions.
As a "listener" I was straining for nuance in the voice of the debators and, of course, any major verbal gaffs. There didn't seem to be any killer gaffs, but nuance did come through. I even wondered on a couple of occasions, "Is Bush pounding on the podium?" Kerry sounded confident throughout but I did find myself worrying that he might get dinged for taking too much time. Bush, on the other hand, seemed plagued by his now trademark empty pauses where he seems to be trying to keep his brain from wandering. He also seemed to be finishing his answers to questions and his responses to his opponent answers with time to spare, time that he might have used to his advantage.
On substance, I thought Bush was mouthing the same tired talking points. How many times did he say "it's hard work"? 11 times, always followed by an understatement or platitude such as "It's hard work:
in Iraq;
fixing the FBI;
fighting Bathists;
going from tyranny to democracy;
to go from a place where people get their hands cut off to place where people are free;
to love a mother who's son was killed fighting in Iraq;
training troops, police and guards in Iraq;
because the enemy is determined;
rising to challenges and climbing mighty mountains.
Here's Bush, who hasn't had to work hard for anything his entire life and now he's touting hard work like it is some kind of carefully planned out strategy that cannot fail. Just "trust me" he seemed to be saying, as if his record meant nothing.
The Bush talking point that Kerry is indecisive and keeps changing his mind brought probably the best zinger of the night when Kerry responded, "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong."
Kerry had his own well used talking points, but he also covered ground that is not often heard on the campaign trail and he seemed to keep Bush pretty much on the defensive throughout the entire debate. He hammered Bush on nuclear proliferation and the weakened effort, since Bush came into office, to secure poorly guarded loose nukes in the former USSR. Bush seemed taken completely off guard by this.
Kerry also pounded Bush on his administrations pitiful effort at national security regarding our sea ports, public transportation, and chemical and nuclear facilities. He charged that glaringly weak security was partly due to Bush's bowing to political pressure from the industries most in need of protection.
And finally, Kerry really got Bush upset when he accused him of abandoning Afghanistan, the real center of war on terrorism, for Iraq, reminding Bush that it was bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein that attacked us on 9/11 as clearly stated by the 9/11 commission. Bush's response was a flustered and angry "Of course I know bin Laden attacked us. I know that."
I'm glad I wasn't able to "watch" the debate. I believe I listened more carefully to what was said without the distracting visuals, which no doubt would have infuriated me. My opinion--Kerry clearly took and held the offensive. He sounded smart, composed, well-informed and presidential. Bush sounded tired and he lacked anything original to say. I'm looking forward to the next debate.
Transcript of the debate
The Clear Candidate: John Kerry sent a message last night, and it wasn't mixed by Harold Meyerson
