How bad was the debate for Bush?

Bush’s performance in his match-up with Kerry last week was, of course, a painful embarrassment, perhaps the worst performance ever in a presidential debate. But Robert Novak goes further, indicating it could be fatal to Bush’s candidacy: “Can a front-runner really lose the election because of poor debating skills? He might if the debate exposes the candidate’s basic flaws. That’s why Bush supporters are worried…” (“Gloom and Doom: Dubya’s dismal debate,” New York Post, October 4, 2004.)

The basic flaws Bush revealed were, among other things: smugness; ignorance; appalling lack of any intellectual engagement with the issues at hand; robot-like reliance on the most simplistic slogans as his guide to policy; not bothering to pay attention to what his opponent is saying; and not bothering to refute and expose his opponent, even when his opponent is emitting one staggeringly self-damaging statement and lie after another.

Aren’t some of these the very traits that were responsible for Bush’s failure to think through the aftermath of the Iraq war, and for his failure to respond adequately to the terrible problems in Iraq ever since then, even as he has kept telling us that everything is going well? Could Bush therefore lose the election because of what he revealed about himself in this debate?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2004 02:47 PM | Send