The town-hall style setting is apparently more George W. Bush's speed. A relaxed, engaged, and articulate (yes, I said articulate) George Bush bested John Kerry in tonight's exchange in St. Louis.

Bush used humor throughout. When asked who he would select for the Supreme Court, the President replied: "I'm not telling." When moderator Charlie Gibson called on a questioner and looked in the opposite direction, Bush playfully noted that the moderator had "Put a head fake on us." When Kerry bizarrely made reference to a timber company that could be counted as Bush's "small business," Bush retorted: "I own a timber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?" Bush was at ease; Kerry, stiff.

Bush won on substance too. On questions regarding judges, abortion, and federal funding for stem-cell research, Bush reminded Americans about the differences in the candidate's opinions. Kerry, however, seemed ill-equipped to give a straight answer on partial birth abortion. He claimed, "It's just not that simple." Well, yes it is "pretty simple," the president responded; either Kerry voted for a ban on partial-birth abortion or he didn't. Elsewhere, Kerry demonstrated his fetishization for globalism. He repeated his tired critique of "unilateralism," and blasted the President on Kyoto, claiming: "we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years." Kerry, of course, voted against the Kyoto Accords with 94 other senators.

And thus, we have a pattern to the debate. On the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Kyoto Accords, and the No Child Left Behind Act, Kerry voted in favor of George W. Bush's position. Yet, Kerry criticized Bush on these issues. Kerry supports the same things as Bush, the Democratic nominee assures us, he just would execute them differently. Emphasizing shades of gray is no way to win a debate. On his evasions on abortion, as well as his distinctions without a difference on important issues like the Patriot Act, Senator Nuance tried to be all things to all people. He ended up being just one thing: the debate's loser.

actually I'd say at best Bush slightly lost the dabate. At worst he bombed. You crazies are always looking to spin Bush's performace your way. Last time there was no way you could have spun Bush's dismal performace. This time the Bush man gave you more to work with. But lets not get crazy here. he didn't win. All the questions dealing with Iraq, he fumbled and he could never come up with a decent closing sentance, not once.

Before the last debate, Bush toured hurricane damaged areas in Florida while Kerry got his $2,000 hair cut and had a power nap.

This time, Bush's campaign handlers got smart and had him relaxed and rested.

Made a huge difference. He pummeled the arch liberal from Massachusetts!

At least, like last time, he didn't sound like he was advertising Viagra by saying "it's hard" every ten seconds.

During a recent speech Kerry attributed opposition to stem cell research to "extreme right wing ideology".

Extreme ideology you say?

In last night's debate Kerry reiterated his spineless, have-it-both-ways position on abortion: he's personally opposed to it but doesn't want to legislate his personal religious view as a Catholic on others. But opposition to abortion is rooted in the same view of the unconditional value of human life as that of opposition to stem cell research. Opposition to one leads logically to opposition of the other. This is the view of the church Kerry claims allegiance to. Does he believe his church is the proponent of extreme ideology?

The truly extreme position was on display in Kerry's remarks last night:

1. He favors taxpayer funding for abortions for the poor. So while he doesn't want to impose his personal views on others, it's OK to mandate that they pay for a procedure that many equate to murder.

2. He opposes parental notification for teenagers seeking abortions. So a fifteen year old member of MTV nation who is not old enough to drive or vote shouldn't consult her parents about one of the most important decisions she will make in her life.

3. He vows to appoint judges based on merit and not ideology...just as long as they support a "woman's right to choose" and "equal opportunity". Back during the democratic primary when it was expedient to pander to the pro abortion elements in the Democratic primary, Kerry said he would only appoint Supreme Court Justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade. Never mind the fact the even liberal constitutional scholars acknowledge that Roe was a deeply flawed decision, not to mention the fact that reversing the decision wouldn't ban abortion at all as liberals would have us believe, but would leave the decision to the states.

4. He opposes a ban on partial birth abortion because it doesn't make an exception for the "health" of the mother, despite the fact the "health" can be construed to mean almost anything--mental, emotional as well as physical.

Abortion is one of the few issues that is basically a black and white issue. Senator nuance would have us believe otherwise in order to pander to the Democratic base and obscure his own ideology on the issue.

DB, I also noticed that Bush could rarely deliver a closing line that left an exclamation point on his entire answer. I disagree, however, that I'm "always looking to spin Bush's performace." I think Bush won this debate and said so. I think Kerry won the first debate and said so.

Read my post. I said the first debate was Kerry's "finest moment" in campaign 2004, and that Bush had several "Cameron Diaz moments"--referring to the actress's ridiculous performance on Oprah. How do you reconcile the reality of my post on the first debate--or dozens of other posts critical of Bush on this site--with your comment that I'm always trying to spin things for Bush?

i know you said Kerry won the debate last time. My argument was how could any sane person not have?

Anyways, not that I buy into this, but have you heard the rumor that Bush was wired to his advisors during the debate?

I do think Kerry won the first debate more convincingly, if that's any consolation for you. I have not heard the rumor you refer to. I did hear a similar rumor about Kerry relying on notes--forbidden!--for the first debate. I don't put too much stock in either rumor.

DB,

Your prejudice towards those politically right of you is quite convenient although not quite sound. When they agree with you on something it is because no sane person could disagree and when they disagree with you it is because they are crazies. How do you reconcile your two claims? Either we are crazies at this site . . . and you apparently love conversing with people you consider crazy . . . or we are sane and thus capable of seeing when, for example, Kerry has won a debate.

You need to work on the hate my good fellow, you have extremely strong and recalcitrant prejudices.

I looked over the transcript and I still cannot decipher what Kerry was trying to say when he seemed to suggest that "Dick Cheney" was a small business and that Bush owned a lumber company. That was a surreal moment that the Prez certainly capitalized on, he was much sharper.

I couldn't watch the debate though since the only time I turned it on it was right when Kerry was completely degrading my faith and scandalizing all practicing Catholics in a miserable response to a question about baby killing. Why can't he just be some form of liberal Protestant or a unitarian or something instead of being a lying heretic, religious hypocrite, and blasphemous Catholic?

Brian,

The jury is still out on whether John Kerry is a Catholic or not.

In another whopper, many months ago Kerry came out to say that he was in fact Jewish. And although he had an Irish surname, he was neither Irish nor Catholic.

A lot of people were mildly annoyed as he had for years, in a state that is largely Irish / Catholic, portrayed himself as one of them.

The local press had field day with it and pretty much considered his announcement just another entertaining Kerryism. The yearly Saint Patrick’s day breakfast where all of the pols get together to roast each other was interesting. Some funny stuff.

Ultimately, it’s what kind of man he is that matters. But, this is just another example of just how much of a social and political opportunist this guy really is.

To take a wise and reasonable answer to difficult questions and portray them as anything less is shameful. John kerry delivered exactly that sort of answer to the abortion questions, and you simply tuned it out. Too bad.