Debate

 One question that came to mind was, "Is it not difficult to confront debater Kerry on the war since he has been so often on every side of the issue?" The very plenitude of his positions makes it easy for him to bring confusion to any assertion. Bill responded by quoting not himself from some far-off debate but President George W. Bush in his recent standoff with Kerry. Faced with Kerry's multitudinous self-contradictions on the war Bush asseverated, "My opponent is consistent in his inconsistencies." The old debater called that an "elegant riposte."

 The president has had other effective ripostes, and of course the Francophile Democratic candidate has had his moments. Yet it really does not matter how well or badly the candidates do in these debates. In the Kultursmog, the myth stands unchallenged that Democrats are the great debaters. Republicans are inferior. Do you recall the spokesmen of the Kultursmog ever acknowledging the debating skills of, say, Ronald Reagan? When they finally had to acknowledge his rhetorical achievement, they did it disparagingly. He was the "Teflon" guy.

 Thus far the debates have been unimpressive, save for Cheney the other night. His clear victory over Edwards was brought to confusion by the bilge pumps of the Kultursmog. Nonetheless he won. Surely Buckley agrees.

 How much the debates are going to figure in the final vote I am unsure. I suspect they will encourage a segment of the electorate to vote Democratic, the segment that considers itself very intellectual without actually being intellectual. Otherwise, the election is going to turn on a clearly observable difference in foreign policy. The president has a clear policy of projecting American force abroad to prevent attacks on us at home. The challenger offers a vague policy of promising to oppose terrorists abroad even as he politicizes the war we are in at home and in so doing aids and abets the enemy. My guess is that a majority of the electorate will know how to vote.