After last night’s presidential debate The Bruin sat down with Erin Templeton, a graduate student in English and the current president of Bruins for Edwards. The Bruin also conducted a phone interview with Mark Lincoln, a second-year molecular, cell and developmental biology student and the technical director for Bruin Republicans. *** Daily Bruin: What were your overall impressions of the debate?
Erin Templeton: I think that both candidates did very well. I think that President Bush is a really good debater. We sort of laugh at him and make fun of him, but he has a really impressive way of sounding sincere and sounding genuine – even if he’s sounding silly, I think that really strikes a chord with a lot of people. But I think it was a very even contest. The other thing I wanted to say is that Sen. Kerry seemed very presidential in the way that he presented himself, in the way that he spoke. I think that was really important for a lot of people to see because they haven’t had a chance to hear him speak. A lot of people, especially those who aren’t in the big swing states – like us in California – haven’t necessarily had the chance yet to see him speak publicly outside of the primaries, which was a fairly long time ago.
Mark Lincoln: I think that Bush did a better job. I don’t think Kerry gave specifics to back up the points he made, and Bush did.
DB: Which of your candidate’s points did you agree with most strongly?
ET: Just that Kerry could do the job better than President Bush. That he hasn’t changed his mind, that it’s not waffling or flip-flopping when you realize you made a mistake or that things are going wrong, to change things and do it differently. It’s just stubbornness and the sort of determination to stay the course that’s getting us into trouble. I think that Kerry made that point. He showed that he has been consistent, that he hasn’t changed his mind. I think that he did that very well. That was really, really important.
ML: I really agreed with Bush’s point that Iraq is one of the major centers in the war on terror. I also agreed that we need to continue doing what Bush is doing to win the war.
DB: Where did you think that the opposing candidate looked the weakest?
ET: I think that President Bush’s weakest point was his constant repetition of “bringing the terrorists to justice.” He kept saying the same thing. He kept accusing Sen. Kerry of changing his mind and sending mixed messages. If I had a quarter for every time he said “brought to justice” or “mixed message” then I could drop out of school and just retire! He just kept kind of saying the same thing, and he didn’t really directly address any of the issues as I would’ve hoped. He just sort of said “you can’t say this to our troops, you can’t send mixed messages” instead of being specific about what he would do differently and what about his policy is different from Sen. Kerry’s. Because things aren’t going as well as we would have wanted in Iraq, a lot of people out there do want our troops home. Instead of actually being up front about that and saying “I made a mistake” or “yeah, it’s not going so well,” he would sort of dodge and say “you can’t say that to our troops, you can’t send mixed messages.”
ML: Kerry looked the weakest when he would make points but wouldn’t use statistics to back them up. He would do things like say, “my plan is a good plan,” but then wouldn’t explain why it would work. Even when they asked for specifics he danced around the questions.
DB: How would you characterize the debating style of both candidates?
ET: I think that Sen. Kerry was very intellectual, very factual, and very concerned with getting the truth across as he perceived it. He was very much concerned with relaying information, whereas President Bush was much more concerned with the emotional tenor of what he was saying and was less concerned with the actual facts of the statements. He was much more concerned with conveying a feeling – or a sentiment – and I think in some ways that can be more effective – unfortunately. I think that especially people who are watching – depending on who they are, what their values are, where they live and whatever – a lot of times you might not understand so much of what Sen. Kerry is saying, whereas with Bush you know how he feels and how he wants you to feel. Sen. Kerry was much more factual.
ML: I think Bush interjected some humor and some sarcastic comments. Kerry was more long-winded.
DB: What did you think of Kerry’s repeated references to Osama bin Laden?
ET: I think it’s really important because everybody seems to forget that he’s still out there, and the president sort of wants us to forget – until he finds him anyway. He wants us to forget that we got sidetracked with Saddam Hussein. Now that we’ve left Afghanistan behind and now that all of our attention is focused on Iraq we forget that wasn’t the problem. I think Kerry made the point very clear that the war on terrorism started with al–Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Sept. 11, 2001. This whole Iraq thing, well yes they’re both in the Middle East and both of them tend to be Islamic-based ideologies, but they’re two different issues and two different wars.
ML: Kerry is using what he knows now to shape what he says he would have done then. While the difference of whether or not to go to war was originally based on judgment, now it’s based on facts and Kerry’s trying to change the facts. Frequently mentioning bin Laden was an effective way for Kerry to work his angle.
DB: What do you think of Kerry’s belief that nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous obstacle facing the United States?
ET: I think it’s true, and I think it’s really scary. He made a really good point about the fact that we are sending mixed messages by saying “you can’t have nuclear weapons,” meanwhile we have them ourselves and we’re testing new ones and trying to come up with new technology in that respect. I mean, if it’s not OK for them, why is it OK for us? This idea that the United States is sort of superior or smarter or whatever, (we see that over and over again in this administration) that the Iraqis can’t do it themselves, that we need to show them how to do it – I mean give these people some credit! Maybe they aren’t Harvard-educated, but they’re capable. They’re not stupid people. We sort of assume that our way is the best way for everyone, and that sort of arrogance is just embarrassing.
ML: I agree, and I think Bush does as well. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists are the most dangerous thing we face today.
DB: What kind of impact do you think tonight’s presidential debate will have on the election?
ET: I think that people will see that a lot of the Republican spin on Kerry and the Democratic party’s message is just that – spin. And when the candidates actually get a chance to speak for themselves and people can hear them, it’s not that Kerry’s just flip-flopping and inconsistent and not clear about what’s going on. I think Kerry expressed very clearly that that’s just not true. It’s integrity to change course when that course is horribly wrong. It’s not being inconsistent or lacking strength. It takes strength to change, to admit, hey this isn’t going the way we wanted it to. It takes much more strength to stand up and say I want to do something different, this isn’t working.
ML: Very little. I don’t think the debates tend to have much of an impact at all on the actual presidential elections.
Interviews conducted by Colleen Honigsberg, Bruin senior staff.