BUSH REGAINED

First, where Bush scored. He did so much better on social than on economic questions. When he spoke about his own faith and prayer, he was genuine without betraying an ounce of the sanctimony so common in others. On abortion, he has the abstract lingo down cold. On marriage, he has also perfected the art of seeming inclusive of the people he is intending to exclude (while never mentioning them). But on both issues, he came off as a moderate last night. He never spoke of banning abortion; he artfully said he simply didn’t know whether homosexuality is a choice; he even framed a constitutional amendment as a means to facilitate civic discussion. (Hey, let’s have dozens of constitutional amendments if that’s the case.) These were clearly not answers designed to rally his base. He’s done that enough already. But Bush was by far his best on the women in his life. He was funny, humane and must have scored extremely well with women voters. That response was a home run. But there were obvious weaknesses as well. At the beginning, he was too animated, too petulant, banging his hand up and down on the lectern like a schoolboy demanding attention. To be blunt, he seemed and seems less presidential than Kerry. He’s more excitable, less knowledgeable, and, in the way he pronounces sentences with the wrong emphasis invariably on the wrong noun, can come off as condescending when he’s not just just weird. Some of his pat lines – “retreat and defeat in Iraq,” “a mainstream in American politics and my opponent is way on the left bank” – seemed, well, scripted and forced. He reached for them as if for a life-raft.

CATCHING THE FLU: His worst moment came when responding to the flu vaccine question. The shortage is an obvious government screw-up. He merely described it. He took no responsibility for it; and his response was to tell people not to get the shot if they don’t have to. Not smooth. And it was a metaphor for his refusal to be held accountable for anything. Then there was his literal rendition of not being held accountable for anything: when asked who was responsible for higher healthcare costs, he joked, “Well I hope it’s not my administration’s.” His record is not good enough, to put it mildly, to be cracking jokes like that. I was also a little baffled by his notion that the healthcare industry is still in the “buggy and horse” stage in technology. Maybe I misheard him. But he was flailing at that point. He only really annoyed me when he repeated that Kerry has said he will give foreign countries a veto over foreign policy. Kerry has denied it a zillion times. Doesn’t the president at some point have to stop saying what is the opposite of the recorded truth? Bush also said that the bulk of his taxes went to the middle class. I’m amazed his nose didn’t grow a couple of inches on the spot.

DUMB KERRY: As for Kerry, he had two awful answers. The worst was on marriage. Yes, he’s honest enough to say outright that being gay is not a choice. But when you want to illustrate that, it’s more than a litlle dumb to pick the tiny number of gay men or lesbians who have gotten married to the opposite gender and then regretted it. Yes, it’s a logical example – but it gives the impression you’re hostile to straight marriages, provides a rare example of actual choice – leaving a woman for a man – and muddies the waters. Kerry also failed to nail Bush not on marriage but on going to the extreme of a constitutional amendment. Bush won the exchange hands down, much to my chagrin. Kerry also – finally! – got walloped on the first Gulf War. About bloody time, Mr Bush.

CONSERVATIVE KERRY: But the big surprise is that Kerry clearly won the exchanges on fiscal discipline, guns and immigration. I sat slack-jawed as I watched Kerry clearly seem touger on illegal immigrants than Bush! This is Bush’s big weakness with his base – and he didn’t help himself. Kerry was able to use the ban on AK-47s to buttress his tough stance on terrorism. Again: great move. On fiscal matters, Bush was destroyed. He simply has no credible answer on deficits or spending. Kerry’s insistence on pay-as-you-go, his reminder of his support for balancing the budget in the 1990s, and his great “Tony Soprano” line was enough to dispense with the president. He was also smart to give an instance of standing up to the left in his answer on “outsourcing:” a twofer. On healthcare, it was a draw. Over all, Kerry seemed defensive and unsure on social issues, but far more commanding on economic ones.

THE GOLD WATCH NARRATIVE: Taken as a whole, the debate both melted some of Bush’s hard edges, while keeping Kerry as the man with more presidential manner. Indeed, over the three debates, Kerry has seemed the most even-keeled emotionally, the most constant, the least prone to turning up in a different guise each time. But, after a disastrous start and a middling second debate, last night Bush pulled out his frat president persona and charmed people again. That does and will matter. Nevertheless, we live in dire times and frat presidents may not be the best choice in such circumstances. One reason I think Bush has slid in the polls recently is that he has simply seemed a little out of his depth in these debates – and that’s the last thing we need in a nerve-wracking war. Kerry’s liberalism emerged more strongly last night, and that may play against him in the next few weeks. But he didn’t lose his calm; his graciousness toward the president was a sign of underlying strength and self-confidence in the debate; and he seemed trustworthy in a very old-fashioned kind of way. Stylistically, he was the conservative. And the message that sends is that it’s safe to switch leaders. You don’t have to demonize them to move on from them. You can even, as Kerry did, praise them. But that very dynamic suggests a certain logic to this election: “Thanks, Mr President, and good-bye.” Bush now has to fight very hard to reverse that logic.