Bush, Kerry disappoint in last debate

President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry were overall disappointments Wednesday night following the third presidential debate, a panel of undecided IU voters agreed.\nIn an exchange dominated largely by domestic policy, the candidates failed to deliver the electoral goods the undecided voters were looking for to help settle their questions.\n"I think you could say that the candidates were pretty evenly matched tonight. Neither was at his best," said Ed Burmila, an associate instructor for the political science department's Election 2004 class. "This was a little bit sloppier than the first two debates." \nThe panel reached a consensus that the debate lacked the spark the first two had. The candidates looked tired, the panelists said, and their answers were at times uninspiring.\n"I really think that they're tired of campaigning," Burmila said.\nThe diagnosis from senior Zach Richer was similarly grim.\n"I thought tonight was the debate that might as well not have happened," Richer said to a room that largely agreed. "People might have stopped watching, and the debate didn't help move them" toward a candidate.\nSophomore Kirk Nathanson was disappointed with what seemed the candidates sticking to their scripts too much and being too deliberately cautious with their answers.\n"The past two debates seemed off-the-cuff and reckless," Nathanson said. "This one seemed more trained, more thought through. My personal impression was a more deliberate feeling from both of them." \nSenior Amber Grove said the previous debates seemed more exciting because a large amount of the focus was on the war in Iraq, a contentious issue this election. With such a focus on Iraq, domestic issues seemed bland by comparison.\nMaster's student Brian Johnson noted the panel was discussing the finer points of the candidates' deliveries more than they were talking about the issue content in the debate. Sadly, he conceded, it means people might be voting on presentation and content, and when the issues were discussed, they were lost in explanation.\n"I just think that the garble of statistics that comes out of their mouths goes over everyone's head," Johnson said.\nSenior Jacob Farmer noted Bush's use of humor, for better or for worse, as playing an important role in the perception of the debate.\n"When Bush said 'A plan is not a litany of complaints,' it has the same kind of humorous edge," Farmer said. "It was a very strong answer."\nBut Farmer was ultimately uneasy about what he called "cheap shots" from the president in some of his attempts to be funny. The president's humor soon turned abrasive.\nThe president also could have given a much more commanding performance, if he had made valued use of his time and stopped talking once he had made his point, Farmer said.\nMaster's student Kevin Makice said he has an emotional attachment to a lot of domestic issues, and while the candidates discussed a number of points, some were still lacking.\n"Did I miss the question about the environment?" Makice joked. \nMakice said going into the debate he didn't want to vote for Bush, but was undecided whether to vote for Kerry, who needed to give Makice something to hold onto.\n"And I haven't found it," he lamented.\nFarmer disliked the smugness he thought Bush exuded on television, adding it wasn't a quality he wanted to see in a commander-in-chief.\n"I don't have doubts of Kerry's integrity and ability to lead," Farmer asked. "The only question I have is, does he have a direction to take us in?"\nFarmer, however, said he couldn't answer his question.\nSenior Aaron Gwin said he thought the senator had improved, but wasn't sure it was enough to affect voters.\n"There were a couple occasions when he (gave examples and specifics). He did exactly what I told him he needed to have done," Gwin said. "I think the big question for Kerry now is whether or not it's too little too late."\nGwin said he has a candidate chosen, but he wasn't willing to say who.\n"On the right, we have the conservative Bush, who's making these policies that may be regretful. On the left, we've got Kerry, who I can't say has really convinced me he has any solid direction," Nathanson said. "Without explicitly saying it, Kerry's entire campaign is almost 'Vote for me, I'm not Bush,' and that's not a reason to vote for someone."\nWhen it comes down to it though, Nathanson said with a deep sigh, he is probably going to have to vote for Kerry.\n"And I'm going to hate myself in the morning," Nathanson said. \nAn exasperated Richer, expressing a similar dissatisfaction with Kerry, added, "What do we want of a candidate?"\n"God only knows," Nathanson said.\n-- Contact senior writer Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.