The web is, of course, flying with stuff about the debate last night. I ended up watching a RealPlayer feed from C-Span.
There are a few things that are bothering me, though. The one I've just come across is this statement by Professor Althouse of the University of Wisconsin Law School:
He claims he'd be better at fighting terrorism, without giving any regard to the cited fact, that Bush seems to have done something to have staved off terrorist attacks. Of course, Kerry doesn't credit Bush for that.The problem is that Prof. Althouse is making one of the most basic errors of logical reasoning. Saying that because there are no terrorist attacks Bush must have been doing something right is akin to saying that we're sacrificing humans to make the sun come up each day, and it does, so it must be working.
Overall, I have to agree with Professor Balkin of Yale. Kerry or Bush could have had some opportunity to jump on the other for not answering questions. Plus Bush's response to the question on judicial nominations and his reference to the Dred Scott case was pretty poor. He really needs to stop talking about things if he can't talk about them intelligibly.
Hmmm, If that happens, I see a problem with his political career...
