Elections are something of a masochistic pastime. Everyone seems to hate them when they're upon us, but once they're over we eagerly anticipate the next one, and start planning for it. And this goes double for the losers, since they want to get their own back.

But I think even those who hate elections have their own, favorite parts. Some people look forward to the conventions, especially since Comedy Central started covering them. A family reunion just isn't a family reunion until Uncle Bob and Cousin Joe get into a fight over something political. And still others look forward to the barrage of amusing political ads so they have a fresh new reason to scream and throw beer bottles at the television.

However, I deliberately go out of my way to avoid watching the conventions, and try to ignore the pre-convention political ads as much as possible. That's because I don't want to get sidetracked by emotional appeals, or people talking in circles. They might make me feel more secure in shared beliefs, or more certain of what I don't agree with, but heavily-scripted commercials and overblown spectacles won't tell me what I need to know.

Me, I look forward to the debates. They say there's truth in wine and in jest, but there's also a lot of truth in watching people coming up with answers while fending off those of an opponent. A debate might not give you the whole picture of the candidates, but it shows you something of how they approach, and solve, problems on the fly.

And my anticipation tripled once it became clear that - barring his being caught on camera fisting kittens - John Kerry was going to get the nod. He may be a stiff New Englander, and in need of some serious prodding to get emotional, but Kerry is someone who knows how to use the platform of the debate. Make what jokes you like about some of his gaffes, like the voted-for-it-then-against-it muddle, but when he's on the stump you're in for a real show.

Contrast that with the debates between Bush and Gore in 2000, which were a study in sheer boredom and inept communication. Bush can make emotional appeals, but can't think and talk at the same time. And while Gore might be able to feel and think - scientists are still uncertain - he can't make us want to hear what he has to say in those regards.

In short, watching Bush and Gore go at it in 2000 was like watching the Aztec Mummy fight Bela Lugosi's stand-in from Plan 9 From Outer Space. If Gore had put a tenth of the energy he devoted to contesting the election results into those debates, it might not have been so close a call that November. Only a completely mind-smashed party wonk would characterize Gore's performance in those debates as anything but limp, sobbing and unexciting.

Kerry can be unexciting at times - unexcited might be a better word - but he's never limp or sobbing: nowhere near them. If you're not sure of what he can do you should have seen him go up against Governor William Weld a few years ago. They participated in a series of "town hall" debates where they were allowed to talk over one another, and while it was rough going all the way, and it nearly wiped him out, Kerry still came out on top.

I kept an eye on the September 30th debate with that in mind, and I was not disappointed. Kerry made his share of boo-boos and over-exaggerations in that first debate, just as the President did, but in spite of them Kerry was in good form. We might even be able to say he was in very good form, when you consider that this debate, on national security, was the one he was "supposed" to lose. He may not have had as good of a hand as he would have liked to, but he played it very well.

Bush, on the other hand, did poorer than expected, which is to say poorer than usual. He repeated the same basic phrases over and over again, as if scripted - which they probably were - and seemed cranky and irritable. He was able to show emotion and be folksy, which are amongst his chief strengths, but he didn't back it up with a real challenge - or a real response - to his opponent.

(David Horowitz generously blamed this on Bush's spending the day comforting hurricane victims, but that's Horowitz, only seeing what he'd like to. This performance was just "debating dubbya" by the numbers. Only sheer incompetence and/or a lousy delivery by Gore made Bush look good by comparison in 2000, and Bush isn't going to get that break this time around.)

But I think the moment of truth in the debate was here, in the first question asked directly to Bush:

LEHRER: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

BUSH: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead.

I have - I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. 

People out there listening know what I believe. And that's how best it is to keep the peace.

This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate. And that's what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that'll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will.

We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren.

The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty. 

And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. 

Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.

In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. 

They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn't. And they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us.

And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy.

If you took the first paragraph off, the answer makes a halfway-decent reply to the question "What do you think the American people think of your record?" Bush was no doubt anticipating a question like that, and that's why this answer was floating in his mind.

However, that wasn't the gist of the question. The question was the flip side to the first question of the debate, which was asked to Kerry: "Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"

Now, the question Bush was asked was pretty loaded. It's as fair as the one they asked Kerry to start out with, and would have required him to take Kerry's statements - or lack thereof - on how to deal with the War on Terror to task. However, it also follows on Dick Cheney's pronouncements that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a terrorist attack, and would have forced Bush to either defend or repudiate his running mate's highly-criticized claims.

But he didn't do that. He didn't answer the question he was asked, but instead answered a different - and unasked - question. It's almost as if Bush only heard "the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd" and went from there.

What could this mean? I have my suspicions, but I'm going to hold off on pronouncing them from on high until at least the next debate. In the meantime, the rANT Farm's score for the Debates is: Kerry 1, Bush 0.

Stick around - this can only get more entertaining.

Locked into the conference room - "we're only what our minds assume..." - and rationale is leaving you

The Lifting - REM