If last night was supposed to be Bush’s strong suit, I’d say he’s in deep trouble. By turns he was defensive, petulant, and angry. He seeme to think that just repeating the same phrases over and over would make them more believable. And the way he was hunched over that podium made him look like he wanted nothing more than to hide behind it.

Kerry, by contrast, stood up straight and was articulate and to the point in almost all of his answers. He was able to offer a cogent critique of the president’s policies without sounding condescending or insulting. It was an impressive performance.

Posted by: maniakes at October 1, 2004 08:34 AM

First off, Kerry whipped Bush yesterday in plain debate terms. No question. He skillfully answered every question while Bush cut and paste various sound bites he had memorized. Kerry could have sold me were it not for the substance of his arguments, namely: 1) his advocacy of a “global test” on preemptive “strikes” (notice how he did not say “war”); 2) his preference for handing over enriched uranium to Iran and “testing” their good faith; 3) bilateral talks with North Korea (kind of like advocating bilateral talks with Hitler in his bunker); 4) his belief that you can trash the war in Iraq while simultaneously persuading the likes of France to commit more troops or other resources there; 5) his belief that you can trash the coalition as meaningless and maintain it at the same time; and 6) you can trash the war in Iraq as fundamentally misdirected, while somehow maintaining the morale of our own troops long enough to avoid a disasterous withdrawal. Kerry also disturbed me in his complete disregard of what is obviously true to me: 1) if that if we are to win the war against islamofascism in the long run without turning the islamic world into a glass parking lot, we need a renaissance in the mideast, and Iraq is the best (out of a bunch of lousy places) place to start the process; and 2) if we are going to fight a war against islamofascism, its best we set up a base and a “honeypot” in the most strategic location, and iraq is certainly that. While I recognize there is a tension between 1 and 2, that tension is dissolved if you keep in mind that the thing arabic culture respects more than anything (as demonstrated by the arabian world’s typical choice of governments) is brute force. By blasting islamofascists in their back yard relentlessly, the weakness of islamofascism will be demonstrated and Arab respect will be earned as a democracy is built. The problem with Bush is that he is not relentless enough; politically, he does not consistently act like MacArthur in Japan, militarily, he is not consistently blasting the islamofascists; instead, Bush seems to be deferring to the very tribal politics that ultimately results in a Saddam. Every now and then, though, he returns to what should be our purpose over there, which Kerry has disavowed. Bush is the lesser of two evils.

Nevertheless, I think Bush made a huge mistake agreeing to three debates. Kerry will undoubtedly draw support he would otherwise not obtain as he continues to trounce Bush rhetorically. It is clear that Bush has absolutely nothing to gain from debating, as his forte is that he is a man of character and action (sometimes), but not much for words. Frankly, I think we’re beginning to see the slow bleed-out of Bush’s lead.

Posted by: strongmind at October 1, 2004 09:06 AM

The day we invaded Iraq, I switched from being a Bush supporter to an opponent. The arguments used to convince the public to support the war were mainly twofold: weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda. Intelligence indicated WMD were probably present and the fact that we have not found any is not a key issue. The link to Al Qaeda that Bush used was a flat out lie and the media never challenged Bush despite all reporting and intelligence prior to the claim was negative for any link. Hussein would not have tolerated any other force in Iraq but his own.

Bush played a game of poker with Schroeder and Chirac by bluffing with troop movements into the Iraq theatre. When he failed to get diplomatic support, he bluffed about unilateral action and was forced to play a bad hand because the troop deployment was hugely expensive and the weather was going to turn against being favorable for an attacking force. I give the education president an F in diplomacy and hold Chirac and Schroeder equally responsible for the diplomatic failure. France and Germany both had financial interests that caused their lack of support. Bush Senior would never have initiated such an ILLEGAL war.

We will not know the true cost of Bush’s blunders for years to come. We have incited much more hatred and loathing of the US in world. Bush should be impeached. I will do my part and vote for Kerry. I hope any one reading this considers the facts and ignores the Republican spin machine. Hussein was a threat but he was contained at the time that we invaded. I believe he should have been removed, but not by illegal unilateral action. It HAD to be done with UN support. Think of it, if another country thinks we pose a threat to them , would it be right for them to attack us on US soil? That is what we call terrorism. The only reason this won’t happen in a formal military way is that we are the strongest country in the world. That fact demands that the US use its power RESPONSIBLY!!!!

Dan C

Posted by: KIGP at October 1, 2004 09:20 AM

As much as it pains me to say this…at best last night was a draw and at worst it was a slight Kerry win. Not because Kerry had the better ideas or arguments but because the President just let too many opportunities go unchallenged giving the impression that he had nothing to counter the argument.

I thought the President should have spent alittle more time talking about Kerry’s record in the Senate such as his support for drawing down the military, a perfect retort to Kerry’s suggestion that he would add 2 divisions to the Army. The President could have used more of Kerry’s quotes that run contrary to some of the positions he stated last night. He did talk about the “Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” comment…probably alittle too much. I think he missed an important opportunity to point out that the $87 Bn supplemental that the Senator voted against went to the body armor upgrades that Kerry claimed the President didn’t provide…although he did.

It just seemed that both men were playing not to lose rather than playing to win. I recognize that I am not the “average” voter out there. I tend to pay more attention to what these guys say and do my own homework. Senator Kerry didn’t bring anything new to the table and I’m not sure it was necessary for him to win this debate but he also didn’t further his arguments an inch. His comments about WWII and how FDR didn’t invade Mexico was a complete fraud. Either he doesn’t know his WWII history or he was simply trying to confuse the public. FDR didn’t invade Mexico…that was true…he did however put troops in Spain, North Africa, and the Balkans…none of which had anything to do with Japan overtly. Those regions WERE, however, under a direct threat and of the Nazi’s and with the then obscure, if not altogether secret, TriParti pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy those regions were in play. Just as Iraq was in play as the towers fell to the ground on 9/11. Iraq harbored the likes of Abu Nidal, Answar al Islam, and paid CASH to the terrorists blowing up buses in Israel. Senator Kerry seems to only want to destroy Al Queda but this war isn’t just about Al Queda, it’s about destroying global terrorism and Al Queda just happens to be one player in that fight. President Bush didn’t mention this during the debate and I think that could have been a major point.

I thought the President held his own but he missed several opportunities to hit hard at some points of his opposition. Here’s hoping both sides plays to win at the next debate.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at October 1, 2004 09:43 AM

I find it hard to believe that the majority of responses I’ve read in regards to the debate last night allege that BOTH candidates held their own and each had their strong points.

Kerry literally trounced Bush last night, no question. I’m not a devout Kerry supporter by any means but any discerning individual can see that Kerry tapdanced on Bush’s face the entire night. Bush looked meek and annoyed and his answers to the moderator’s (and Kerry’s) questions were muted and delivered with painful ineptitude.

Regardless of their policies and how we as voters identify with said plans of action, Kerry was the clear victor of the debate last night. I’ll have serious trouble accepting the validity of someone’s argument that Bush held up fine under Kerry’s onslaught.

Additionally, the polls indicating that most Americans think that Kerry “won” the debate last night but almost literally no one would change their vote is a testiment to the rigidity of American’s partisan voting practices.

Posted by: I'm Not Clever at October 1, 2004 11:40 AM

Observations by a lib who made up his voting mind quite some time ago…

Both:
Annoying habit of directly answering a question just briefly then immediately segueing into their canned talking points.
Quit pounding on the podium to show how strong you are, dammit! (Didn’t Clinton invent this stupid habit?)

Kerry:
Addressing the wavering charges head-on works.
Actually being succinct, (fairly) clear and direct. Refreshing.
“More of the same”. Nicely done. Resonates.
Your statistics bore the hell out of most people.
You saw action. We get it. It’s not that relevant.

Bush:
I don’t doubt your convictions one bit.
Sincerity is one of your best traits.
“Wrong war…wrong time” Okay, okay. Enough already.
Those long pauses where you try to find the words do not inspire confidence.
If “Presidential” is a new Mercedes-Benz riding on the autobahn (Ronald Reagan), you are an ‘76 International Scout rambling through a cow pasture.

Kerry takes it (of course). I think Bush will get better over the next two show-downs.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 1, 2004 01:30 PM

I watched the debate even though I would rather have been watching Hogan’s Heros. The one thing that upset me is that President Bush didn’t take the opportunity to blast Senator Kerry on one of his statements. Kerry kept saying that when he is president, he will get the other nations to contribute. However, the other nations have already said that they won’t send troops “no matter who is elected president.” Bush needed to hammer him on that one. Bush missed a lot of chances to hit the home run on Kerry but didn’t. I guess he feels Kerry will do it to himself or something. Guess I will wait and see.

Posted by: BH57 at October 1, 2004 06:15 PM

..debates..maybe next time lurch can spend the day consouling hurricane victimes then ..sorry this is just stupid…

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 3, 2004 12:30 AM