Debate Thoughts

The presidential debate was interesting, and seemed to project a very clear picture of the differences between the two on Iraq. Kerry's taken up the pacifist position that we shouldn't be there at all, and if he'd been president we would still be talking and negotiating with Saddam. Bush counters that it was the right thing to do, has effectively taken the war on terror to the enemy and away from our shores, and our best approach to win is to stay steadfast and unwavering.

I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.

That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.

Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.

Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.