First US Debate...

[strredwolf]

Okay, first debate.  International issues.  The players w/background in relation:

Senator John Kerry, who went to Vietnam, and saw first hand.  His record is more solid (minimal questions, mostly of *after* his service)

President Bush, who's pre-elected military experience was in the Texas National Guard, in a position that would let him "escape" Vietnam.  He was never activated and sent.  He has gaps in his record, and recently in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit his resignation letter turned up.  His background is questionable.

About an hour into the debates, I started tuning out.  Bush admitted the mission wasn't over, and dodged many allegations Kerry presented by using canned results.  Kerry had to respond to the canned messages, correcting Bush over and over again.  Even the press knows better than Bush!  NBC ran a fact-checking report right after the debate and they got better figures from Iraq's prime minister!  Bush is ignoring Kerry... and it's looking like everyone else.

Bush's presentation sputtered, pausing, almost refilling a buffer with new words every five or six seconds if it wasn't canned.  Kerry never waivered, his Senate debate experience working to his advantage.

I do belive Kerry is more solid in his plans, but he continues to be defensive.  He needs to LART Bush that he's not going to respond to the repeated canned claims.  He needs a zinger...

Noone really won it.  Bush held his platform of repeating history.  Kerry defined more, cementing his platform.

Comments

[griffinwolf.livejournal.com]

The key to this debate is that, for the states that don't get the monetary or otherwise public exposure to the candidates, Senator Kerry did cement his platform a bit, and make clear what he does want to do, complete with a plan and an idea to do it. He also clarified that 'flip-flop' controversy, in that he supported that Iraq had to be taken care of, but the way that President Bush went about it was heavy handed at best, and could have been handled with much more tact and cooperation.

The biggest difference between their foreign policy is that Senator Kerry wants America to be a Role Model in the UN and work with the International Politics a little more, whereas President Bush doesn't want the International Community controlling the US's actions or otherwise giving up the US's autonomy over to foreign countries.

Both have a certain validity. Unfortunately, President Bush's stubborness seemed to eminate from the podium, as he has a "clear, unwavering view of what must happen." Unfortunately, what that means is, and Kerry tried to call him on this, is that President Bush doesn't alter his course to incorporate new information that has been revealed.

And that's my Debate in a nutshell, trying to be as objective as possible (though you can still tell my bias towards Kerry colors my judgement of Bush).

I was, however, surprised that Senator Kerry said, in no uncertain words, that he will discontinue any research of new US Nuclear weapons. This is a bold change of any president since the invention of a Nuclear arsenal, and a definite push away from the old cold war era mentality.

Atomic bunker busters

[felinoid.livejournal.com]

Yeah that IS probably the one really good comment.
We shouldn't be making those things but... why dosen't it supprise me we are?

When you combind this with the attack in Kerry reguarding his tendency to vote against military wepons you can't say he won't hold up this political prommis.

You could say this "passes the international test" ok that's the other line that will go down in history.

The best and worst lines from the same guy.
PS I think Bush went nowhere in this debate and I'm pro Bush.