Good closing words by the Prez, decent comments from Kerry. President Bush clearly has the advantage in presenting his closing comments last.

Overall it was a good debate. Obviously very foreign policy-oriented, though, I don’t know how this is going to help Kerry.

I do think President Bush was a bit too repetitive with messages such as “hard work,” etc. Kerry may actually gain a few points from this debate… but it’s very hard to tell.

It will certainly take a week or two before we’ll see the overall results.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Regarding Russia and Putin’s decision to bring more of the government under his control. I think this issue will neither hurt nor help either candidate.

Now more wrangling on Iraq. I don’t think voters are going to walk away with all those kinds of details in their heads. I will, but then, I’m geeky that way.

Here is Kerry’s problem, all he can do is say, “I disagree with the President,” and “I will do better.” But that is just talk. The President has been doing all the things that Kerry said he will do if elected. This argument will help the President.

ongoing…

Kerry just promised to shut down bunker busting nuclear weapons!!! He’s showing his true stripes.

I wish the President would have responded that those weapons are being designed to root out enemies who hide in caves and deep bunkers as bin Laden and Saddam have done in the past.

ongoing…

Does he really? He keeps saying that, but the points he uses are just opinions, nothing more.

ongoing…

Both Bush and Kerry are now getting into more detail on issues. I think it helps for both candidates to an extent.

Kerry said, “he’s done it more than I have… the Presidency.” Huh?

ongoing

Kerry is trying to say that Bush allowed North Korea to go nuclear. The President responded that he wanted a multinational effort, not a unilateral one. Exactly right. Kerry complains that Bush acts unilaterally, this is a specific example where he does not. Then he springboards onto Iran, saying this is the solution for them as well…

Kerry’s rebut on Iran is that “we could have done better.” He says that a lot. He responds that North Korea reactivated their nuclear program on Bush’s watch, but Bush responds fairly well.

ongoing…

Kerry wants to undercut the President’s credibility by saying we didn’t get bin Laden and that Saddam was not a threat. He’s doing fairly well in sticking to his points and I think he is looking pretty solid. Is he concentrating on the RIGHT message? We’ll have to wait a week or two to see.

ongoing…

Kerry has made some good points, but the President is really coming on strong. I think Kerry’s desire to go after the President on Iraq was a huge tactical error. I think Bush is going to win some additional hearts and minds right here at home tonight.

ongoing…

Kerry of course brings Viet Nam up and his service there, which is fine. I think the President is pulling ahead a bit on the points he’s making. He’s acknowledged to the entire country that HE is the one who sent the troops into harm’s way and HE is the one responsible for losses.

Kerry rebutted well with comments mentioning Colin Powell’s statement, “if you break it, you own it.” But does Kerry know that Iraq has been broken for 12 years? It’s on its way to repair now, but could never have been on its way before Saddam was removed.

ongoing…

Why is Kerry nodding and smiling so much when the President responds to questions in the debate? It makes it look almost as if Kerry agrees with the President, but its obviously because he is eager to respond. This structured debate is driving Kerry crazy!

ongoing…

President Bush is thumping the podium a bit too much. It shows his deep feelings on the subject, but is a bit distracting.

Lehrer asks Kerry to give examples of where the President “did not tell the truth” about the war in Iraq. Kerry refused to use the word “lie,” but Lehrer did. Kerry’s response was all talking points; well delivered, but will they score?

ongoing…

Kerry has just accused the President of showing favoritism to Haliburton (sp?). A cheap shot and the President did a very good job of gently and respectfully chiding Kerry for his statements regarding our current allies in Iraq.

ongoing….

Interesting issue here. Bush just outlined exactly WHY Afghanistan is not the only front on war, that Iraq is a part of that war. Fine, true… well made point. Kerry’s response sounds fairly negative, but he is on-point. The problem is, his responses sound fairly wooden and rehearsed, they don’t quite jibe with what the President said.

Overall, though, both men are doing fairly well. A good calm debate. Kerry continues the negativity, but I just don’t feel any power in what he says. His points are not necessarily false, but they are also a bit hollow.

Ongoing…

Bush has made very good and strong points regarding the war on terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry’s rebuttal is not too bad, but now he’s talking about military persons who support him… Bad choice and then he delivers what he hopes is a zinger, that Bush “outsourced” the war on terror. Isn’t Kerry the one who insists that we outsource the war in the form of getting more allies into Iraq?

Continuing…

Well, unfortunately, I could not get my live blogging script set up in time, but I will provide running commentary.

It is 9:04 and the debate has begun. Kerry has the first question and started fairly well but sounds a bit out of breath and hoarse. He sounds good though and is stating his case and came in right on time with his first answer. The President’s 90 second rebuttal sounds very relaxed and he is stating exactly what HAS been done and is talking very evenly and calmly.

Kerry needs to do one of two things if he is to have any chance of winning on November 2nd:

1. Fire ALL of his so-called advisors, or

2. Start listening to his advisors!

I can’t figure out which is the right course of action because I’m not sure if his advisors are the reason for Kerry’s constant blunders or if Kerry himself has decided to adopt more than just Howard Dean’s anti-war stance. As you know, Dean was known as the guy who liked to “shoot from the lip” during his campaign. It ultimately proved to be his undoing and the Kerry Campaign just doesn’t seem to have absorbed that lesson.

So, what has Kerry done THIS time? Well, he appeared on [url=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/Kerry_Sawyer_040929-1.html]Good Morning America[/url] today where he said this of his now famous statement, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and didn’t say something clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is, I thought, to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted.

What?! Stand up and be counted? Forget the fact that he actually [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A64607-2004Mar16�Found=true]made that statement BEFORE he made that statement[/url], and forget the fact that he voted against the $87 billion just a week or two after he asserted on Face the Nation that NOT voting for the funding would be irresponsible, and even forget the fact that most of the country already knows that he voted the way he did (as did Edwards) because he was desperately trying to catch up with Howard Dean in the primaries.

Instead, lets just assume for one second that Kerry was trying to stand up and be counted. Lets talk about what he stood for when he made this so-called “protest” vote.

In voting against the $87 billion, Kerry voted against funding for our TROOPS! He voted against reconstruction efforts in Iraq, against better body armor, weapons, ammunition, and a host of other supplies that today helps our troops on the front lines as well as the fledgling Iraqi democracy.

A protest vote against a bill with tons of pork in it is one thing, but a bill to fund troops standing in harms way? Is he crazy?

SANITY CHECK!
To the Kerry Campaign, I would like to humbly offer up some insight as to why this statement is such a monumental blunder.

By calling this vote to fund the troops and our ongoing struggle to bring peace to Iraq and, just maybe, democracy to the Middle East, a “protest” vote, you’ve just given a whole new level of credibility to the [url=http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php]SwiftVets[/url]. While I think its a mistake to attack anyone’s service record, many of the SwiftVets latest ads have wisely shifted the focus to Kerry’s time as a member of [url=http://www.vvaw.org/]Vietnam Veterans Against the War[/url].

Now Kerry has once again, right at a pivatol point in the campaign, become an anti-war protester. Though Kerry claims that his “protest” vote was really about the need for America’s wealthy to pick up the tab for the war (sure, that makes sense to me considering the top 50% of wage earners already pay 96.4% of all taxes), most Americans will simply focus on Kerry’s desire to offer up a protest vote that, at the very least, is a slap in the face to our troops now in the field.

I have only one question… Which statment of Kerry’s is MORE inarticulate, the one regarding voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it, or the one where he calls a vote to fund our troops a “protest” vote.

Feel free to leave me a comment if you have an opinion.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]