In Coral Gables, Florida on Thursday night, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry squared off in the first of three debates.  This first debate’s emphasis was foreign policy, but that quickly narrowed to the issue of Iraq.  This was partially due to the debate’s goal of giving the American people an idea of where the Democratic challenger stands on the issue.  Whereas Bush has been clear and resilient in the war in Iraq, Kerry’s position has not been, despite the challenger’s repeated insistences to the contrary.

With an emphasis on Iraq and the war on terror, the debate was basically Bush’s to lose.  His position is already known and it was up to him to defend it against attacks that had already been leveled by Kerry on innumerable occasions.  The senator offered nothing new in his criticisms, either.  Whether the voters like him or hate him, they know Bush’s policy position regarding the war on terror and the war in Iraq.  Comparatively, Kerry’s position shifts depending upon his audience.  In order to win this debate, Kerry had to come out strongly in his positions and specify how he would do things differently.

When faced with Kerry’s repeated attacks, Bush’s answer always seemed to be that the war on terror, the war in Iraq, or every other foreign policy issue was “hard work.”  This isn’t a good answer to give repeatedly.  A few times, perhaps, but after a while the American people will start to see it as complaining or whining, traits that should never be associated with the Commander in Chief.  It is well known that Bush has terrible debating skills, and this was obvious as he attempted to shift his responses away from the questions and back to the more comfortable talking points he had studied.

Not that Kerry’s performance was substantially better.  As he has for the entire campaign, Kerry chose to blast Bush for lacking good judgment and for failing to keep Americans safer through the one-sided war into Iraq.  Kerry insisted that he had been consistent for the entire campaign, yet in the span of a single two-minute answer managed to glaringly contradict himself, ironically while addressing a question pertaining to the criticism of Kerry as a flip-flopper.  He noted that he continues to support and defend his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but then said that he opposes using the military in the manner that it was used.  So Kerry votes for the use of force while opposing the use of force?  What?  For all his allegedly superior debating skills, the candidate nonetheless makes a ludicrous gaffe like?

The real opportunity that the candidates had was for Kerry to actually specify his policy differences – other than them simply being different.  Bush then needed to point out the obvious deficiencies in whatever Kerry’s policies were by using the ammo available in Kerry’s liberal, twenty-year legislative record.

Kerry chose instead to make the same mistake that he made at his nominating convention in Boston: he chose to speak of himself as the hero of the Vietnam War and utilizing his leadership thirty years ago as his sole credential for being Commander in Chief today.  On several occasions Kerry insisted that his service in Vietnam made him an effective leader, yet he never explained how commanding a swift boat up a river through the jungle can compare a person for massaging the inept diplomats at the United Nations to get out of their soft seats and do something for the safety and security of the people of the world.  Instead of using the debate as an opportunity to demonstrate his leadership, his fresh ideas, or to distance himself from the Vietnam experiences that have bogged down his campaign, Kerry chose to focus on Vietnam and overlooked explaining the details – despite an audience that surpassed the Bush-Gore 2000 debates by nearly fifty percent.

Thursday night we received confirmation of two things.  We confirmed Bush’s utter incapacity to debate and perform in an unscripted, live event along with another demonstration of his resolve – a resolve bordering on stubbornness.  We also confirmed that Kerry has a brilliant plan for winning the war on terror because of his leadership and service in Vietnam, but apparently you and me, the little people, don’t have any reason to have to know the candidate’s plans because we probably wouldn’t understand it anyway.

Or, in other words, we confirmed that Bush can be stubborn and that Kerry can be arrogant.

| Main Page | Column Archive | Who Is Brian Clardy? | Files and Links | Feedback |

All written material on this website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.