First of all, I noticed Kerry's skin tone. It was not the security level orange like I kept hearing about, however, he did seem pale. Bush actually looked more orange.
I am not among those that think this is the most important election of our lifetime. I think it's just a propaganda 'get out the vote' statement by both sides. It's not that important, both sides are going to continue the fight against terrorism, just one will fight it somewhat differently than the other, just how differently is the question. With that being said, I ALMOST want Kerry to win. Could you imagine the late night jokes every night? EVEN iCBS would be making jokes about Kerry, the President. It would be one comic line after another. It would be great. Expensive (taxes), but great. I'll vote for Bush anyway.
I watched the debate on C-span and the reason I did was because of the fixed cameras. I do not like the other channels that use different angles to encourage peoples impression of different candidates. While watching the debate, I noticed that Kerry kept bobbing his head as if he was agreeing with everything the president said. Whenever the President pointed out that Kerry voted for the war on terror before he voted against it, Kerry smiled and bobbed his head. It was just odd.
Bush continued to stumble and at times he looked as if he lost his train of thought. I also thought that there were times that the President could have nailed the Kerry and instead decided to take a different approach. However, the President did a very good job of staying on message.
But since appearance wasn't overly bad let's get to the substance.
Now, the major thing that stuck out in my mind was that after all this time of accusing the President of not doing enough to build a coalition, Kerry now wants to take a different approach to North Korea. While the President has built a coalition in Iraq, John Kerry seems that we should have bilateral talks. Suddenly, we should do things bilaterally with a a country that now has WMD's but with a country that is attempting to develop WMD's we need to build a large coalition. It was just a strange position to take after crying so loudly that the coalition in Iraq is not inclusive of France and Germany.
The one thing about this debate that I think is right on the money is that the war in Iraq is the war on terrorism. It's a bold statement to call the people who strap bombs on in order to kill Americans are innocent victims of American occupation. That's the same language used by Palestinians to describe Jews in Israel. But they are not innocent victims, they are not some "insurgents", they are terrorist. They are terrorist who would do harm to Americans. Aren't you glad that the war is in Iraq and not in the streets of America? Would you rather take the Senators position and not send our troops to Iraq, fighting the war on the streets of America instead?
Would you rather the country be turned into a police state having the government watch every single port, energy plant, chemical plant, school, street, garage sale, and bathroom? If we take John Kerry's approach to fighting terrorism when does it stop? Would we feel safe when cameras loom at every street corner in every major city? Could crime be committed inside homes? Should the government take greater measures to curb crime by "educating children" to report "suspicious criminal activity" being committed by family members? I am sure that if we did that we'd be able to cut down on terrorist attacks but even then I believe the terrorist would be able to do harm.
Okay, so you think I am exxagerating? Do you think that Kerry's plan wouldn't be so severe? Do you think we'd stop at the same type of security measures that are now being used by Israel? Has Israel stopped terrorist activity? Why would Israel need to build a wall to keep terrorist out? Would John Kerry's plan include build a wall around America to keep terrorist out? How many people will die before John Kerry will take to war in the Middle East? What if the United Nations takes the same approach to America as it has towards Israel? Would you support the United Nations telling us that we cannot do what is necessary to secure our borders much like they have told Israel to tear down that wall? And if Israel cannot have a wall around it's borders, and America can not have a wall, then why can China? Who is the United Nations if they are not going to apply the same rules to all countries? What good does it do to allow China to maintain an outdated wall while Israel can not build one in it's defense?
At what point does John Kerry and the United Nations believe America has the Right to self defense? George W. Bush believes, and rightly so, when America thinks it's time to defend itself. John Kerry thinks so only when a coalition has been built. A coalition that does not necessarily have American's best interest at heart.
Let's take a look at the Kyoto agreement since, after all, out-sourcing is a key issue in this years election. The Kyoti agreement treated countries differently. Some countries did not have to abide by the Kyoto agreement. Other countries did. One such country that would have to abide by the Kyoto agreement was the United States. The Kyoto agreement was considered such a terrible thing for the United States that 95 Senators voted "no" on it's resolution in 1997. Senator John Kerry, who stated that the Kyoto agreement was a good thing in tonights debate DID NOT vote for it in 1997 even though he was given that opportunity to do so. In fact, no senator even voted for it. In fact, John Kerry joined with 94 senators in saying that Kyoto was bad for America. Despite advising President Clinton to not sign the Kyoto agreement, and despite stating that as President, he won't go along with the Kyoto agreement, John Kerry criticized the President for not signing on to the Kyoto agreement. But John Kerry should know first hand just how bad the Kyoto agreement is, after all, he was a delegate to the convention.
So to you environmentalist out there, Kerry betrays the Kyoto agreement, he just thinks your too stupid to see it.
I also notice that Kerry does something else. When he states his position, and then somebody confirms his position back to him, he changes his position in order to clarify it. In the process, he muddies it even further.
Something else that annoys me about Kerry, that stupid "We can do better" slogan. Of course we can do better. When couldn't we? We could have done better during the civil war, we could have done better during WWII, we could have done better in Vietnam, we could have done better in any war. That's why during peace time we maintain a strong, well trained military. That's why that we continue to develop better wartime technology even during times of peace. John Kerry did not understand that during his 20 years in the senate. John Kerry did not believe in our military doing better in times of peace. Are you sure that John Kerry, a delegate to the Kyoto agreement that was terrible for America, that didn't believe in strengthening our military during peacetimes, that complains we don't have a coalition in Iraq, that complains we do have a have an international coalition to deal with North Korea, that stood against our soldiers while they fought in Vietnam. Is John Kerry right for America? It's self evident that he is not, at least not on the international level. John Kerry does not have America's best interest at heart.
And though I do agree with him that we can do better than President George W. Bush, I don't agree with him that George W. Bush is a terrible president. Sure he has his faults, but the Senator appears to be criticizing the president just for the sake of criticizing him.
I heard the argument tonight that Kerry would do it 'better', 'faster', and 'smarter'. Do what better? Do what faster? Do what smarter? What exactly is smarter?
What we are getting from John Kerry is an appeal to replace the President just for the sake of of replacing the president. What John Kerry and the Democrats are trying to sell America, is that George W. Bush is nothing but a used car, a lemon, that needs replacing. But what they don't realize is that even if George W. Bush is a used car, we won't replace him with an outdated horse and carriage. We know where our used car will take us, we don't know where the horse and carriage is going. We don't even know if the horse and carriage would get us there.
It's a bad sell and John Kerry is the lemon in this election.
