The Moderate Republican

I have some general comments. Although I admire President Bush's ambition and sense of mission to fight the war on terror, his efforts and actions are completely misplaced. For those who are choosing to vote based on trivial quotes (John Ginter), I would ask you to look at what is happening in Iraq.

Kerry meant well; to deem a man evil, for one misconstrued statement isn't fair, and I'd say the same thing if it happened to Bush.

However, Bush has to be held accountable for the mess that is growing in Iraq. Our safest territories were bombed, soldiers are disobeying orders, and everyday American soldiers are dying. Please tell me how terrorism has decreased under Bush's reign? Muslim militants have gained in strength and recruiting power since Bush has taken power, and they openly stated that they shall continue to terrorize as long as Bush is in power. And through all this, Bush has yet to admit a single mistake and consider stronger options for his soldiers. It is evident that Mr Bush is not the President to lead us to eventual peace.

Kerry realizes where the real wars must be fought, that fighting terrorism is a global war, and thus requires a global effort, not more and more and more American troops in a single crumbling nation.

Furthermore, Kerry will fight for the people! Not the coporations.

Here's my take on the third debate.

Bush did not win, hands down. True, he didn't do all the scowling he did in the first debate, but in place of the scowl was the eternal smirk. That smirk did not come off his face the whole 90 minutes. And even without the scowl, he could barely answer many of the questions. He was most comfortable when talking religion (natch) but not surprisingly he tried to make himself sound tolerant, which is not really what that 4 million+ religious base wants to hear. There were some questions he simply did not answer - such as "will you try to overturn Roe v. Wade" and of course he didn't want to answer that - he decided to make it into a question about court appointments. His attempts at humor were terrible - he tried to take a jab at CBS and its credibility and maybe thought better of it when no one else laughed. He tried self-deprecation by saying that his wife was a better speaker and knew English better than he did - and that didn't really work either. Once again, Bush was on the defensive, slapping the podium to make his point that "We really have done something, we haven't wasted the last four years, we've done something" (even if that something really amounts to no more than a scrap on a bone).

This too was pretty silly - on a previous question, Bush blasted Kerry for proposing government spending and touting spending as a solution to problems. Next question was to Bush, and he was asked what he would say to someone whose job had been outsourced and sent overseas. Bush said, "I would say, Here's some help! Here's money to go to a community college! Here's money to train for another job!" Translation - government spending will solve the problem of job losses. Wait - wasn't he just blasting Kerry for proposing spending that couldn't be supported?

Did Kerry win? Hard to say. He certainly put on the same kind of performance that he did in the first debate. Bush lowered expectations so much in the first debate, however, that Kerry needed to be extra-hard hitting in the third debate. All Bush had to do was be "better" than his first performance in order to look decent to his supporters. Kerry needed to be even better. Again, he explained his policies as well as he could and used the full extent of time alloted (note that there were several questions where Bush used 30 seconds of his 2 minutes and left it at that).

But here's what struck me - and maybe this doesn't mean a heck of a lot but maybe it's an indication of something. ABC ran an instant poll afterwards and it worked out like this: 42% gave Kerry the win, 41% to Bush, and 14% said it was a tie. Sounds pathetic. But, look at the breakdown of who was polled - 38% Republican, 30% Democrat, 28% Independent. Now there were a lot more than 100 people polled, but let's suppose it was exactly 100 people. Let's also assume that every one of those 38 Republicans gave the victory to Bush, and every one of the 30 Democrats gave Kerry the victory. This would mean that 3 Independents gave Bush the victory, while 12 Independents gave Kerry a victory (others would fill in the Tie column). A very crude analysis indeed. But if it indicates anything, it indicates that more fence-sitters liked what Kerry had to say versus what Bush had to say. And if that's true, it's because Kerry had a strong message to deliver about health care and health care costs, job losses, minimum wage increases, and social security. Bush kept harping on education as the solution. Well that may be true in the long term - but it doesn't help people who are going to the polls in November and are looking for assistance and solutions NOW, in the short term.

A little humor for the campaign

If Michael Moore is giving out underwear to vote for Kerry, I think one of the republican leaning 527s needs to start promoting "panties for Bush".

Pedro,

Anyone who frequents this blog knows that I've absolutely no intention of voting for Bush. And they're likely to know that I'm working my butt off to see that he's held accountable for his actions.

The President didn't invent our enemies but he's made it more difficult for us to build both a domestic and international political coalition that can prevail against them. He's caused Americans to distrust one another by pushing a cynical, ideological agenda that rewards the wealthy and abuses anyone who oppose the agenda by implying that they are unpatriotic.

But ....

It's really ironic, that the only part of the debate I caught was the part when the candidates responded to a question about the "strong" women in their lives.

Lynne Cheney has set the rules of engagement as far as her daughter is concerned.

And this is one of those times when John Kerry should say "Yes Mame", I was wrong - I'm sorry - and it won't happen again.

It is unbelievable that the poster (John Ginter)would vote for Bush, who is intolerant and anti-gay, because of Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter in the debate. I watched the debate. The poster totally misinterpreted what Kerry said.

I decided last night to vote for George Bush. The reason is simple. John Kerry is someone who will use the personal struggles of families to get elected.

Basically I saw the debate this way. No one won, but Kerry lost my vote.

When asked about homosexuality being a choice, Kerry chose to mention Vice President Cheney's daughter. He gives an innocuous comment that is suppose to "complimnet" the Cheney's.

The fact is Kerry knows that this will be a close election. He also knows that part of Bush's supporters are evangelical believers who have a strict interpretation of the Bible.

Kerry also knows these people wouldn't vote for him if he were running against Hitler. But he does know if he can remind these people that one of the people they support has a lesbian for a daughter, they may not vote at all.

With a close vote Kerry is hoping that these evangelicals will stay home. If just a few million religious conservatives stay home Bush could lose. That is why Kerry said what he said and why it is more important than ever to vote for Bush.

Lynne Cheney is right, John Kerry is a bad man. I can forgive Bush for not knowing all of the details in Iraq. I can allow that Bush is truly not the smartest man in the world. But John Kerry is evil. Please vote for Bush.

I didn't get to watch either. I only caught the last question and the closing statements. I thought they both answered the last question well - each with distinctly different styles and each with honest answers. Kerry sounded as if he might actually have a sense of humor though I need more proof before I commit to that statement.

I thought John's closing statement was better.

Unless you've met and questioned a candidate in a town hall meeting with some give and take, the debates are the best we've got and that's pretty sad (though these debates turned out better than I expected)

They would have been even better if the players had moved beyond "right/left" political correctness and stepped out from underneath the manufactured conventional wisdom that the media, think tanks, handlers and communications people subject us to.

It's rare that we get a candidate like Dean or McCain who refuses to shrink into a role that leaves him strutting and fretting across the stage to a script that is at least one level removed from the reality of our lives.

For some reason, we tend not to elect such people and since this is a democracy, I suppose we deserve what we get.

In my review, I gave it to Kerry. Bush did far better than I expected him to do, and certainly didn't have the melt-down that many of us were expecting when domestic issues were under discussion, but Kerry simply had a bazooka shot of facts in his arsenal. Bush came out looking like he was the one with a "litany of complaints" rather than Kerry. (Bonus points to Rove or whoever gave him that new catch phrase to throw around. He even pronounced it correctly.)

I was not tremendously impressed with the whole debate. The questions were mostly fluff, and both candidates seemed to be more interested in pushing talking points, and getting out obvious poll-tested jabs on their opponent, than answering the actual questions. Kerry kept pushing his statistics, and sounded repetitious. Bush had some good things to say, but his credibility is shot, so I didn’t believe he would follow through. Bring back John McCain, Howard Dean, or even Jesse Ventura. I need someone to vote FOR! Not a choice of the worst to vote against.