Contributors
Chris Field- Contributor

Chris Field is Editor of Human Events Online [go to Field index]

TWO CENTS
Obligatory Debate Notes
Annoyed early...
[Chris Field] 10/4/04

I know you're all just chomping at the bit to know my thoughts on the debate last night. It's the only thing people are talking about today, so I guess I kind of have to mention it. Let me, then, just offer a few random thoughts I scribbled down.

• Jim Lehrer started by asking Kerry if he could do a better job defending the U.S. than Bush. Kerry answered that we would be safer with a Kerry administration. I have no problem with him saying that (though I heartily disagree with him), but according to the Left's reactions to Cheney and Hastert's statements that we would be in more danger (read also: less safe) with Kerry in the White House, we ought to be outraged that he would make such a claim. Doesn't that fall in the category of the "politics of fear"? How dare Kerry use such fear-mongering...

• I started getting annoyed early -- as I often do -- with the talk of spreading freedom/democracy/liberty. Can anyone say "Wilsonian"? I understand that such concepts are supposed to show how wonderfully compassionate we are, but how 'bout just focusing on the benefits of protecting the United States? I know, I know, got to get those "swing voters," but how far are we willing to go (those of us to are not Wilsonian, I mean)?

• In one of Kerry's early criticisms of the Iraq war, he stated that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. He then made the typical, sneaky Democratic move of substituting 9/11 with Al Qaeda. Sorry to disappoint you Senator, but there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

• Were you aware Kerry served in Vietnam? Apparently, he did. (For as many times as Kerry's been warned to stop talking about his Vietnam service, he sure did mention it a lot. What I would have given to have heard Bush, after he praised Kerry's service to our country, state that he was disappointed in Kerry for meeting with the enemy in Paris upon his return from war and for accusing our military of committing war crimes on a daily basis.)

• Good for Bush for pointing out Kerry's "pre-September 10th" mentality. Though he should have done it more. That's really what this election is all about -- Kerry and the Left see the world through pre-terrorist-attack-that-killed-3,000-Americans glasses, while Bush and the Right understand that things changed when we were attacked. War was declared on this country three years ago, and Bush aims to win it effectively.

• Though many people have mentioned their frustration with Bush's "ad naseum" use of Kerry's "wrong war, wrong time" statement and the "mixed message" that such a statement creates, I considered it effective. Imus mentioned it this morning, and I thought it apt. The average American watching this debate -- not those of us paid to keep up with this stuff -- turned off their television sets last night, after multiple distractions (phone ringing, kids screaming, dog barking, whatever), with probably one or two things resonating in their minds from this debate. One of those things was probably Bush's repeated criticism of Kerry's "mixed message." And that's what this election is about -- Kerry can't lead. Not with his constant equivocating, anyhow.

• Mr. Kerry, who's going to grade the "global test" you claim we need to pass before we strike preemptively? Chirac? Apparently, Zell Miller was right -- "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending."

• Kerry said that he would immediately end the research on bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Great, Sen. Kerry, let the world know that you're going to block another weapons program, while our enemies continue to build their arsenal. Back to old Zell: "This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

• Good thing Kerry got that Halliburton mention in there. Thought he might forget.

• Lots of people, too many actually, have criticized President Bush's facial expressions. I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but really, he had a reason. When you've corrected your opponent's "misstatements" about your record 1,000,000 times, the 1,000,001st time is probably a bit annoying.

Well, I could go on and on and on and on...

Overall, I found Kerry to be high on polish and rhetoric, while low on substance. He performed better than we were led to believe he would. But by now, everyone who keeps up with politics should understand that you should never underestimate your opponent -- be prepared for anything. Shame on Bush and his team that he wasn't: he seemed as though he wasn't ready for Kerry to do as well has he did. But I still viewed this debate to be, at worst, a draw.

Here's hoping that Bush will best Kerry in the coming debates...and that those debates will mean as much as this one. I fear they won't. CRO

copyright 2004 Human Events

§