DEBATE SCORE: BUSH 1, KERRY 0

In order for the creeping dynamics of the race for the presidency to change as a result of the first presidential debate, two things had to happen: President Bush had to commit a major gaff and Democratic challenger Senator Kerry had to hit a home run. Neither happened. Still, this first debate offered an opportunity--as a result of the fact that the two participants performed so well--a real contrast between the candidates.

For all the harping before the first of the three scheduled debates, about lighting, about the agreed upon format--which is too restricting and does not allow for spontaneity or any kind of the give and take of a "real" debate--one must admit to the single virtue of last night's debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry in Coral Gables, Florida: it allowed the audience to judge the candidates more on message than on performance.

In broad terms, the differences between the candidates can be boiled down to a few key statements during the hour and thirty-minute exchange.

By coin toss, Senator Kerry was given the opening question and statement, while President Bush was allowed the final closing remarks. The topic of tonight's debate was Foreign Policy.

Senator Kerry's main message is that Iraq constitutes the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Though he did not repeat these words, his answers to questions regarding Iraq and the War on Terror made clear that he continues his line of argument that Iraq was a "diversion" from the primary target of the War on Terror, Osama Bin Laden. He further says while he would not advocate pulling out of Iraq prematurely, that he has a plan that will effectively get new allies actively involved in the burden of Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to continue to shoulder "90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost." Central to Mr. Kerry's message tonight was that diplomacy ought to be foremost in America's efforts to secure itself against the dangers of terrorism.

For his part, Mr. Bush continues to argue the message that he has been repeating since 9/11: that Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror, that America and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein out of power, and that the coalition forces fighting in Iraq are engaged in a noble and worthy cause for Iraq, for America, and for the world. In answer to Senator Kerry's opening statement, President Bush said that 9/11 changed how America must look at the world, that 75% of the leadership of Al Queda had been captured or killed, that the Taliban has been removed from power in Afghanistan, that Saddam Hussein has been captured, and that, as a result of American leadership in the War on Terror, Libya, a former candidate for admission to the "axis of evil" has begun to disarm.

President Bush defended his administration by saying "I know how to lead. Not everybody agrees with the decisions I've made, but people understand where I stand. We have a solemn duty to defeat the ideology of hate." He went on to say that "we must never waiver" in the war on terror, that while the job is "tough," a "free Iraq is a major defeat to terrorism." Finally, at the end of his opening statement, the President said, "If we lose our will, we lose the war." Later, in answer to the moderator's direct question regarding whether the war in Iraq and on Terror was "worth it" in terms of casualties, President Bush said "yes."

Over the course of the evening, Mr. Kerry said that there was no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. Furthermore, he argued that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (a centerpiece of the Bush Administration's argument for war). He said that the President did not engage the U.N. and sanctions against Iraq long enough before "rushing" to war and that Mr. Bush pursued his policy without exhausting diplomatic measures that, in Kerry's estimation, would have successfully put Saddam Hussein "in a box" and led to a successful containment of the threat of Iraq.

Beyond these broad differences between the two candidates, there were a few statements by either candidate that deserve comment. Each serves to illustrate the core philosophy driving each of the candidates and, I think, nicely illustrates the differences between the two.

President Bush continues to argue that the cause of liberty is the worthy cause for the twenty-first century. Bush's position has been that humankind has, by right, liberty; that the condition of liberty is ennobling, and that the opportunity for liberty is a cause worth fighting and dying for. Bush said, "I believe in the transformational power of liberty. We've climbed the mighty mountain. And I've seen the valley below. And it is the valley of peace."

Senator John Kerry said, "I know what it's like" to be in a life and death struggle in war. "Don't confuse the warriors with the war." Kerry went on to say that the soldiers' personal struggle may be honored even if the cause for which they fight is mistaken.

These two statements perhaps offer the starkest difference between the two candidates.

President Bush's answers regarding Foreign Policy consistently reference two things: the realities of the post 9/11 world, and philosophy deeply rooted in the understanding expressed by the framers of the U.S. constitution, regarding the universal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Mr. Bush consistently frames his answers in terms of his understanding of how that philosophy presents itself in the real world and says, in the face of questions about his decisions after 9/11: "We need certainty." At the same time, while we may need to "change tactics," he says, we should never "change beliefs."

In answer to the final question of the debate, however, Senator Kerry offers a stark contrast and a clear choice.

The moderator asks, "What do you think is the single-most important threat facing the next presidency?"

But, what must be noticed is that his two key answers, to the major questions of the night, were answered not in present world terms but in Cold World terms.

Kerry answered the question regarding the worthiness of the Iraqi War in Vietnam terms: "do not confuse the warrior with the war." And he answered the present threat question with Cold War terms: "Nuclear proliferation."

On the first count, Kerry is wrong logically--How can you ask any man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

I.E. If the Iraq War is the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place," then how can Kerry defend that those who fight and die to defend democracy in Iraq are engaged in a noble cause?

Secondly, if the Vietnam War was itself the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place," then how can Mr. Kerry say genuinely during the debate that he--having protested the war vociferously once he returned from his four month tour--"defended this country as a young man in war" and that he will do so "as president"? According to his senate testimony in 1971, his participation in the Vietnam War was expressly not a defense of the United States or anything that it stands for.

If the debate tonight does nothing to change the dynamics of the race for the presidency it will be because there were no major mistakes in terms of the candidates' performances. But, for thinking Americans, one thing should be clear: Mr. Bush believes what he believes and acts accordingly.

Gregory Borse is a PhD in English, teaching at a 2 year college in the midwest. He is a contributor to various web journals which include ChronWatch.com and OpinionEditorials.com

Senator Kerry says he can do a better job than President Bush in the war on terror. Oh really? What is Senator Kerry's track record?

Kerry has only been able to persuade congress to pass six meaningless bills with his name on them, and three of those designated national days of recognition.

Kerry has opposed all of the major weapons programs now in use by our military.

Kerry has voted for increased taxes over 300 times.

Kerry missed more than 75% of the intelligence committee meetings when he was a member, and voted to reduce intelligence funding after the first attack on the world trade center.

Kerry can do better than President Bush? Oh really?

Global Test!! His explanation is as provocative as his statement. When in the history of our country, have we asked the world: Hey, watcha think?

Remember, the surrender of Saddam was "conditional".

We and the UN should have gone in as soon as he kicked the inspectors in 1995. Or better yet, there should have been no conditional surrender.

Oh yeh, then Kofi and friends wouldn't have a piece of the action.

Oh that W would have launched multiple verbal gaffs and skewered F'n to tears. At least we can be thankful he didn't commit any of the gaffes that sink campaigns.

~~Mr.~~ Pesident Bush pursued his policy without exhausting diplomatic measures that, in Kerry's estimation, would have successfully put Saddam Hussein "in a box" and led to a successful containment of the threat of Iraq.

11+ years, 19 UN resolutions, sanctions and EXHAUSTIVE DIPLOMACY, failed to contain Saddam Hussein. The Clinton adminitration adopted the policy to remove Hussein from power in 98. We did not rush to war.

Kerry's line is "just elect me and I'll get it done". It's already been done. He's gone. If Kerry (God forbid) were president, Saddam would be "in a box"? ...reminds me of Al Gore and his "lock box"!

Why argue about putting Saddam Hussein in a box when he's already gone?

The twisted positions that this man spins out are absolutely insane. And...he has not offered any specific details on exactly how or what he would do differently - only that Bush's positions are all wrong and he'll do things differently. I'm going insane just trying to refute this nonsense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.