Dean's World

I watched the debate from end to end. Kerry is obviously a better public speaker than Bush. But Bush's arguments, even if not expressed as forcefully or as articulately as Kerry's, better encapsulate the core concept of the kind of leadership needed in the present dangerous era in which we all must live out our lives.

Kerry's continuous thread of foreign policy is dependence on international alliances, and especially US relationships with the UN organization. I think the fallacy of this lies in the fact that countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China have interests that diverge from ours.

It is precisely this consideration upon which bilaterialism and multilateralism breaks down every time. No foreign alliance is as reliable as the power of one's own armed force and the consistency of one's own national leadership.

Kerry looks and sounds great. Bush stumbles and hesitates when he talks. But Kerry is dead wrong about the way the world works in practice. Bush shows that he instinctually understands all this, and he acts accordingly.

I think Bush's vision will win this world war, although it will be a long and difficult struggle. I think that if Kerry were to get into the executive power, we would negotiate endlessly while the islamo-fascists grow ever more powerful and consolidate that power.

Kerry has a stronger personality than Bush, and I am certain he thinks he can use an overwhelming force of personality to resolve conflicts with some of the most dangerous people in the world. I think Bush relies more on clear vision and using the spread of accountable government and the growth of liberty to undercut islamo-fascism and dry up its power sources. And I now think, short of starting a nuclear holocaust, is the only way to pursue victory in this long struggle.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I didn't catch a whole lot of the debate, but what I did hear impressed me that Kerry seemed to be going the "I'm smarter" route, in the same manner as Carter and Gore. He would quote facts and statistics, while Bush pushed policy and strategy.

Dunno if that was representative of the entire debate, tho.

From what (agatin, little) I heard, Bush sounded relaxed and spoke fairly fluidly; he hardly even stumbled on "nuclear." Heh.

Kerry did seem pretty focused, on his side, tho.

My long-disused TV set was actually turned on last night for a portion of the debate. I tuned in about 20 minutes late, and turned it off early. Spent part of the time in front of the set, part of the time listening from the next room while I tinkered with my computer.

(This represents the most use my television has gotten in weeks if not months.)

My overall reaction, from what I caught, is pretty much the same as Arnold's: Kerry was glib and well-spoken, but Bush quite obviously had the clearer and (in my judgment) the more realistic vision.

Need you guess which one of them I'll be voting for in November?? ;)

Over here in Iowa, a candidate for some office has been running a campaign ad on the radio lately. One line in it runs (and I'm paraphrasing), "Here in America you are able to vote for the candidate whose priorities and values you most closely share."

Yes, exactly.

Dean: Not quite that. I mean, if I wanted to do the "Waltz to Allah in C4", wouldn't that be a wicked place to do it? All those infidel sailors and airmen and their supporters? Just before the debates?

"You say we are safer, Mr. President? Well the Corps of Cadets at the Air Force Academy just took 25 casualties 40 minutes ago. It is your administration's failed policies that have led us to this, your failed leadership that can't even protect the young men and women who are the future leaders of our military."

Think how that would play.

BTW, I am not superstitious. I believe in betting on the bigger battalions. ;)