Foreign policy and homeland security was at the forefront in the
face-off between incumbent President Bush and his Democratic
opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Thursday night in the first of
a series of three presidential debates.
Viewers were able to get an idea of the differences in the
candidates’ attitudes towards foreign policy in a debate
focused largely on the war in Iraq. With solid performances by the
two candidates, many analysts predict a tightening in the polls
that had recently been leaning in Bush’s favor.
The event was governed by a 32-page memorandum of understanding,
which contained stipulations for room temperature, the distance the
candidates were allowed to move from the podium and a ban on either
candidate asking direct questions of one another.
The candidates squared off in a match that concentrated mostly
on the war in Iraq, touching lightly on issues such as the concept
of preemptive war and nuclear proliferation.
Kerry underlined the importance of having a plan to get out of
Iraq and focused on the necessity to regain support from the rest
of the world in U.S. foreign policy.
Kerry laid to rest many Democrats’ concerns that he would
appear stiff and spend too long answering questions.
“I think that Kerry did very well in this debate,”
said Elizabeth Garrett, director of the USC-Caltech Center for the
Study of Law and Politics. “He was direct in his answers…
He was commanding and in control.”
Bush succeeded in what is seen as his strong point: staying on
message. He drove home the point that the president needs to have a
character of strength and resolution.
He emphasized this point by talking about what he considers
Kerry’s inconsistent record on Iraq.
“The only thing consistent about my opponent’s
position is that he is inconsistent,” Bush said.
Kerry replied, “It’s one thing to be certain. But
you can be certain and be wrong.”
As for his own ideas on the future of Iraq, Bush said he will
bring troops home when “the mission is done.”
“Putting in artificial deadlines won’t work. … You
can’t do that and expect to win the war,” Bush
said.
Kerry attacked Bush on what he considers the rush to war without
broad support from a large coalition of other nations.
“We need a president who knows how to bring countries
together,” Kerry said.
He talked about what he considers Osama bin Ladin’s
near-capture and the fact that he thinks the president “has
not been candid with the American people. … He misled American
people in his speech when he said we’d plan carefully and go
(to Iraq) as a last resort.”
Analysts generally agreed while Bush hammered out a strong
position, Kerry came across clearly and displayed strong character
in the limited timeframe granted by the predetermined debate
rules.
Mark Peterson, chairman of the department of public policy at
UCLA, said it was a good debate and both candidates performed well,
but Kerry performed better than Bush.
Kerry was “quite effective and quite clear … but I
don’t think Kerry’s closing comments would win any
awards” Peterson said.
Peterson also said Bush was very strong in the middle of the
debate and was very committed to his agenda.
Peterson, though, took issue with the stipulation that each
candidate get only two minutes to answer each question.
“It’s absurd. Just ridiculous. It’s not really
a debate,” Peterson said. “Two minutes is not enough
time … to say something profound and serious in response to a
question about nuclear weapons in North Korea.”
Garrett believed that the Kerry that showed up at the debate was
not the Kerry everyone had expected based on the image of him
portrayed in the media.
“Kerry seemed so different from the way he is presented in
the news ““ he had a presidential aura,” she said.
In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken immediately after the
debate, 53 percent of respondents said they felt Kerry performed
better, compared to a 37 percent rating for Bush.
Students who have closely followed the election race and watched
the debate had their own views.
“I think the debate gives you a sense of the general view
of the candidates but the specifics on both of the candidates needs
to be taken with a grain of salt,” said Scott Nenni, a
fourth-year political science student and a member of the Bruin
Democrats.
“They were at least able to distinguish themselves from
each other,” Nenni said.
Some members of the Bruin Republicans believed Bush was
successful in explaining his agenda and Kerry did not perform as
well.
“Kerry didn’t say anything new, I didn’t learn
anything about him” said Adi Hed of the Bruin Republicans, a
fourth-year art history major.
“I thought (Bush) was very clear because he knows what he
stands for … I think he showed himself as a pretty strong
leader,” Hed said.
But Hed said he would have preferred the debate have fewer
restrictions.
“I would much more enjoy an off the gloves kind of
debate,” Hed said.