Anthony Butcher

I watched this first presidential debate with an open mind. Like most Brits I have a predisposition to regard Bush as intellectually challenged. I have seen so many clips of his goofs that it is hard not to see him as a buffoon. However, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, and 90 minutes would give me a more accurate picture of the man.

Well, he wasn't as bad as I thought he might be. But nor was he impressive. He had a few prepared soundbites that he repeated several times. They didn't sound very convincing, especially when he criticised Kerry for giving "mexed missages" [sic].

There was one point, when Bush was describing a meeting with a family who had lost a son in Iraq, that I thought he was dreadfully insincere and looked like a third rate actor pretending to be upset. It was a carefully rehearsed "human moment" and looked just that - rehearsed.

Kerry, on the other hand, was solid and very definitive in his plans. He had obviously prepared point by point policies for every possible question and definitely looked more competent and presidential than Bush. A couple of his "facts" seemed a little dubious and I imagine that he will get a slating for them in the Republican press tomorrow.

The CNN commentators seemed impartial and were more impressed by Kerry than Bush overall as well I think.

Lafayette

Bush's mention of crying with the widow made me angry. It was the exploitation of a dead person for his own political gain and that is stooping too low. It may have really happened for all I know, but to bring it up on national television cheapens it. Iraqi civilians are dying by the score, foreign workers are being kidnapped and mutilated on television, over 1,000 American military personnel are dead to go along with dozens of coalition troops, and I am supposed to believe that Bush is the best man to get us out this mess because he shed a few tears? If only life were so simple.

Kerry is not much of an answer either. He goes on and on about "traditional alliances" being shredded, when those alliances were dying long before Bush even took office. Also, as a Democrat, he just represents big government and all that goes with it. Just like Bush (a Republican in morals, a Democrat in economics and intrusiveness), spending without thought of where the money will come from, more concern for foreign policy than domestic issues, and more consideration for corporate interests than those of the citizenry.

My vote is going for Badnarik. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in winning, but I like what the Libertarian party stands for. The Greens have too many members who are also Socialists, so Cobb gets nothing from me. I think Ralph Nader means well, but he just doesn't have the qualifications in my book. One commentator has said (somewhat tongue in cheek) that the Constitution needs to be changed so that foreign born citizens could run for President there should be no limits on Presidential terms. That way, there could be a Shwarzenegger vs. Bill Clinton presidential race in 2008 :wink:

Tom Wilde

This kind of thing has to stop:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm

How Bush expects to retain the cooperation of allies when he permits this flagrant abuse of the rights of their nationals certainly beats me. Coalition of the Willing? Next time that'll be just the USA plus Haiti and a couple of islands in the Pacific. Good luck, guys.

If I was American I'd vote on these grounds alone for the candidate most likely to remove Bush, even if there were no other grounds for doing so. For pity's sake, please get rid of that maniac so that our countries can once again stand together against terror.

Tom

mkpdavies

I have a healthy respect for what the USA has acheived as such a young country. I love the place when I go and visit, and as countries, we both have a mutual respect for each other, due to the fact we are very similar in a lot of ways. Yes, the US hasn't always been perfect, but what country has? It is still my second fave place on the planet (after the UK).

What really annoys me, is how the current admistration has hijacked the patriotism of the US people to further it's agenda. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the box and the way he trots out the same tired old lines makes me sick. He has obviously got big money behind him and a lot of the media too (Fox should be called Basil Bush).

Kerry is at least intelligent, but he does seem to alter his views with the wind. Out of the two candidates, I believe Kerry is the stronger. I hope the US people realise that most of the world do not hate the USA, but the Bush regime. I think Kerry is the only choice to help undo the damage done by bush, and hopefuly the 3rd member of the coalition of the willing will follow the other two straight out of office.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

We should remember that Britain actively endorses the holding of foreign nationals without trial. Our own Terrorism Act allows just this and is currently being used to hold people without trial. It is a national disgrace.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world