Metaphysx.com

I just finished watching the 2nd Presidential debate on CNN. I watched about 15 minutes of CNN’s post-debate follow-up, but disagree with much of the commentary. I guess I have different ideas.

I thought Kerry came across as very confident. The only question I thought he avoided, or was wishy-washy on, was the one from the really cute blonde who asked about abortion. (I’ll come back to this.)

Bush, while principle-driven, to me seemed very defensive over-all. But, as the incumbant, what would you expect?

At first, I thought Kerry owned the debate. The questions were just the kind he could answer confidently, and could manage to throw in some criticism of the Bush Administration. Bush, on the other hand, was in the spot of defending himself and his decisions. Ol’ W said something profound though. Speaking of the terrorists, our intelligence has to be right 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to be right once.

I think this says a lot about the whole race for President. As the incumbant, Bush is expected to have run the country with no mistakes. Obviously, being human, he’s made some. Kerry’s role is to attack those. As the newcomer, Kerry only has to convince everyone that he was right ‘once’.

While I have fundamental ethical disagreements with Bush concerning human rights, the Constitution, abortion, stem-cell research, healthcare and what it takes to make this country "safe", he definitely showed tonight that his leadership is based on principles. Regardless of what people think, he’s out to do what he thinks is right. As much as I disagree, he really believes in what he’s doing. He’s not an idiot, so that has to be respected.

Kerry, on the other hand, was simply a salesman saying what he thought people wanted to hear. While he spoke confidently and eloquently under pressure, he seemed to be stating the stance of his party and supporters, and not what his gut feels is right. Some accuse him of being a flip-flopper. He definitely came across as one who makes vague promises. Before it’s on paper, you can never be sure exactly what you’re agreeing to. Tonight, Kerry was arrogant and very "corporate".

There are 2 things I disliked about Bush tonight. First, he went the ‘born-again Christian route’ and was flat-out against federal funding for any kind of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. While I disagree with this conclusion, I have to admire and respect him for his conviction. I feel like he’s not out trying to convince anyone. He’s just saying, "This is what I believe in. If you believe in the same… vote for me. If you don’t agree, vote for someone else."

Second, he was blatantly asked to identify 3 errors he’s made as Commander in Chief. He was asked to address 3 specific decisions, of the thousands he’s made over the past 4 years, that he now felt were wrong, and what he’s done or plans to do to rectify those. Without going into the details, he completely re-phrased the question and turned it into one he was ready to answer… "Was I right to invade Iraq?" He went through the same old justifications. He never did answer the lady’s question.

As for Kerry, well, I’ve decided after tonight that he’s a schmuck. I mean, he either answered the question according to what the "asker" wanted to hear, or avoided the question all-together. The one, as I mentioned above, that stuck out was the really cute blonde who asked, "Assuming you were asked this question by a pro-life, anti-abortion voter, how would you answer the question, ‘Would you approve federal funding for abortions?’" Tho he skirted the question with a bunch of rhetoric, he effectively said he’d approve the funding despite this voter’s objection. He phrased his answer so obscurely that even the President remarked something like… "I’m trying to make some sense of what he just said."

In the end I’ve decided the two candidates we have to choose from are:

1. President Bush - I disagree with his conclusions, but agree with his method of leading from duty and principle. As distorted by his born-again-ness as he is, I truly believe he acts out of what he thinks is best for the country. He needs some guidance as to what really is best, but he acts from his heart and convictions.

2. Senator Kerry - I agree with a lot of what he says he wants to do, but for some reason I feel "dirty" for it. I feel like regardless of what I want, he’ll try to make me feel like he’s fighting for me, and can do better than Bush… while taking the under-the-table cash to do what serves the lobbyists.

If I could vote for the candidate I really wanted, it would be close to what Kerry proposed as his ideal Supreme Court Justice appointee. The candidate would not, in writing, be recognizable as a man, woman, Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, Jew, atheist, heterosexual, homosexual, left, right, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, rich, poor or fitting into any other label.

The President should be one who follows the Constitution to the letter and works to defend the People, protects the minority from the majority, and knows where/when to draw the line at which his authority ends.

Neither candidate does that.

Anyway, in the end, despite the ideological differences, if I had to vote tomorrow, I would vote for principle, and not for the lobby of the week. I would have to vote for Bush.