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.