debates2

The Debates

Re-Match

Bush was not as his best in the previous debate, but in this second debate, Bush was much stronger, and creamed Kerry.

It's not that Bush didn't do good in the first debate. Bush had quality in his answers, and his answers had content. Though Kerry talked a little smoother, his answers lacked much content.

This time around it seemed almost opposite, with the exception that Bush kept his content, while Kerry didn't gain any. Bush was more clear, to the point, and just seemed stronger. Kerry was left with having to send out some paranoid reactions: 'Uh, you see, he's trying to scare you!'

Senator Kerry, it is your record that scares the American population, not George Bush's comments on you.

Let's take a look at some highlights of the debate.

In the first statement from Kerry, the senator states the following:

"Now, the president has presided over an economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs. The first president in 72 years to lose jobs."

I guess this proves that Kerry hasn't paid much attention during his 20 years as a senator. In 1993 to 1995, 8.4 million jobs were lost during Bill Clinton's first term in office, as reported by the Labor Department in 1996. Of those Americans who lost their jobs during that time period, only 33 percent found work but have not earned as much or more than they had before.

Does this remind you of how Kerry constantly tries to bash Bush, saying that there are new jobs being created but they pay less than the previous work? Looks like someone's bitter about their party's past.

Also, it seems Kerry is over-stepping the job issue. Only about 585,000 have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001. 585,000 during this president's first term, against Clinton's first term which lost 8.4 million jobs, which is an actual figure, not guessed as Mr. Kerry constantly tries to do.

Of course Kerry tried the 'tax-relief only helps the rich', but the response from the president, however, was excellent:

"You remember we increased that child credit by $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, created a 10 percent tax bracket for the lower-income Americans. he voted against it. And yet he tells you he's for a middle-class tax cut. It's --you've got to be consistent when you're the president."

www.factcheck.org reports: Wealthy taxpayers did get huge benefits from the Bush tax cuts, but on average they still pay far higher rates than middle-income salaried workers. Estimates by the Tax Policy Center, for example, show that the averafe federal income-tax rate for persons with income of more than $1 million per year will decline to just under 26% by the time the cuts take full effect in 2006. That's a rate more than two-and-a-half times higher than for the teachers, secretaries and cops whose incomes fall between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, whose average rate will fall to less than 9 percent.

The tax break does not help only the rich. There have not been a huge amount of jobs lost during this president's first term.

"I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.

I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove,

they'd be there with us.

But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, "Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going."

Before I continue, let me quote senator Kerry in May of 2003: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, 5/3/2003)

18 resolutions in over a decade, senator, and, once again, Hussein was kicking the inspectors out of Iraq. Blix was not doing his job, and perhaps by no fault of his own. Hussein kicked him, and the other weapons inspectors out. We had given Hussein over a decade's worth of diplomacy, and still he would not come clean. Hussein still kicked the inspectors out. Push came to shove, quite often, and the UN did nothing.

Let me point something out: The oil-for-food program was helping the Iraqi economy. Iran was now in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Even if Saddam allowed the inspectors in, showed them that he was clean with no weapons, Saddam would still be a threat. Saddam's biggest enemy, Iran, was getting the weapons. Saddam, after having giving the inspectors tours of eveything, would then have the sanctions lifted from him, and his economy would again be stable.

What do you think he's going to do with that money? Give it to the people he tortures?

Saddam would take that money and put it directly into his weapons program, restarting it. Saddam had the know-how, he would then have the capability to build nuclear weapons, so that Iran would remain one step behind him. Saddam with a weapon of mass destruction is a horror.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws