First of all, the biggest message of the night was from Bush: "You cannot lead if you send mixed messages."

The debate was about how I expected it to be. To be perfectly honest with you, John Kerry is a much better public speaker than George Bush. Bush a few awkward pauses that are probably going to translate as indecisiveness to voters, or its going to seem like he was ill prepared. He also rambled at times. However, Bush's message was simpler. Kerry often found himself on the defensive struggling to draw a common thread through his multiple positions on the issues.

Kerry was at his strongest when talking about North Korea. Clearly the Bush administration should have been paying more attention to North Korea. The problems there have escalated and it has become a major problem facing America. However, keep in mind that North Korea has been a gathering storm since long before the Bush administration held the White House. America, under the leadership of Bill Clinton, signed a nuclear treaty with North Korea which that country backed out of. North Korea was a problem that should have been dealt with long ago. Unfortunately, its a problem that has persisted during a time when America's focus has been, necessarily, elsewhere.

Kerry also made some strong statements about Bush shifting our military focus from Afghanistan and al Qaeda to Iraq. I think this shows Kerry's inability to see the larger picture. The middle east, as a region, is a place infested with terrorism and oppression. It is not a place that is friendly to the United States. By ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a democracy in his place our country is carving out a free and friendly nation from which further efforts to stabilize the region can be based. The chemistry of that whole region changes when it has at its center a free and strong (U.S.-backed), democratic nation. When Iraqi's people begin to enjoy their new freedoms their neighbors in the region will see it and begin to clamor for their own freedom. We have infected that region with the virus of freedom which will grow to infect other nations.

Bush was, of course, at his strongest while talking about the war in Iraq. Kerry continued to try and tell the American people that he would somehow convince more nations to help with our operations in Iraq. Yet in the past he has told voters that Iraq was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How do you convince new allies to join us in a war that you have called "wrong?" How can Kerry have told us earlier that the war was "wrong" only to turn around and tell us tonight that he does not believe that the war itself was a mistake and that his only objection was to how President Bush handled it?

I also thought Bush was excellent in pointing out that Kerry has largely ignored the contributions from other nations in Iraq. Kerry began the debate by making it sound as though America was going it alone in Iraq. But the President pointed out that we are not alone there. Poland is in Iraq with us, as is Great Britain, Australia and Japan in addition to many other countries. Kerry responded by saying that, while we do have other nations with us in Iraq, that America was paying most of the cost in the war with dollars and lives. But when has it been any different? When has there ever been a UN or NATO operation that didn't consist mostly of U.S. troops and money? Whether the UN joined us in Iraq or not, America would have been providing most of the troops and most of the funding.

I also cringed when Kerry repeatedly referred to our soldiers as "kids." Yes the majority of our soldiers are young, but they are not children and it is demeaning to think of them as such. These are brave, adult men and women who made a conscious choice to volunteer to serve this great nation. They are doing so honorably and courageously and deserve better than to be called children.

Kerry's big advantage in this election is that his strategies are an unknown quantity. We have had four years to see what George W. Bush has to offer, warts and all. Kerry has the luxury of pointing to those warts and telling voters that "he can do better." So what voters have to ask themselves is, can Kerry do better than President Bush?

Campaign rhetoric aside, John Kerry is a man incapable of having a firm position on any issue. He also has a history of non-support for defense initiatives and a foreign policy made up almost exclusively of gaging the opinions of other nations before allowing his own nation to act.

Kerry is also, clearly, still struggling with his priorities. I heard Kerry say during the debate that some of the money we're spending in Iraq could have been used to fund prescription drugs for seniors. I could hardly believe my ears. Was Kerry really suggesting that he'd divert money from the war on terrorism to pay for a new social entitlement? But this is apparently what he thinks.

I ask you what is more important: Taking the fight to the terrorists who would kill innocent Americans or forcing tax payers to foot the bill for drugs for seniors?

John Kerry is not the strong leader this nation needs to lead it against the enemies that will be facing us for the next four years. President Bush is.

I think he showed that tonight.

Other debate reactions from around the blogosphere:

Patriot Paradox
Ace Of Spades
Allah
Hugh Hewitt
Evil White Guy
INDC Journal
Instapundit (click and scroll)
In Search Of Utopia
Outside The Beltway
Protein Wisdom
Right On Red
Politburo Diktat
Spoons Experience
Wizbang