![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Given that polling has put both presidential candidates in a statistical dead heat, tonight's debate could go a long way in deciding the race. I don't think it will sway all of the undecided, most of those people will just stay away from the ballot box when it comes down to it.
It's interesting timing that President Bush has started to address the growing evidence that the original intelligence that they used to make the case for war. I'm sure someone has told him that it was starting to get beyond credible belief to keep saying that the WMD's were there, that Saddam was doing more that a baiting act trying to play bully to keep his position strong. Sure, he could have, and probably was trying to get his hands on whatever he could, but the factor is, he was all hat, no cattle.
The problem for us is that he was ruling the country on fear, and once we removed that fear, suddenly chaos takes over. What bush doesn't address is how we failed to secure the borders, allowing insurgents to come in and organize like and LA street gang. We failed to secure traditional weapons caches, allowing them to fall into others hands, and when we thought they'd love us for liberating them, we didn't consider that there would be a large group just waiting to take advantage of Saddam's fall, trying to take advantage of the power vacuum.
When John Kerry said that having Saddam still run the country, he didn't mean in the sense that he terrorized his people, killing, experimenting and bulling them, he meant that the current chaos would have been avoided. I'm sure that Bush knows this, but to make political hay, one works everything out of context.
Still, what is Bush's motive to finally address that the intelligence was wrong? Well, it's certainly a move to take the criticism that Bush is living in a fantasy land off the board, but it's really too little, too late. Bush has worked to take Democratic issues before, to twist it to his own means, such as education. Bush hasn't admitted that our troops are constantly shuffled, going to secure places that have to be retaken every few days, since their aren't enough troops to lock down everything.
I'll be driving tonight. I'm not sure I will listen or not...sometimes getting the blood boiling on a 4 hour drive just isn't worth it. It would be interesting to see these two deal with some domestic issues tonight, plans that have certainly taken the back burner this year. I'm sure it will show neither candidate has much as far as specifics to offer here, but it is a chance to show some distinct differences in policy.
It's interesting that both Bush and Cheney have looked to speak to their base in these debates, rarely trying to create a message that tries to open them to other voters. Kerry and Edwards seem to be trying to cast a wider net, delivering their message to persuade a larger audience, and I think that may be where the K/E ticket is picking up points. This election is going to be won by who ends up at the voting booth, so trying not to make your base complacent is probably a decent strategy unless your opponent can win a few of them over. It's a strange strategy, though, trying to count on them being outraged enough to vote. Kerry seems to be playing to the centrist masses, hoping to pick up the swing, but his pro war talk make keep some of the Democrat doves at home, or heaven forbid, voting for Nader.
It will be interesting to see what the Dems can do to keep their base motivated. Staying home is not an option these candidates need, so the shrillness, the outrage, and the one-liners will continue for the next few weeks. Can they keep from turning off the entire electorate?
Elections are based on fear, aren't they?
It's interesting timing that President Bush has started to address the growing evidence that the original intelligence that they used to make the case for war. I'm sure someone has told him that it was starting to get beyond credible belief to keep saying that the WMD's were there, that Saddam was doing more that a baiting act trying to play bully to keep his position strong. Sure, he could have, and probably was trying to get his hands on whatever he could, but the factor is, he was all hat, no cattle.
The problem for us is that he was ruling the country on fear, and once we removed that fear, suddenly chaos takes over. What bush doesn't address is how we failed to secure the borders, allowing insurgents to come in and organize like and LA street gang. We failed to secure traditional weapons caches, allowing them to fall into others hands, and when we thought they'd love us for liberating them, we didn't consider that there would be a large group just waiting to take advantage of Saddam's fall, trying to take advantage of the power vacuum.
When John Kerry said that having Saddam still run the country, he didn't mean in the sense that he terrorized his people, killing, experimenting and bulling them, he meant that the current chaos would have been avoided. I'm sure that Bush knows this, but to make political hay, one works everything out of context.
Still, what is Bush's motive to finally address that the intelligence was wrong? Well, it's certainly a move to take the criticism that Bush is living in a fantasy land off the board, but it's really too little, too late. Bush has worked to take Democratic issues before, to twist it to his own means, such as education. Bush hasn't admitted that our troops are constantly shuffled, going to secure places that have to be retaken every few days, since their aren't enough troops to lock down everything.
I'll be driving tonight. I'm not sure I will listen or not...sometimes getting the blood boiling on a 4 hour drive just isn't worth it. It would be interesting to see these two deal with some domestic issues tonight, plans that have certainly taken the back burner this year. I'm sure it will show neither candidate has much as far as specifics to offer here, but it is a chance to show some distinct differences in policy.
It's interesting that both Bush and Cheney have looked to speak to their base in these debates, rarely trying to create a message that tries to open them to other voters. Kerry and Edwards seem to be trying to cast a wider net, delivering their message to persuade a larger audience, and I think that may be where the K/E ticket is picking up points. This election is going to be won by who ends up at the voting booth, so trying not to make your base complacent is probably a decent strategy unless your opponent can win a few of them over. It's a strange strategy, though, trying to count on them being outraged enough to vote. Kerry seems to be playing to the centrist masses, hoping to pick up the swing, but his pro war talk make keep some of the Democrat doves at home, or heaven forbid, voting for Nader.
It will be interesting to see what the Dems can do to keep their base motivated. Staying home is not an option these candidates need, so the shrillness, the outrage, and the one-liners will continue for the next few weeks. Can they keep from turning off the entire electorate?
Elections are based on fear, aren't they?
