September 29, 2004
Substance over Style Please, Hold the Spin
I have to admit, I am jaded with the politics of the current presidential election as well as the upcoming debates. I believe both men are equally suited for the job on qualifications but the tone of civility our nation’s leaders have demonstrated as of late, leave me wanting for a reset button on the whole political process.
In the early days of the campaigns, Bush and Kerry both called openly for their opponent to run a fair and clean campaign. This truce of civility lasted as long as you could say “Vietnam”. Soon afterwards were the non-stop commercials by swift boat veterans that aimed to make sure we all knew John Kerry wasn’t a great commander in Vietnam and they wanted to give the impression that everyone in the military didn’t like Kerry. This left the obvious question; why the hell are we talking about Vietnam? What does this have to do with John Kerry in 2004? How does this help Bush since he would like to downplay his own service record? Why should I care about a man's impression of John Kerry when he hasn't had personal contact with him for over thirty years now? Is Vietnam going to be the focal point on picking our president?
It was a red herring and the fact that it got so much attention is proof that we fell for it. So the lesson learned is; let a third party with no real ties (supposedly) to the political party fight your dirty battles for you leaving your opponent on the defensive. If you can make a man with three purple heart medals from fighting as a volunteer in a foreign war look unworthy for his country, who can't you go after?
Kerry responded to the attacks, he had no choice. His campaign was so on the defensive that he came across angry, his return attack ads that soon followed didn’t help his image either. With Kerry, you have a paradox that seems to elude many, but still leaves a quandary about the man. Kerry is (sometimes) an anti-war candidate, and then he isn’t. He wanted to appeal to the anti war movement that grew strong but made certain to not put both feet in the issue. He also wanted to appeal to the undecided voters who favored Bush on his Iraq policy; this leaves you looking like a flip-flopper when your opponent exploits the fact and he should have seen it coming.
Kerry has been fighting a “whatever position is necessary” strategy to win and many of the people who radically oppose Bush seem to excusing this because they have also adopted the same philosophy to get Bush out of office. The problem with this position is that it leaves a lack of substance from the Candidate, from the party, and from the supporters. I want to like Kerry but it is looking more like it makes little matter as to which man wins. The policies change here and there but the tone has already been set for both administrations and they both look quite similar. From the most radical supporters on both sides you have private agenda’s that do not reflect the sum of what it should mean to be our president.
Unless John Kerry finds his mark tonight at the first of the three debates, I predict that George W. Bush will win a second term by another close, but more accurate, election in November.
Posted by Beau Wade at September 29, 2004 03:41 PMI have to believe that part of what hurt Kerry was the snowball effect that put him on the platform so fast.
The Dems thought that would be to their advantage.
It may have been if Kerry had gone back to his hum drum job as a Senator in D.C.,cast some votes, and showed up for more meetings instead of talking so much.
He may have tried to hard to be everything to everyone and caused some of his own base to not like him.
18% say the debates will help them decide.
77% say it is NOT LIKELY it will change their vote.
Not likely does not mean they won’t.
They are expecting 50-70 million people to watch tonight.
Soon we’ll know! The pollsters will probably be calling people all night long.
Posted by: Dawn at September 30, 2004 05:27 PMFinally, a great, non-partisan post by someone in the green column. I was beginning to think it was the “Green Party” column.
Great job Beau
Beau:
Good post.
All candidates say they want to have a good clean campaign that takes the high road. And they all break their word on it. Sometimes its because the candidate has fallen behind and needs to add spice to the campaign. Usually its because “the other guy started it”. (I love it when both candidates claim that one)
A big problem for Kerry has been that his base has been divided on the war. Many of the delegates in Boston were very anti-war, but there is another group that is less so. On the opposite side, Bush’s base has been entirely supportive of the war to a much greater degree.
This has led to Kerry trying to keep disparate groups happy, which is nearly impossible to do. Its been a problem for him, and has caused his message to be garbled and appear waffling.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 30, 2004 06:10 PMWhat Kerry needs to do is to point out how Bush screwed up Iraq at first and since last spring has been following Kerry’s and other congressmen advice half heartedly. By pointing out how the Senate and House Committees have had to get involved over setting policy for Bush, he wins the debate. Bush only has his record and the BS of his campiagn thinking Americans are really that dumb to believe everything that Bush says is true.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 30, 2004 07:25 PMOh, yes, there are some huge differences between the two re the total picture and concepts.
The so-called Debate? Don’t expect anything much—with the 32 pages of ridiculous rules to inhibit any polite fight of their views.
Posted by: Alex at September 30, 2004 09:27 PMKerry slamed Bush
Sorry Reps., but Kerry made his case based on Bush’s actions and the facts.
A side note to my article: The first debate was a few hours after I wrote this and to my surprise, Kerry seemed to pull his act together and came across strong on the debate. Bush seemed to keep getting frustrated, repeating himself, and look defensive for most of the time. Kerry looked cooler under fire and seemed confident. I would have to say Kerry was the winner of tonight’s debate, which gives him a new hope to win in my opinion. It will be interesting to see if he keeps the momentum.
Posted by: beau at October 1, 2004 01:42 AMI think Joe hit the nail on the head.
I really have no idea if Kerry will be a better president than Bush.
I do know that Bush has been a disaster and unlikely to change. His policies seem to be driven by idealogy rather than practicality. I think his medicare plan was little more than a fraud. He believes in unfettered deregulation, which I frankly see as a corporate driven profit scheme. Enron was a direct result of this kind of deregulation.
I live in Texas, and work with these corporate raiders who are selling efficiancy, but reaping guaranteed profits at the expense of taxpayers. This has often become little more than corporate welfare. He is accelerating outsourcing of military services which is turning into a boondoggle.
Kerry is unproven, but is an experienced politician. I say give him a chance.
Posted by: Greg at October 1, 2004 02:57 AM
