I guess Bush recently challenged Kerry to indicate whether, knowing what we know now, his vote to go to Iraq would have changed -- yes or no. Kerry answered that he still would have voted to go to war, but added that he "would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
What exactly was Bush expecting here? Kerry has to say "yes," no matter what. Consider that (and this is obviously generalizing things significantly) there are a few basic camps into which folks that follow and care about such things fall on Iraq:
1. Those that think the war in Iraq was a great idea, and that it's going swimmingly.
2. Those that think the war itself was a good idea regardless of the justification, but think that it's been handled poorly.
3. Those that supported the war to find WMDs, but object to the revisionist justification for the war or wouldn't have supported it just to oust Saddam.
4. Those that would have opposed the war no matter what.
No matter what he says, Kerry isn't going to pick up any votes from group number 1, which I suspect is a fairly small group.
Similarly, the folks in group 4 are probably voting Democrat regardless, so Kerry isn't going to lose those votes no matter what.
With regard to groups 2 & 3, "yes, but I would have done it differently" isn't a half-bad answer -- it speaks directly to group number 2's concerns and doesn't do anything to give those folks in group 3 that are leaning Kerry a reason to switch.
On the other hand, if Kerry had said "no," he would reinforce the flip-flop image, introduce a wedge issue that currently doesn't exist (Bush and Kerry's positions on the war are now largely aligned), and run the risk of losing those voters in group 2 that were leaning his way.
Was Bush thinking Kerry would accept his invitation to answer "yes" or "no" and shut up? Kerry can't use 50 words when 500 will do, what made Bush think he would or could follow his rules of engagement?
Dumbass.
What exactly was Bush expecting here? Kerry has to say "yes," no matter what. Consider that (and this is obviously generalizing things significantly) there are a few basic camps into which folks that follow and care about such things fall on Iraq:
1. Those that think the war in Iraq was a great idea, and that it's going swimmingly.
2. Those that think the war itself was a good idea regardless of the justification, but think that it's been handled poorly.
3. Those that supported the war to find WMDs, but object to the revisionist justification for the war or wouldn't have supported it just to oust Saddam.
4. Those that would have opposed the war no matter what.
No matter what he says, Kerry isn't going to pick up any votes from group number 1, which I suspect is a fairly small group.
Similarly, the folks in group 4 are probably voting Democrat regardless, so Kerry isn't going to lose those votes no matter what.
With regard to groups 2 & 3, "yes, but I would have done it differently" isn't a half-bad answer -- it speaks directly to group number 2's concerns and doesn't do anything to give those folks in group 3 that are leaning Kerry a reason to switch.
On the other hand, if Kerry had said "no," he would reinforce the flip-flop image, introduce a wedge issue that currently doesn't exist (Bush and Kerry's positions on the war are now largely aligned), and run the risk of losing those voters in group 2 that were leaning his way.
Was Bush thinking Kerry would accept his invitation to answer "yes" or "no" and shut up? Kerry can't use 50 words when 500 will do, what made Bush think he would or could follow his rules of engagement?
Dumbass.
Comment