Backfire

[toasty]

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."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

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.

[Civic_Zen]

Re: Backfire

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.

This is where I fit for the most part. Except I know that there were WMD in Iraq, and that they aren't there now. They still exist, and someone still has them somewhere. This is pretty much obvious to me.

Plus, knowing now what I do about the Russian president and his warning, I definetely think we did the right thing. No question in my mind.

[Jenks]

i'm in category 2.

i don't believe the 'poor handling' of the iraq war is completely Bush's fault either.

and wow, you've really thought about this number thing. lol.

[toasty]

i don't believe the 'poor handling' of the iraq war is completely Bush's fault either.

Perhaps not directly, but as commander-in-chief, he's responsible for the shit that happens on his watch -- if Bush is defeated, the folks that are responsible (e.g., Rumsfeld) are going with him, so getting his ass out of office is the most effective way of dealing with the problem. We can't cast conditional votes, i.e., "I'll vote for you, but only if you'll get rid of Rumsfeld. And Cheney. And that monster Ashcroft."

[Jenks]

^I wish we could.

I'd take Bush on a ticket, without Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.

[Civic_Zen]

^I wish we could.

I'd take Bush on a ticket, without Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.

Honestly, if it was Bush with a different admin, I would vote and I'd vote for Bush. The most significant reason's for my un-democratic ass not voting, lie in his administration. I feel the same way you do about Kerry, so I can't vote for him especially with a lawyer as his running mate. So if sometime between now and November, Ashcroft gets beaten by Chong or something, and Rumsfeld falls off a cliff. Maybe I'll vote. Make it happen Jenks.

[toasty]

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

I suspect that I'd love to get a beer with W. He does seem like a genuinely well-intentioned guy. I have a problem with his policies, not his heart.

I feel the same way you do about Kerry, so I can't vote for him especially with a lawyer as his running mate.

Fucking lawyers.

[Jenks]

Fucking lawyers.

[Yao]

Re:: Backfire

Flame me for not being American, but I personally think Bush is a regular cowboy/hick. Kerry on the other had doesn't give me any confidence. He may be a talker rather than a fighter like Bush, but he lacks decisiveness as far as I can judge from what I've heard and read.

I was opposed on the war in Iraq, but I would have supported it if they had given Blix more time. It all seemed like they didn't want him to complete his inspections because that might have revealed that there were no WMD's. That also convinced me that the real reason for the war was NOT WMD's. I think there may be a lot reasons, including ones we, the ordinary people will never know.

But hey...I'm also ashamed of my own government which is led by mister Harry Potter himself who was honoured when he was invited to fly to the other side of the atlantic to lick W's badly wiped ass. Fucking lame ass politicians here...I'm moving out as soon as I finish my study, and believe me, I AM MOTIVATED.

[thepariah]

Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.

I don't think it's that he's fake.. he's just not anything. He doesn't have a stand on anything, no one knows what he's all about, he's doesn't really have a personality except for what his campaign people have scriptted for him.

Which is why I always say that you are either going to vote for Bush, or you are going to vote against Bush. No one I know is voting for Kerry because they actually like him. They just hate Bush more.

[superdave]

Re:: Backfire

I think Bush and his supporters were smart to address the war question to Kerry.

If Kerry says no to war in Iraq, then he does look like the flip flopper because he did vote for use of miliatry action in Iraq.

If Kerry says yes which he did then he irritates his own party who are mostly against the war altogether. Now, he alienates the left wing of his party to look more moderate.

[toasty]

Re:: Backfire

I think Bush and his supporters were smart to address the war question to Kerry.

...

If Kerry says yes which he did then he irritates his own party who are mostly against the war altogether. Now, he alienates the left wing of his party to look more moderate.

True, but those people on the extreme left are going to vote for Kerry no matter what -- so he loses nothing, and may make some gains...

...so the question is, how does Bush advance his position here?

[neur0t0xin64]

I dont think this was a chess move for Bush, toasty. The fact is that John Kerry gives a very elegant serving of waffle and indecisiveness that Bush is simply exposing Kerry in the eye of the media. A public question like that is sure to get the media coverage that will shine light on Kerrys biggest weakness...which is of course is not knowing his head from his ass. While Bush maintains an aggresive offensive position on terror and is proactive in addressing domestic issues, all we ever get from Kerry is 'I would do it different'??! NEVER ANY ANSWERS FROM THIS CLOWN, ALL RHETORIC.

[toasty]

I dont think this was a chess move for Bush, toasty.

You'll get no argument from me here. Checkers, I might believe, but chess is way outside of Bush's realm.

... all we ever get from Kerry is 'I would do it different'??! NEVER ANY ANSWERS FROM THIS CLOWN, ALL RHETORIC.

I'm not in love with the guy, by any stretch of the imagination. Let's assume for the purpose of argument only that you are 100% right -- for a lot of people (myself included), "I would do it different" is good enough this year. Kerry was winning or close in the polls before a lot of people had even heard him open his mouth. Now that he's begun to be more vocal, his numbers have stayed more or less the same, give or take a point here and there.

And yes, Bush is decisive (although I don't know that he's been overly clear about what he specifically intends to do over the next 4 years -- but I'll grant you that he's been more clear than Kerry), but when most people think that the decisions that he has made (and to which he clings like grim death) have our country on the wrong path, I'm not sure that's really a plus. Particularly on the domestic side of things, shit isn't really clicking right now.

In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened.

Well, that's my theory, anyway...

[asdf_admin]

to be frank ... they are both cock suckers and both evil bastards. not one is fit to run this country and both suck at what they do. it is a terrible choice and it is terrible this nation allows a choice of these two pricks. that is what is wrong with this nation. we get the two same people up there every four years and none give a rat's ass about America. It is a new time in America, and we need new people. Both Repubs and Demogoblins are the exact same fucking thing. The only slight difference is one side goes here and the other does the opposite. It goes back and forth as America suffers and so do the people within it. This whole globalizationasiziases has fuct us as well ...

Fuck you. :wink: