Boston Bacchanalia: Epilogue
Friday morning President Bush wasted no time returning fire in Springfield, Missouri, taking on "the senator from Massachusetts" for his evasions, double-mindedness, lack of results, and wanting to return America to the failed policies of the past.
"This week, members of the other party gathered in Boston. We heard a lot of clever speeches and some big promises," Bush said. "My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results."
Kerry, after nineteen years in U.S. Senate, "has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."
Bush noted that Kerry had voted to cut the intelligence budget and had no record of reforming America's intelligence-gathering capability. Nor does he have a "significant record" on education or health care reform.
"He spent nearly twenty years in the federal government, and it appears he's concluded that it's just not big enough. He's proposed more than $2 trillion of additional federal spending, and he's just getting started. The problem is, he hasn't told us how he's going to pay for it. We can figure it out, can't we?" he smiled sharkily.
But the biggest crowd pop the President triggered was when he declared, "Prewar intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein was a threat; the U.S. Congress - including my opponent - looked at the intelligence, and they saw a threat; and even the United Nations saw a threat. When Saddam Hussein continued to deceive weapons inspectors, I had a decision to make - to hope for the best and to trust the word of a madman and a tyrant - or remember the lessons of September 11 and defend our country.
"Given a choice, I will defend America every time."
The crowd went bananas.
And I now know all I need to know.
And so, apparently, do quite a few others.
Washington Post:
USA Today:
And yes, even the hometown Boston Globe is making, well, "pre-emptive" excuses for a Kerry defeat:
I’ve thought that the Dem ticket would get approximately the same sized bounce from Boston that it did with the Edwards veep pick – roughly mid-single digits. And maybe that will still be the case. But my instincts tell me that whatever bounce they get will be their high water mark. And with their campaign essentially shut down for over a month, this race is Bush’s for the taking if he’ll muster the boldness and vision to seize it.
And that appears to be precisely what the Bushies have in mind. They've already produced ads contrasting Kerry's past dovishness - voting against weapons systems, supporting cuts in military and intelligence spending, opposing aid to freedom fighters - with what he says now. Another TV spot highlights Kerry's changing position on the $87 billion appropriation to fund the troops in Iraq. Still another drills Kerry so effectively, a Bush aide says, "it's painful to watch." Combine that with a second-term domestic agenda centered upon the theme of "ownership" - of one's health care and Social Security retirement - contrasted with Kerry's impenetrable hash of statism and tax increases, and ol' Thurston won't know what has hit him.
Presumably. The Bush campaign long ago chose to adopt a strategy of holding their fire until voters were "paying attention" (i.e. after Labor Day). And I have long criticized that strategy because it left the President vulnerable to being cripplingly and inescapably defined by the other side such that whatever tactics they attempted or issues they emphasized, it wouldn't make any difference with an essentially calcified electorate. The Democrats certainly believe that's been accomplished.
The saving grace for the President - and on which they were evidently counting - is that events that were running against him a few months ago (particularly in Iraq) have turned in his favor, and the opposition has nominated a manifestly weak candidate who has staked his chances on his area of greatest vulnerability and Bush's greatest strength.
The electorate probably is too calcified for a landslide-sized surge in his direction. But assuming that the estimation of both sides that the public hasn't forgotten 9/11 is correct, Dubya's inate clarity of word and thought, not to mention his proven track record of leadership and accomplishment, on the "signature" issue of this campaign should be the deciding factor.
The race may see-saw back and forth, but in the end, my original prediction still stands:
Bush 51%, Kerry 47%.
On to New York.
"This week, members of the other party gathered in Boston. We heard a lot of clever speeches and some big promises," Bush said. "My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results."
Kerry, after nineteen years in U.S. Senate, "has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."
Bush noted that Kerry had voted to cut the intelligence budget and had no record of reforming America's intelligence-gathering capability. Nor does he have a "significant record" on education or health care reform.
"He spent nearly twenty years in the federal government, and it appears he's concluded that it's just not big enough. He's proposed more than $2 trillion of additional federal spending, and he's just getting started. The problem is, he hasn't told us how he's going to pay for it. We can figure it out, can't we?" he smiled sharkily.
But the biggest crowd pop the President triggered was when he declared, "Prewar intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein was a threat; the U.S. Congress - including my opponent - looked at the intelligence, and they saw a threat; and even the United Nations saw a threat. When Saddam Hussein continued to deceive weapons inspectors, I had a decision to make - to hope for the best and to trust the word of a madman and a tyrant - or remember the lessons of September 11 and defend our country.
"Given a choice, I will defend America every time."
The crowd went bananas.
And I now know all I need to know.
And so, apparently, do quite a few others.
Washington Post:
In the end, Mr. Kerry will be judged not in a vacuum but against the record compiled by Mr. Bush. But he will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs.
USA Today:
[W]hile many of those interviewed this week just four miles from the FleetCenter expressed animosity toward Bush, most were not ready to embrace Kerry. That leaves the hometown senator facing a basic question: If he hasn't closed the deal with swing voters less than a 15-minute cab ride away, what are his prospects in Michigan, Ohio, and other key states where voters know less about him?
And yes, even the hometown Boston Globe is making, well, "pre-emptive" excuses for a Kerry defeat:
After all that buildup, Kerry's own speech needed to be a home run. His words certainly struck just the right tone of strength, optimism, and regret about Bush's failures. But the written text was so long that Kerry had to race through dozens of applause lines in order to finish by 11 p.m., when he knew the networks would tune out. So a potentially great speech came across as merely a very good one. Kerry had four months to prepare for this moment, but as late as mid-afternoon yesterday, he and his aides were still tinkering with his text. If this process is the metaphor for the campaign - too many hands on the tiller - Lieutenant Kerry needs to seize the wheel and fast, or Bush's superior discipline will trump Kerry's superior intellect and case.
I’ve thought that the Dem ticket would get approximately the same sized bounce from Boston that it did with the Edwards veep pick – roughly mid-single digits. And maybe that will still be the case. But my instincts tell me that whatever bounce they get will be their high water mark. And with their campaign essentially shut down for over a month, this race is Bush’s for the taking if he’ll muster the boldness and vision to seize it.
And that appears to be precisely what the Bushies have in mind. They've already produced ads contrasting Kerry's past dovishness - voting against weapons systems, supporting cuts in military and intelligence spending, opposing aid to freedom fighters - with what he says now. Another TV spot highlights Kerry's changing position on the $87 billion appropriation to fund the troops in Iraq. Still another drills Kerry so effectively, a Bush aide says, "it's painful to watch." Combine that with a second-term domestic agenda centered upon the theme of "ownership" - of one's health care and Social Security retirement - contrasted with Kerry's impenetrable hash of statism and tax increases, and ol' Thurston won't know what has hit him.
Presumably. The Bush campaign long ago chose to adopt a strategy of holding their fire until voters were "paying attention" (i.e. after Labor Day). And I have long criticized that strategy because it left the President vulnerable to being cripplingly and inescapably defined by the other side such that whatever tactics they attempted or issues they emphasized, it wouldn't make any difference with an essentially calcified electorate. The Democrats certainly believe that's been accomplished.
The saving grace for the President - and on which they were evidently counting - is that events that were running against him a few months ago (particularly in Iraq) have turned in his favor, and the opposition has nominated a manifestly weak candidate who has staked his chances on his area of greatest vulnerability and Bush's greatest strength.
The electorate probably is too calcified for a landslide-sized surge in his direction. But assuming that the estimation of both sides that the public hasn't forgotten 9/11 is correct, Dubya's inate clarity of word and thought, not to mention his proven track record of leadership and accomplishment, on the "signature" issue of this campaign should be the deciding factor.
The race may see-saw back and forth, but in the end, my original prediction still stands:
Bush 51%, Kerry 47%.
On to New York.
posted by JASmius at 12:08 PM
<<< Home