Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Anticipating Presidential Debate III
by Tom Bozzo
The BC'04 campaign seems to have been telegraphing its strategy just about as clearly as could be imagined, based on the tax-and-spend-liberal screed that Bush has been testing on his sycophantic audiences. Suzanne warns against anyone trying to drink to Bush's utterances of "liberal."
From this, there is no question that the guy has balls the size of Deimos and Phobos. Their characterization of Kerry's health care plans is a flat-out lie. Bush can, with as straight a face as he can muster, say that electing Kerry would lead to a fiscal disaster. (I think by hitching his wagon to the Clinton era record, Kerry has a good riposte here.) They're all but daring fact-checking journalists to roast them in the aftermath.
It couldn't have hurted to have bloggers (other than the stalwart Brad DeLong) whose readerships are several orders of magnitude larger than mine laying out, with the ample available evidence, the case that the content of Bush's debate performance shouldn't be trusted.
What I really don't like about the laser-like focus of some widely read blogs (e.g., this Talking Points Memo post et seq.) on the Sinclair Broadcasting affair is that a lot of energy has been expended there that could have been spent softening up President Bush himself in advance of the debate.
The BC'04 campaign seems to have been telegraphing its strategy just about as clearly as could be imagined, based on the tax-and-spend-liberal screed that Bush has been testing on his sycophantic audiences. Suzanne warns against anyone trying to drink to Bush's utterances of "liberal."
From this, there is no question that the guy has balls the size of Deimos and Phobos. Their characterization of Kerry's health care plans is a flat-out lie. Bush can, with as straight a face as he can muster, say that electing Kerry would lead to a fiscal disaster. (I think by hitching his wagon to the Clinton era record, Kerry has a good riposte here.) They're all but daring fact-checking journalists to roast them in the aftermath.
It couldn't have hurted to have bloggers (other than the stalwart Brad DeLong) whose readerships are several orders of magnitude larger than mine laying out, with the ample available evidence, the case that the content of Bush's debate performance shouldn't be trusted.
