What’s important is not who wins, but whether the debates can energize the base.
By: Hank Kalet
The Washington Post offers an interesting analysis this morning on last night’s presidential debate – which I only caught some of when CNN replayed it after midnight. (I have a life – I went to see the band Cake, who offered a rollicking 90-minute performance at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York. I’ll provide a more in-depth review later.)
This was a debate that featured two men who, at the very least, know that they disagree on some fundamental issues and the parts of the debate that I did see showcased those differences fairly well.
In a nutshell, the president believes in small government, low taxes and a big military. Sen. John Kerry believes in a more activist government and managing U.S. foreign affairs within a global context.
President Bush is willing to go it alone – actually seems to prefer to go it alone – while the senator is willing to do so but only after gauging how U.S. actions might affect the rest of the world.
Readers of this Weblog know I am not a great fan of the senator, but also know that I find the president a dangerous cowboy. The debate did nothing to alter my view.
The interesting thing, I think, is that the two presidential debates so far have been a lot more interesting and edifying than I expected. And while they will not change minds and may not help convince undecideds, they do help solidify each candidates base.
And that may determine how this election swings. Whichever of the two candidates can get his base out, whichever gets the largest percentage of his people to the polls is likely to be sitting in the White House come January.