The Election Per Rasmussen

Rasmussen Reports summarizes the upcoming election thusly. They seem to think that the War on Terror will be the deciding factor among undecided voters.

The first Presidential Debate did a fairly good job of highlighting differences between the candidates on the important issues they discussed.

The key foreign policy distinction between Bush and Kerry was succinctly defined in a brief exchange--President Bush said we were attacked and responded to that attack. Senator Kerry said we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. Partisans on both sides have reacted as if their candidate's position on that exchange is so obvious that it cannot be disputed. In fact, the electoral dividing line for Election 2004 is a dispute over the logic reflected in those few moments of the debate.

Those who share Senator Kerry's view quite naturally move to the assumption that the War on Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror. Most also share a sense that U.S. military force should be used only in situations that pass the "global test" mentioned later in the debate by Senator Kerry. From this perspective, the attack on Iraq didn't make sense because the U.S. cannot prove a direct connection between Hussein and 9/11.

Those who share George Bush's view naturally move to a different set of conclusions--we were attacked by terrorists and Hussein had been in bed with terrorists for a long time. In fact, he was a leader among terrorists. Therefore, attacking Saddam was an appropriate response to 9/11 because it was an attack on the global terrorist network. From this point of view, it's utter nonsense to view the War with Iraq as a diversion from the War on Terror.

Those who do not wholly embrace either perspective will have to choose... and they will determine the winner on Election Day. Regardless of the outcome, it's healthy to have these fundamentally different views presented and debated in an election year.