Posted on 10/04/2004 8:13:26 AM PDT by Pokey78
FOR JOHN KERRY, the first presidential debate was an opportunity. He seized it and revived his flagging candidacy. For President Bush, the debate was a burden. He struggled through it, acting as if he had better things to do. But the second debate this Friday in St. Louis will find Bush in a different situation. Debating Kerry is no longer a burden. It's an opportunity for Bush to recover whatever ground he lost in the initial debate. Bush's history in campaign debates suggests his performance will improve this time. Despite the distractions of Iraq and the war on terrorism, his focus is likely to be concentrated solely on winning the debate--and a second White House term.
The notion that Bush had never lost a debate--until last week, if you count that a loss--is pure myth. During the debates in the Republican primaries in 2000, Bush didn't do particularly well. He didn't need to, since he was so far ahead of the other candidates. For Bush, the primary debates were a nuisance. But in debates with Vice President Al Gore, Bush didn't have the luxury of being indifferent. He knew an opportunity when he saw one and took advantage of it. It was Gore who regarded the three debates in 2000 as a burden. And the rule for debates, we now know, is the candidate who feels burdened, and acts that way, loses.
Losing the first debate in a presidential race is hardly fatal. I learned this first-hand as a panelist in the first
But the president has the gift of self-discipline--when he chooses to tap it. As a candidate for governor of Texas in 1994, he infuriated reporters by reciting his four-point agenda over and over and over, no matter what they asked about. His media adviser in that race, Don Sipple, said he had never worked for a more disciplined candidate. Against Gore six years later, Bush showed the same iron discipline. He refused to be rattled or become peevish when Gore sighed loudly or attempted to intimidate him by leaving his podium and walking over to Bush's. In the Gore debates, Bush displayed that trait which scholar Fred Greenstein of Princeton insists is the most important in a president--emotional intelligence.
That wasn't the case in last Thursday's debate. Bush forgot what has worked so well in his recent speeches, twitting Kerry and taking a you-won't-believe-this approach to Kerry's public statements. Crowds respond with laughter. At the Miami debate, however, Bush took a different tack. At times, he appeared indignant, and he lost what political commentator Mort Kondracke calls the "body language" contest. He was oblivious to how he might look when TV broadcasts of the debate turned to reaction shots of one candidate while the other was talking. This did not work to Bush's favor.
It wasn't a disastrous performance by Bush or even close to that. The point is, though, he can do better with a bit of self-discipline. Bush often uses repetition effectively, but it's not persuasive when the idea he repeats is, "It's hard work." We already knew the war in Iraq and fighting terrorists are hard work. It would have been better if Bush had cited Kerry's statement about having voted for the $87 billion to fund the troops in Iraq before voting against it--and cited it repeatedly. He could have done so in a wait'll-you-hear-this manner. The issues are grave, but it helps nonetheless to show a lighter touch.
He'll have an opportunity to do that on Friday night in the second debate. My guess is he'll seize it.
Senator Kerry says he can do a better job than President Bush in the war on terror. Oh really? What is Senator Kerry's track record?
Kerry has only been able to persuade congress to pass six meaningless bills with his name on them, and three of those designated national days of recognition.
Kerry has opposed all of the major weapons programs now in use by our military.
Kerry has voted for increased taxes over 300 times.
Kerry missed more than 75% of the intelligence committee meetings when he was a member, and voted to reduce intelligence funding after the first attack on the world trade center.
Kerry can do better than President Bush? Oh really?
What has gone unmentioned by the MSM thus far is that earlier in the day on Friday the Dept of Labor will have released their final jobs report prior to the election. That may have an impact on things.
1. "Sen. Kerry, you're against the death penalty. Does this mean that you didn't support the death sentence handed down to the animal that dragged James Byrd to his death in Texas? You agree that he should be kept alive at taxpayers expense, enjoying 3 meals a day and cable TV"?
2. "Sen. Kerry: you argue for the U.S. to pass a Global Test before taking action. What part of the "Global Test " did the U.S. fail in 1991 for the first Gulf War? Why did you vote against the resolution? Not enough countries ( allies ) on board????? You seem to bring up the "right" way that Bush '41 went about gathering allies ( cramming for the Global Test no doubt)....so----what DIDN'T the U.S. do to pass the Global Test, hmmmmmmmm?
Good analysis and advice from the always prescient Fred Barnes. I hope Bush heeds this advice and I hope Barnes is correct in his prediction that Bush will perform much better the second time. He can't afford another bad performance.
Watching the debate and hearing the after action analysis... It seems like Bush wasn't even prepared to debate a high school debater let along Kerry. Was it intentional, not prepared or pooped from the rounds he took earlier in the day among the hurricane recovery?
All I know is if this was a sport, Bush's coach would be in his grill for that performance in terms of body language. The most basic rule to follow is "dont let them see that you're upset".
I expect to see Bush more refined this time around.
He did. He is the Commander in Chief of a nation at war. The forces he commands were, even as the debate was on going, were initiating a signifigent military operation in Iraq and lessor operations in Afghanistan. In both places, terrorists flock to kill Americans and other westerners, and while managing to kill some, are killed in much, much larger numbers. All those terrorists killed in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be coming here to kill our children and other citizens.
IOW, the Presdient has been doing his job, while campaigning only part time. Kerry has not been doing his job in the Senate for several years, and has been campaigning more than full time.
The (very appropriate) question I want to see asked is:
"Senator Kerry, in your 19 year Senate career, which law that you have authored are you most proud of?"
Too damn bad Bush didn't seize on any of your points. Its very depressing! And the long knives will be out early in his next two debates with Kerry!
Too many people forget what 911 did in addition to the murder of 3,000 people in four terror attacks.
Too many people forget what 911 did in addition to the murder of 3,000 people in four terror attacks.
Fred nails it here. Bush could also have used a darker suit, a brighter tie, and a haircut.
That said, the Presidency isn't about having the right clothes and hair, and Kerry's touch seemed so light in debate # 1 as to make him seem effete and frivolous. Kerry's subtext was, "Don't I look great? Don't I sound great? Wouldn't I be a great President?"
Kerry was slick to the point of silliness.
Good point.
Bush needs Passion and to fight as thou this were part of the terror war. Without security there is no viable economy.
Bump!
Just this past weekend, I said this same question should be raised - "After almost 20 years in the Senate, what piece of legislation are you most proud to have sponsored or co-sponsored?" I would really like this question to be asked...repeatedly until he answers it.
Be careful with the wording. Many popular bills have scores of 'co-sponsors' Ask about author or lead sponsor. Being co-sponsor is a cheap publicity stunt; an easy way to associate yourself with a popular bill. I wouldn't doubt that Kerry could find lots of bills he 'co-sponsored' despite his complete lack of leadership.
Good point about co-sponsoring; however, it might be telling what he would claim to be "most proud of". Hasn't Kerry indicated that he was "proud" to vote AGAINST the $87 billion supplemental bill (after he voted for it)?
I guess I'm just wishing that his Senate record would get some exposure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.