Posted on 10/09/2004 9:23:13 AM PDT by MarlboroRed
PRESIDENT BUSH'S political strategists have avidly studied past campaigns. But they still repeated the most famous mistake of President Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign. They prepared Bush too relentlessly for his first nationally televised debate with John Kerry, holding practices and prep sessions for weeks before the actual encounter. The effect was to convince Bush he must avoid a gaffe at all cost. For most of the debate--the second half anyway--he was all but paralyzed. In Reagan's case, his wife Nancy insisted he'd been brutalized by his debate trainers, who told him he must be able to recite policy details. Something similar happened to Bush, who blamed both himself and his advisers. "He's not a detail guy," an aide said. "He's a big picture guy." But he said this after the debate.
Something quite different happened prior to the second debate. Bush boned up on issues in a more relaxed manner. There was only a single mock debate. Aides were easier on the president during practice sessions. The result was a vastly improved performance against Kerry. Bush looked comfortable. He put Kerry on the defensive several times. When Kerry gave a muddled answer on abortion, Bush responded, "I'm trying to decipher that." So was everyone else.
The second debate featured a town-hall format favorable to Kerry. Bill Weld, Kerry's opponent in the 1996 Massachusetts Senate race, told the Bush camp he'd been clobbered by Kerry in exactly that kind of debate. Bush held his own. By the third question (of 23), he began to make points effectively. If foreigners are unhappy with his administration, so be it, Bush said. "What I'm telling you is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because they're right." He listed a number of them, including opposition to Yasser Arafat, rejection of an International Criminal Court, and ousting Saddam Hussein. The implication was Kerry would cater to foreigners.
With the exception of the Reagan debate lesson, Bush strategists have learned a lot from earlier presidential campaigns, especially Bush's own in 2000. Remember, for example, the last week of that campaign. Bush continued traveling but he dropped his attacks on Al Gore and merely asked voters to elect him. He told one Republican leader he expected to get 300-plus electoral votes and win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps even New Jersey (he lost all three). Gore, of course, took the opposite tack, stepping up his criticism of Bush. And the race tightened to a dead heat.
Bush won't go soft again. He intends to zing Kerry as aggressively as ever in the week leading up to November 2. The third and final debate is scheduled on October 13, leaving nearly three uninterrupted weeks for Bush to hone and deliver an anti-Kerry message. It may seem obvious that staying on offense is important in the closing days of a campaign. But polls in 2000 led Bush to believe he had victory in hand during the last week. This time, he plans to ignore the polls, whatever they say, and continue on the attack.
Another lesson from 2000 involves fertile new Republican turf in the exurbs. Bush did extraordinarily well in the outer suburbs of metropolitan areas, and Republicans piled up huge majorities there in the midterm elections in 2002. So Karl Rove, the White House political chief, and other Bush campaign strategists decided to target these rapidly growing areas in voter-registration drives. Why bother registering voters elsewhere who might be Democrats? The vast majority of residents of the exurbs are conservative, traditional families--exactly the demographic most likely to vote Republican.
In Florida, the Bush campaign discovered a new type of immigrant seen as likely to lean Republican. In the 1980s, liberal Democrats from the Northeast poured into south Florida, making the state less conservative. In the 1990s, it was non-Cuban Hispanics who moved in and reinforced the liberal trend. But since 2000, a large chunk of new immigrants are from the South, both retirees and young families who tend to be politically conservative. Rove was sent an academic study that reinforced this point, and he went to the trouble of consulting the scholar. Thus, new Floridians have been a special target for registration.
Rove's sidekick Matthew Dowd did much of the research into prior presidential reelection campaigns, looking at 1976, 1984, and 1992. He examined papers in the Reagan and Bush (the elder) libraries and those in the Baker Institute in Houston. James Baker was a top official in President Ford's 1976 campaign, which wasn't a reelection since Ford had been appointed vice president in 1973 and then succeeded President Nixon in 1974. Baker also ran the 1992 Bush reelection effort. Anyway, Dowd was looking for a campaign staff structure that would link top aides with White House officials and enable the group to make quick decisions. Dowd found models in the 1976 and 1984 campaigns, but not in the first President Bush's campaign in 1992.
Ford and Reagan, however, wouldn't recognize some of the tactics of the Bush campaign--for instance, Bush ads on the TV network operating in health clubs. Campaign manager Ken Mehlman boasts of an email list of 7.5 million Bush supporters. He says the campaign stays in touch with thousands of bloggers. He says it can tailor a message to a state or region. Since 1980, Mehlman says, he's learned a "one-size-fits-all" message isn't practical anymore.
There's a limit to the usefulness of the lessons learned and innovations implemented. Without a doubt, the 2004 Bush campaign is better than the 2000 operation. But the best campaign doesn't always win. One of the most impressive general election campaigns I've covered was Ford's in 1976, and he lost. Sometimes other factors--war, the economy, a candidate's weaknesses, even debates--overwhelm whatever a campaign can do. Still, a good debate performance always helps.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Weird theory, but I have thought that too. Kinda hard to think he purposely didn't KO Kerry in the first debate tho. But if you think about it, Florida's hurricanes have put it out of play in the traditional sense. When the president spent his first debate day caring for them, and then ending up on stage looking and debating "tired", they obviously forgave him for it. It may have actually worked to his advantage....sorta like saying to them that "you are more important".....So he helps himself in that state by being unselfish, saves money and time to boot to campaign elsewhere.....Brilliant!!!
I think the first debate was just a mistake. It was not "strategery". Bush had the momentum going into it, and if he had trounced Kerry then, he could have put away the election right then and there. This way he has to continue to fight every step of the way until election day.
The problem was that they convinced Bush that he "must not attack". That was very poor advice.
Bush MUST "attack", i.e. point out the truth, that Kerry IS UNFIT to be president both due to his record and lack thereof, and his character.
LOOK at Kerry's record: 20 years in the Senate, as one of 100, NO leadership position, or any demonstrated leadership ability. Most Presidents at least have been governors before, had some responsibility, they at least ran a state. Just this alone should make anyone very doubtful about putting Kerry in as president, when we already have a seasoned President, who proved himself during the most critical times.
THEN, add to that, Kerry's actual record:
All Kerry did is sit in the Senate and cast so many liberal votes, that he became THE most liberal Senator in the entire Senate, voting against defense systems, against intelligence budget and FOR tax increases.
Bush hit a lot of good themes, but he still didn't talk very effectively. His statement about Hussein abusing the oil-for-food program was incomprehensible for anyone who didn't already know about it. His explanation for how the economy was already sliding down hill when he took office was not too clear and didn't explain how the stock market bubble was responsible for those budget surpluses of the late 90's. Kerry also tried to connect himself to the 90's budget surpluses, as though he did something to create them. Bush let him get away with that.
He let Kerry say he voted against the partial birth abortion bill because it didn't have an exception for the life of the mother, when those procedures are not done to save the life of the mother. He again didn't rebut the lie that they forced Shinseki to retire early. He also didn't have much response to the questionable claim that lawsuits are only 1% of healthcare costs. He should state flatly that Kerry's numbers on the budget don't add up - they assume some mysterious healthcare "savings" of a few hundred billion. He also didn't bring up Kerry's long anti-defense record including opposition to the Gulf War, which met all of Kerry's criteria for going to war - U.N. approval, French participation etc.
Kerry also repeatedly said Bush "pushed away" our allies, which is ridiculous. Bush invited France and Germany and Russia to participate but they were implacably opposed, and were on the take from Saddam. He has to hit Kerry hard on his suggestion that inviting French and German companies in to Iraq, i.e. bribing them, is a positibe step.
I don't think I'm being nitpicking. Bush throws a punch or two, but they're more jabs than left hooks, and Kerry ususually has a few jabs back. And I think he scored with his class warfare rhetoric.
Yeah, where was Fred last night? How come he waits until today to say what we all saw, what we all knew was true?
Methinks perhaps it was because he wanted to see what the consensus was as to not appear a fool in case he was wrong?
I watched the debate early this morning, and was back to being thrilled.
Maybe Fred was up past his bedtime, and was feeling a little cranky.
Where in the article does he say Bush won? Bush did a lot better than the first debate, that's all.
I agree. Florida is no longer in play for Kerry. W's got that one in the bag. Now, he must focus on Ohio, PA, and Wisconsin. Perhaps Michigan also which is a tie in latest polls.
I agree that my theory is weird, but don't underestimate the brilliance of the Bush/Cheney team. You are correct in pointing out that the time President Bush spent with the folks in Florida (THE key state) may have brought more votes his way then a "good" first debate. Interesting things to think about. :>)
Impressions like that win the Presidency.
" The whole Fox team last night seemed paralyzed by fear that someone might accuse them of thinking Bush had won the debate.
I was incredulous at first. Then angry.
Then I went elsewhere.
Fox needs to remember those who brung them to the dance."
Couldn't have said it any better.
The FOX panel was horrendous-they were tone deaf, as they were during the VP debate.
MSNBC had on Ron Silver-his commentary made it worthwhile to suffer through Ballet Boy's head bobbing and overacting and eye fluttering.
If FOX keeps this up- they'll lose more viewers than they attract.
I usually love Fred but I was quite disappointed with his comments on Bush on TV last night. The pundits unfortunately often *shape* public reaction and I couldn't fathom why his comments were so tentative about Bush's performance. (Bill Kristol and especially Mort Kondracke were even worse! I thought the Fox panel lost their collectives minds last night!
I have to disagree with you. He just can't do a tit for tat and have that be an effective rebuttal. But I do agree that he should have spent a little more time about the UN thing, that is so outrageous and is the one thing that can totally decimate Kerry, an UNron scandal. Maybe not.
I mean.....is there a downside to bashing France, Russia, China, etc? (uniter, not divider) But, e-gads!*^%$!! HEY look at HOW MANY of them were on the take! This is SO MONUMENTAL, and I'm beginning to believe that we ARE alone in the world.....when so many of our "friends" treat us and the world this way, turning a blind eye to the degradation of mass murder, rape....Are people getting so desensitized to EVIL? Its all just a big Y A W N
Maybe the end is near. I mean c'mon people,
WE HAVE BEEN BETRAYED and its like, nobody cares
Kerry throws away someone elses medals,let someone else take his place for 8 months in nam, drives someone elses SUV, marries someone elses wife, inherits someone elses money,has someone elses plans, we should vote for him to be President of someone elses country.
Feel free to add more to that paragraph. I got it from the newspaper. I think it makes a great soundbite.
I saw both debates and there was a big difference in President Bush's demeanor that was noticeable almost immediatly last night. I think the prayers of the saints were the difference. It was almost like watching two different people.
How come I did not hear the "Do you feel it was a mistake to meet with North Vietnam government officials in Paris during the war" (1972) or the "Will you sign the Form 180" question to Kerry from Gibson.
Bush was more effective than you give him credit for, although I can't jump into the minds of undecideds and I don't care to. He mentioned the stock market crash and declining economy prior to his election a couple of times, and this emphasis caught my attention, as did his pounding on how raising taxes during a recession is a stupid thing to do.
First and foremost, he really did fire up the "base" and that is extremely important.
This was an excellent performance and considering that he was going after a lawyer with proven debate skills stemming back to his Ivy league college days, we should all be proud that President Bush not only stood ground, but cleaned up pretty well.
My only biggy concern amounted to the fact that President Bush did not give the Republican congress credit for the many accomplishments of the recent past - including the balanced budget and the reform of Welfare during Clinton's term. He let Kerry get away with taking some credit for things that did or did not happen the late 90's (Medicare reform?) that struck me as ludicrous. It seems like the Bush team has calculated that promoting the Republican congress isn't a good idea, but boy do I disagree. This will be win-win for himself and the party. For example, does he campaign for Thule in South Dakota?
What was really heartwarming to me was that it truly appeared that Bush was using arguments that bubbled up from conservative press, talk shows & internet forums. This is exactly what needs to happen.
I think a lot of the Florida Carpet Baggers from up North, will be leaving as soon as the Hurricane season is over, and they get the check to replace their house. Next. Remember the old saw. " The Best Defense is a good offense"
I had to work last night. Missed the debate on TV but listened to it on the radio. The President WON HANDS DOWN!
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.