Posted on 10/12/2004 7:20:19 AM PDT by jmstein7
Free Advice for Karl Rove: Kerry's Inherent Debating Limitation
By Jonathan Stein
As I understand it, Karl Rove and other GOP operatives scour the conservative websites for useful information -- information they can employ in the campaign. So, I'm writing this with the hope that Mr. Rove, or one of his ilk, will read it and take it to heart. As an advance warning to editors who read this, I plan to submit this "editorial" to multiple sources, but I believe, in this case, it is worth suspending the usual "exclusive material" rule. If this gets into the right hands, it could make all the difference in the world. And, it doesn't matter if Democrat operatives see it because, like the "Crane Kick" in the Karate Kid, there is no defense against what I am suggesting.
Why should you take my advice, you might ask? Who the heck am I? I am an Ivy League grad with an expertise in debate, at least as good as any advisors on your payroll. I am a top ranked law student who plans to go into litigation, and my school's top student in Appellate Advocacy -- an advanced, lawyerly sort of debate. I am also a top student in Trial Advocacy, another form of debate. So, you have nothing to lose by listening to what I have to say. I am also a columnist who knows how to use words effectively. And, to boot, my SAT scores and IQ are higher than both candidates currently running for president (for what that's worth). Not to toot my own horn, but the point is that I'm someone worth listening to, by the rather snobby and condescending credentials recognized by the so-called professionals. Of course, I believe that everyone is worth listening to -- but I know that that platitude doesn't cut muster with the pros and their rather sneering view of the wisdom of ordinary Americans in general, who are far more intelligent than people give them credit for. Now, to the substance of what I have to say. . .
The surest way to defeat an opponent, either verbally or in combat, is not to go point-for-point or blow-for-blow -- that merely prolongs the battle. The surest way to win is to disable your opponent early on. If you take away his weapons, if you make his words meaningless, he cannot fight back. After watching and analyzing Senator Kerry's debate performances -- both on the Presidential and Senatorial levels -- I believe that Senator Kerry can be effectively disabled early on in the upcoming debate.
The simple fact is that despite his prowess with words, his facility with facts, and his studied (though wholly artificial) style, Kerry faces a severe and fatal limitation: criticism. Senator Kerry is wholly limited, in his debate performance, to criticizing the President -- there is nothing more he can do; he has no other weapons in his arsenal. This simple fact, if explicitly and effectively pointed out early and often, can disable Kerry.
Ronald Reagan, in his debates with Walter Mondale, understood this. President Reagan boiled this concept down into a simple message: "there you go again." It didn't matter how Mondale responded, as his points were lost on an audience that had been consciously reminded that anything Mondale was saying was merely recycled criticism. President Bush needs to find a way to do the same exact thing -- and he has to do it first.
If this tactic is used by Kerry against the President, the President can parry because he has a record of leadership and a concrete plan in place to face the challenges of the future. Kerry cannot. He cannot because Kerry is in the uncomfortable position of having a 20 year record of indecisive liberalism. There is nothing he can point to to overcome his limitation of criticism. The words "I have a plan" won't cut it, and they have become such a joke that they can't save him.
As the subject of Debate Number Three will be domestic issues, Homeland Security (a domestic issue) is on the table. The fact that Kerry considers terrorism (a homeland security issue) a mere "nuisance" will hurt Kerry and can be used against him. In fact, polls (for what they're worth) show that safety and security (e.g. security moms) are top issues that resonate with the public. Helen Thomas was quite right in her assertion that the President can scare Americans with the "T-word" (e.g. terrorism). And, they should be scared. The difference between this scare tactic and the scare tactics used by the Democrats (Mediscare, social security, Jim Crow, etc.) is that there is a firm, discrete, factual basis for this fear -- a legitimate basis. Americans fear terrorism because terrorism is a real, legitimate threat. It should not be avoided; it should be hammered home. It is legitimate. In fact, downplaying the threat, which Kerry has done, is in fact dishonest and dangerous.
Combating the threat of terror and violence requires leadership -- a quality that President Bush has and John Kerry does not. The polls bear this out as well. President Bush must drive home the point that, at this point in time, we need a Commander-in-Chief, and not a Critic-in-Chief. Anything less will put lives in danger. Anything less will threaten economic growth. Anything less with threaten the very foundation of our country. Hiring a critic to lead the free world would be a critical mistake. If Kerry wants to be a critic, he can join the editorial board of the New York Times. If he wants to become President, he must demonstrate that he can lead. He can't.
Also, if the subject of the military ever comes up, President Bush would be well-advised to point out that over 75% of the armed forces support his re-election. This is a significant point, and a point that Kerry cannot counter. Shouldn't we give our troops in the field the leader whom they overwhelmingly feel should lead them? Kerry cannot counter that point, and the President should drive it home early and often.
Another interesting observation about Senator Kerry's debate style is that once he is put on the defensive, he becomes, well, defensive, petulant, and more unlikable. When the President responds with a defensive answer, Kerry's rebuttal is an attack, and he scores points. When the President responds to a question with an affirmative attack on Kerry's record (which he did often in the second debate), Kerry did not attack, but rebutted with ineffective, petulant defenses. This is another key to victory -- keep Kerry on the defensive for as long as possible. When Kerry plays defensive, he is ineffective and unlikable. I cannot underscore this point enough.
So, in sum, the President can score an easy victory in the next debate by doing the following:
1) Attack and effectively point out Kerry's limitation -- criticism -- early and often. This will disable and defang him, rendering his future critical attacks moot. Seriously... Kerry cannot go a single question without Bush-bashing and saying "this President" or "George W. Bush", etc. What will you do Senator, and don't insult us by saying "I have a plan"? Come up with a good one- or two-liner to drive this point home early and effectively and the debate will be over.
2) Answer and end every single question with an attack on Senator Kerry's record. When Kerry is put on defense, he is ineffective, petulant, and unlikable. And, when defending himself, he gets bogged down and mired in minutiae that is lost on the audience, mooting his points.
It is really just that simple.
Thanks!
BUMP!
bump
bump
You are absolutely right on. Especially that last part. Kerry "doesn't fall" he doesn't take to humor at all or being on the defense. The last debate showed that. If he can be put on the defense, he's lost.
Sounds like good advice to me. I hope Rove gets it.
BTTT!!!!!!
Good stuff! I thought I had noticed this pattern in Kerry's answers, but I did not have the talent to put it as consisely as you have.
Bring it on!
Kerry cannot seem to answer any question directly, & Bush should highlight that reality.
Sounds good to me. I hope Carl Rove sees it.
1. on jobs...
When Kerry says Bush has lost jobs, point out that 9/11 cost over 1 million jobs in a month and took billions of dollars out of the economy. Point out that between the inherited recession and 9/11, our economy took a body blow, BUT we have now made back almost all those lost jobs in just 13 months of growth.
2. on jobs II...
point out that Kerry has had his long snout in the public feeding trough his WHOLE adult life - sucking the public teet. HE HAS NEVER CREATED A SINGLE JOB IN HIS LIFE - NOT ONE NOT ANY. He doesn't know what it means to create a job, meet a payroll, pay employees first, etc.
3. jobs III... Kerry talks a good game about outsourcing, but it is ultimately the high cost of lawsuites and beaurocracy that drives jobs to a lower cost place. Kerry's plan would guarantee companies move their WHOLE operation offshore to escape his further regulation. Result: less jobs, not more.
4. everything else... The SINGLE ANSWER to everything else Kerry criticizes Bush on is simple: In more than 20 years, Kerry has don't nothing. No legislation introduced on jobs, partial birth abortion, etc. That which was in his power to do was never done.
best, ampu
That was the Carter debate, not the Mondale debate.
President Bush can say, "I have a plan" to return this waffler to counting ketchup bottles. John Kerry doesn't belong in the US Senate, let alone trying to lead our country through these perilous times.
Here is the 'Crane Kick' the President should be employing.(As I pointed out a week ago...)
"Senator Kerry and his 527 cohorts have spent 18 months, and 200 million dollars attacking me, without offering any substantive suggestions of their own, so I am guessing that tonight, every response he gives, will just be MORE OF THE SAME"
Stealing Kerrys little focus grouped phrase, and making it toxic, makes it doubly sweet.
Bush could turn that into the "There you go again" of 2004.
All Bush has to do is warn anyone watching the debate to watch out for the word "but" coming from Kerry. Kerry says one thing and always says "but" when changing the subject or justifying his opposite viewpoint.
Once Bush says to watch for the word "but" Kerry will be thrown off his stride because he cannot answer questions without using the modifier to adjust (read change) his position.
Look "The Plan , The Plan"!
In response to your request for a proof read, please note: "Anything less with threaten the very foundation of our country." Replace "with" with "will".
And, great job on the article. Now that you have done something as well as this, how about some input on Edwards' idea of putting lawyers in charge of lawyers (three strikes and you can no longer file bogus lawsuits). With your credentials, maybe you can get some movement on this dumb idea.
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.