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.
GREAT advice...anyone know how to get to Karl Rove?
I keep thinking Kerry is going to try to create some sort of "memorable" moment at the debate...high risk, high reward.
"America, when my opponent proposes to raise taxes only on those making over 200,000 a year, understand that this will not come without consequences to all of us.
"The people making over 200,000 a year are YOUR EMPLOYERS and whether we like it or not, our economy's major investors. These are the people who invest in the country's economic growth, and there is a limit to which you can harm the people who SIGN YOUR CHECKS without harming those of you who happen to be their EMPLOYEES."
POWERFUL!!!! Lets hope that comment gets to the President to use tomorrow night!! Man, lots of creative people here!!!!!!
Excellent point. Don't let Kerry get away with using the word "but". Focus on the decisions that Kerry has had to make other than marrying rich, he really hasn't been held accountable for anything he has done. Look for Bush to focus on bills with Kerry's name and lazy record of not doing anything or showing up when expected. That would put him back on his heels.
Excellent! Brilliant and truthful! Hope the Prez gets this one too!
BINGO!
Bump!
That is true and now that I am always on FR, I realize that we are usually about 12-24 hours ahead of the game. What I use to count on from Rush, I already know from FR! I still like to listen to his take on things though.
Just this morning, I saw a news clip of Kerry speaking in front of a backdrop with a number of the usual buzz phrases, such as "A stronger America." The one that got my attention was "energy independence." Since when has he ever voted for anything that would foster that? "No blood for oil." "Protect our precious environment--don't drill in ANWR." For him to claim he has a better plan for energy independence than the President, whom the Dems have done everything to thwart in this regard, is ludicrous--and more of the same.
What sort of law do you plan to practice?
I sent an idea to the Bush campaign communications dept (or whatever it was called) about another idea and didn't even get an automatic reply memo.
I'm afraid that campaigns have their own dynamics and they don't want or respect the input of 'amateurs' no matter how talented or experienced they are. Maybe we need a vanity with a big "Kerry says BUT on every issue" as a title if its really true that they sometimes troll our sites for info.
It's really frustrating when so many folks all have the same idea but no way to communicate it.
LOL! Thanks! About the uber-vanity, I figured that it was necessary to be taken seriously.
I'm a 3L; I'm hoping to litigate.
I just figured Kerry would be mentally aware of his using the word BUT all the time, and that could possibly throw him off-stride. It would also alert viewers to the tactic so they could have a bit of fun counting the number of times Kerry said one thing AND the opposite within the same answer.
By the way, I agree with you on Bush keeping the Kerry voting record in the forefront. It worked before.
And, yes: the key point is that Kerry is the ultimate Monday Morning Quarterback.
Bingo? Do I get a prize? LOL
Disarming skerrymouche with pointing out his propensity to use the qualifier "but" is brilliant! And so true.
A couple more things:
The President could say something like, "The senator shows you how little of a record he has to run on, when the only way he can answer a question is by talking about me, and criticising my record! He can armchair quarterback all he likes, that doesn't give him a record to stand on, or credibility either."
The President can also say something like, "I can prove to you that the liberal senator from Massachusetts is trying to hide from you. Did you all know that he hasn't signed a DD180, authorizing release of all his military records, like I have? What's he trying to hide from you all? Wouldn't you all like to know what you're being asked to vote for? In Texas, we don't believe in buying a pig in a poke!"
Good advice. I seriously hope the Bush folks are reading the comments in this thread and taking notes.
I didn't know you were so smart....now I'm gonna hafta listen to you. :>) (Just kidding!)
It is true that all Kerry can do is yap-yap-yap at the President's heels.
He's not created anything noteworthy in his entire life that he can draw attention to. All he can do, as you say, is complain, complain, complain.
Wonder if the Pres. could get a shot in using the word "complain?"
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.