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.
It's called Projection, I think. Because Kerry knows he's lying, he assumes everyone else is lying too. Democrats do that all the time. That's why they cannot fathom Republicans acting honorably, as Bush consistently does.
Kerry is the ultimate "Monday Morning Quarterback."
Wonderful line ... and true.
How very true. The other wonderful saying was his humor re I own a timber company? Need some wood?
Yah, I know, but I can dream! LOL
I also am dreaming and wishing that Bush will use the opportunity and widespread audience to mention all of the vandalism and break-ins at BC HQ's. He could say, Senator Kerry will you take this opportunity to repudiate that kind of behavior by your supporters. OH! I'd love it!!!!!!!!
I agree with you Sender. The question most likely will come up again. What three answers do you think would be good for Prez Bush to say in the event this gets brought up again?
I especially enjoyed the "naive and dangerous" remarks. That really hit a homer for me. Nail the sucker with the "nuisance" remarks this coming debate, and we'll all be sold.
I have used this tactic in debating my wife's doc ( he was on three sides of every two sided issue).
Great points..look the "ilk", though.
Bush should really just tell Kerrry that he knows Kerry will attack him and to "bring it on!"
Something in response to the common Kerry refrain of "I have a plan". GWB should ask pointedly, "Is that plan, A,B, or C"?
That's good!
I'll have to try that. Doctors don't always think before they start talking. Good idea. Thanks!
Here's another thread, if you're interested:
There were so many instances in both debates that that one word would have sufficed.
Well said Morgan. I think you boiled down the whole article to this one sentence. Excellent.
There were some excellent articles in the WSJ today on probable hot topics for this debate, healthcare and military procurement. They are really must reads for everyone who does not understand the President's plan for medical care reform (me) or the reasons behind the lag in supply of armament for the troops in Iraq.
Kerry will have an answer for his medical plan because it is simply recycled Hillarycare, but not a plan for how to pay for it. The military procurement is another story though. To present a plan to fix the military procurement, Kerry would have to admit that the cause was the over regulation imposed by congress following the $400 hammer scandal.
Bush's biggest challenge is going to be reducing the explanation of the personal medical accounts to the lowest common denominator so that the average person can understand them, and so that the explanation fits into the time limit.
Are you sending the idea to Peggy Noonan? I don't have an email site for her. She left her column to go to work for the campaign.
TURN KERRY'S NEGATIVITY INTO A LIABILITY!
Bush needs a zinger right up front to tee it up in viewers' minds. After that, every time Kerry goes negative, we want viewers to THINK "There he goes again".
I don't have time right now to follow this whole thread, but I'll eagerly read it tonight.
KUDOS. You put this very well. I just hope they see it!
I liked Newt's suggestion just before the first debate; Bush: "I liked the Senator Kerry who said this three weeks ago." Kerry questions the war. Bush responds: "Well, Jim, I liked the John Kerry who said this...(fill in details) 1 year ago."
Whenever Kerry makes a statement that contradicts his previous positions, Bush could utilize this simple device without getting nuanced to the point of boring the listeners. It is an effective "one-liner" and would be the equivalent of "there you go again" (which, BTW, Reagan used against Carter, not Mondale).
You are right on the mark. In the first debate, the questions put the President on the defensive everytime, as did Kerry's answers. Since the president didn't ignore thre trap and turn the answer around, he looked defensive.
In the second debate, Kerry did just as you say--got defensive. The abiding peresonality characteristic of Kerry is his giant size ego. If he were to be President, he would make Madame Hillary look humble, and you all remember how haughty she was (and still is).
I hope the campaign takes this to heart or has some ideas along the same line. Doing as you suggest in a humorous way will belittle Kerry even more. I think his ego is much more fragile than Mondale's. The humor is what made Regan's remarks so effective.
Our son is a lawyer and very effective at going from A to C without meandering around B to get there. He chooses a direct line and selects the points that will propel him there.
Good luck.
vaudine
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.