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.
Agree, agree, agree. All Kerry can do is criticize, and he is absolutely ruthless at it.
1- Although my tax cuts were fair and have been a welcome relief to working families, I have not controlled government spending as closely as I should have and as a result deficits have increased. I promise to rectify this spending trend in my second term and get our financial house in order.
2- The No Child Left Behind Act has been an effective and necessary first step towards restoring accountability and excellence to our public school systems, but I am hearing from educators that in practice there are parts of the measure that need to be refined in order to assure adequate funding and accurate assessment of performance, taking into account local and cultural factors. I will work tirelessly to improve and refine the oversights in NCLB until our public school systems are all receiving proper support and delivering proper excellence.
3- I made a mistake in assuming that my opponent would act as an intelligent and ethical candidate who could contrast his differing viewpoints with my own in an honest, rational manner without resorting to hateful, destructive rhetoric and false rumors and innuendo. On that point I was certainly mistaken. ;)
Don't know what we can do, in reality. Bill Bennett has his Morning in America program, and he does read some of the e-mail he gets. I do believe Bennett is an honest broker, in that he will pass good suggestions on to people he knows in the White House. Other than that, I do presume numerous Bush people are keeping on top of FR and other web sites.
Not sure how it happened, but I can't do anything right now. I have to run the car to the tire store to fix a slow leaking tire. I'm sure Kerry is behind it somehow, but don't have proof yet.
Thanks for the ping!
That is excellent!
Make his negativity seem "peevish" and turn the word "plan" into a JOKE! I keep thinking there's something here like the "drinking game" strategy...except without the drinks.
Maybe Bush could set it up like:
"Every time you hear my opponent say he has A PLAN (smirk), ask yourself 'has he told us what that plan is?'."
If Bush can force Kerry to lay out his "plans", Kerry will get all tied up in Senate-speak AND will be constrained from his nasty attack lines.
Except I see the phrase as patronizeing the half-wit. Thats what he did and the phrase represents what a father would say to a child. Because the listener has done it themselves to their children in many ways and probably more than a few times. Thats why it worked.. A psuedo loving rebuke.. "There you go again"... but its the "other" words that complete this phrase that are the kicker.. "There you go again, you do that all the time" implying "STOP IT with the lying"..
Most parents (that are good parents) have done this and can complete the phrase in thier heads.. Faced with "Johnny" lieing his ass off another one parents use is, "You don't expect me to believe that do you ?".. there are many others you may have used a few yourself.. The one Bush needs to use is what he would say to his own children.(and no doubt he has). so it comes off with the proper demeanor and spirit.. Reagan, I believe, did exactely that.. thats why it worked.. No bile but a psuedo loving response.. It reached to the depths of the listeners soul.. and made the lie an obvious excersize in sematics..
Me personally would turn over the lecturn and go for the lyin traitors throat and beat it out of im' but thats just me.. but I didn't treat my kids that way.. "You don't expect me to believe that (with a laugh) was my response depending on the situation.. Bush is the daddy, Kerry is the petulant kid.. which he is.. A little truth couched in lies should be treated the same way.. destroying the well rehearsed BS the lyer has manufactered.. ignoring it.. Lyers hate being ignored.. Liberals and Kerry particularly are children out of control..
THEY NEED A DADDY, any real daddy to see through the tangled web of bull shit they have woven.. Make a liberal happy today ignore him and /or laugh at him.. restore his faith that everybody in the world is not stupid.. because being liberal he already knows he and everybody he knows and trusts are idiots..
Make his day.. Patronize him...
I sent link for this thread to The Kerry Spot at NRO.
"...would scale back their programs ...EVEN HEALTHCARE..."
I could be wrong but I believe Edwards said "...even HEADSTART".
No, we shouldn't.
This is a weak point in a very good article.
How about this. Bush saying to the audience: "I ask you not to judge either one of us by his words, but by his deeds." And then he hammers Kerry on his empty record.
Peggy's email address is peggy@peggynoonan.com
This image also reminds me of Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin.
I could have used you over the past few years (lengthy business dispute). Myself, I'm hoping to NEVER have to ligitate again.
If you'll pardon something of a lawyer joke: Over my desk, as I'm typing, I have a cartoon from Barron's. Two older men are sipping Scotch at a bar. One says, "As a young man I had many questions about love. I think I have the answers now, except for a few that are still pending in the courts."
Good luck. Viva le tort reforme!
You owe your current position to two main things:
The fact that Hillary chose to sit this one out, and Howard Dean's explosive temper.
If you win this election, it is only because people hate me. I know of no one who is actually voting for you or your hare-brained ideas.
What kind of a mandate is that?
Now if Bush, really wants to put Kerry back on his heels, he might add "even though you enjoy a sumptuous lifestyle" subtly reminding the audience of Kerry's gigolo status.
Disarming kerry with continuous offensive attack, clarifying kerry's sorry record, is what it's all about.
Note that Kerry typically answers each question with multiple and wide-ranging offensive attacks in order to disorient his opponent and make a complete defense in the allotted time impossible.
Bush must ignore these attacks even as he does the same to Kerry. He must remain nimble, ready to pivot from the stated topic to oblique, and more lethal attacks of his choice.
An interesting note: Kerry effectively disarmed Bush early in debate one with the Oedipal attack. Bush ought to keep 'gigolo' in his quiver....
ping
Here's a beginning response for Bush. "Tonight my opponent will say that he "has a plan". But he doesn't. Tonight my opponent will be negative and attack me no matter what question is asked." Soemthing to that effect would work.
Absolutely!
BUMP!
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.