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.
Worked last time. I thought Kerry was going to blow when Bush labeled him a LIBERAL. Bush should start with the LIBERAL LABEL and end with it.
Going into this final debate, kerry's prime concern is nuisance-gate. He will have prepared answers to Bush's attacks on this.
Bush must anticipate kerry's defense and have a coup de grace ready to unleash. Nothing will sink Kerry more than his dangerous worldview and fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism.
Why doesn't Bush tell us about the household survey which shows a net gain in jobs? Like Kerry's policies, the payroll survey is outdated and not reliable.
I stopped reading, before I finished the whole bit about how great you allegedly are, to be honest.
The first time Kerry uses his catch phrase "I have a plan." ...
President Bush:
"I myself think it is just amazing that the Senator has not been able to author and pass even one significant piece of legislation, on either domestic or international policy, in his 20 years on Capitol Hill - and remember that in 14 of those 20 years he was a member of the majority. Now that he wants to be President (pause and scan) he suddenly has (change inflection) 'a plan' to fix every problem America faces. (pause) (Down home tone) You kind of have to wonder ... if he really does have all the answers, what has he been doing for the last 20 years?"
[Proceed with response to question: Answer with a few quick hard facts about actions and administration success.]
Next time Sen Kerry says "plan"...
"Ah, another plan ... Perhaps if the Senator had bothered to show up on the Hill more often he could have offered legislation detailing how we could accomplish all of this...
Here's the reality ... [answer clearly and succinctly - avoid long or winding answers - think bullet points]
Repeat and vary as needed...
"Do you ever wonder why he keeps saying 'My position has been perfectly consistent and clear?' Because he knows it isn't. And you know it isn't. But I don't blame him. I really don't. If I had his track record I would keep saying that my position is clear and consistent, hoping I could fool you. Now - back to my tax cuts."
well i aint refined and or nuanced but gall dang it, i comprehended every angle of your analysis, and score it a big W. as in winner and hope karl and the boys see it because i believe the trees are not obscuring the forest for you sir.
most excellent.
"Bush's best tactic has always been to get Kerry to lose his temper. An angry Kerry is a horror show of scowling, red-faced, finger-shaking ugliness. It is to Bush's discredit that he hasn't yet made the real Kerry come out during a debate."
He came very close about halfway through the second debate. Kerry was in his face, shaking that long finger, and at the verge of losing it (to my eye anyway).
When the cameras focused on Bush, he was calm, cool, and collected. I think that played well.
Bush's problem with the debates isn't content or strategy, it's execution.
Correct. Great line of attack.
"In Texas, we say 'Don't Mess with Texas.' Senator Kerry says 'Do Mass the Taxes.'"
I still like the plan concept. Regardless of what Kerry says, Bush might ask "which plan?" Kerry's had so many that it has to be difficult to keep track of them or know which "plan" Kerry is referring to.
The other thing I hope Bush does is NOT let Kerry and the Dems take credit for the balanced budget.
The person most responsible for that is John Kaisich. The balanced budget was one of the promises in the "Contract With America." It took a Republican congress to balance the budget.
Another little item from Kerry's Senate Reecord is his vote against the balanced budget Amendment. Whether or not it was a good or practical idea, he voted against a balanced budget amendment.
The Prez should use that.
That is great.
BRAVO BUMP........for your brilliant advise to President Bush.....I hope someone makes sure he hears it!
I think they have:
http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D85LF44O2-285.shtml
Kerry would probably point to the Massachusetts Miracle and all the jobs created when he was Lt. Gov. under Mike Dukakis. Hmm... maybe that'd be a good thing for Bush to bring out. :)
I sent Peggy Noonan the following email
Dear Ms. Noonan:
Can this help?
Everyone is looking for the phrase or ‘gotcha’ that will resonate with votes in the coming debate. Many of us on Free Republic came up with the same idea—so it might resonate.
Everyone noticed that Kerry ALWAYS gives a strong statement and then uses a BUT statement qualifying it so he can stay on both sides of the issue (Nuanced?)
If the President could formulate a response that points the BUT qualifiers out in advance, the public would start noting them. Something like: “He can’t tell you straight out what he believes because he always has to crawfish with BUT..”
You get the idea.
And so would Kerry. We believe this habit is so engrained in him that if he began to try to watch for it and eliminate it, he would quickly be thrown off his stride and his pre-programmed responses.
You have access that we do not. If you think this might be useful, we hope you will forward this to the appropriate people on the Bush debate prep team.
Cheers
[if anyone else on FR has access to someone in the Bush campaign and thinks this is worth a shot, remember how the new media have changed this campaign. Do your part]
bmp
BUMP... I know this isn't feasible, but my sense of humor wants to see Bush tell the audience that he's going to try to keep a count of the times Kerry uses the word "plan" and "but." The audience/viewers would watch for these words, and people would crack up every time Bush picked up his pen and marked his paper. This would greatly upset both Kerry's speaking and concentration.
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.