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.
I've heard the word "but" referred to as "The Great Canceller." Linguistically, it ususally cancels out EVERYTHING that came before it, the subconcious effect is to say "forget all that, here's the real point."
We've all seen it: "You're doing a really great job, but...", "That's a really good point, but...".
Once someone pointed the phenomenon out to me years ago, it's like a red light flashing every time "but" pops up! If Bush could point it out clearly and with good humor, it would totally change every person's experience of listening to Kerry, because he does it constantly. Once you're conscious of it, it's very hard to miss.
Are you sure you want to begin by saying "Karl Rove and his ilk?" Rove is certainly unabashedly partisan, but "ilk" has REALLY negative connotations -- seems more like a word you'd use when speaking of Carville or Begala, LOL. How 'bout "Karl Rove and his like" or "and his team"?
It's just a minor quibble, this is a great thread and excellent work on your part.
Yeah... someone pointed that out.
A tactic to debates like this, in which both candidates are given several minutes to answer the question is to:
1 ALWAYS, end your response in an attack on your opponent.
That way, they must spend the first 20 or 30 seconds to respond to your own attack, instead of answering the question at hand. It puts them on the defensive already.
Then, when you get the chance to respond, you point out that your opponent DIDN'T EFFECTIVELY ANSWER THE QUESTION, in part because you forced them to hastily form a rebuttal to your own attack.
Absolutely true. I will be paying close attention to this in tomorrow's debate.
Nice job of analysis!
Thanks!
Yeah, and every time he says "I have a plan..." the cynical voice in my head sneers "Yeah, Plan 9 from Outer Space!" I would give anything for Bush to zing him with something like that, LOL!
We learned conclusively in the streets during the 2000 recounts that leftists CANNOT handle ridicule. We could very correctly and righteously cite chapter and verse of election fraud, but accusations of felonies just rolled off their backs like water. No, what devastated them was a simple re-working of their own logo into "Sore Loserman," and people's laughter in response to the sign--they would literally froth at the mouth in response to that. Laughing at them gets their goat like NOTHING else.
Kerry seems especially susceptible to it, witness his campaign's outraged reaction to any criticism of goofiness: the bunny suit, the skiing/biking spills, the ORANGE SKIN, for heaven's sake!
Bush fell off his bike and scraped his face, and like any of us would, he made some self-deprecating comment and shrugged it off. But Kerry's consistent response to embarassing incidents is to get angry and accuse others of dirty tricks for pointing out his own normal, essentially-inconsequential human mis-steps.
If Bush can get off a zinger that has the audience laughing AT Kerry, effin' John will lose it, or at the least give a response so unnatural it'll paint him as a programmed space alien to regular folks.
Let's hear your plan, John -- Plan 9 from Outer Space!
no you do use the "liberal" word, but judiciously
the Rasmussen poll showed a big jump in people who saw Kerry as liberal after the 2nd debate and I believe that is part of the RNC plan to roll that out for October.....why else are the llamas getting so defensive about calling Kerry a liberal, that is a statement of fact.....
that Mass. liberal......because then you add in nightmares of Ted Kennedy
I wish there was some way the RNC could take advantage of the fact that Ed Koch, the Democratic former mayor of NYC is supporting him because Koch fears that Ted Kennedy will hijack the Kerry administration esp foreign policy and in particular Iraq as payback for the base getting Kerry elected and given Kennedy is Kerry's mentor.......that is frightening to me
If Dubya can get it in early....what we need is a quarterback on GAME DAY, the world is FULL of Monday morning quarterbacks!
ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!!!
Bush should use the Liberal word...gently. Maybe in conjunction with the "But" strategy---
In response to a Kerry answer:
"Did you notice what my opponent just did? He said favors [issue], BUT---note that "BUT"---then he gave all the qualifiers that makes one suspect he would never promote it. Everytime he says "but" you can bet he's about to cancel out everything that came before. The fact is, his 20-year record reflects exactly what one would expect from a Massachussetts Liberal. [and so on]".
Follow up in subsequent answers with "There's that 'but' again [shaking head]".
"You just keep planning Senator, I will keep doing"?
I agree this is a sure winner. It says it all.
Bush has to be PARTISAN. He has to go after Kerry early and often and counter every criticism Kerry makes. The thing that hurts Bush the most is that he never answers half of Kerry's criticism. Bush just tries to 'stay above the fray' and go off on his own talking points. He needs to say, "my oponnent just said, "X, Y, Z" and that is just plain foolish and here's why..."
don't know why he doens't do that.
Wow! I really like that...
"You just keep planning, and I'll keep DOING!"
Par excellence!
It's the first thing that jumped out at me as well ... "ilk". Otherwise, a fine job. Thanks for the effort, it was well rewarded.
Also Bush has never used the statistic that 12% of all jobs in America are employed by small business owners who would have their taxes raised by Kerry.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/smallbusiness.htm
You are one smart cookie.
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.