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.
The simplest way to win the debate is to tell the truth. demoRATS can't handle the truth that none of their ideas add up or make sense. Bush should pound home the fact that Kerry has proposed $2.2 Trillion in new spending and eliminating the tax cuts for "the rich" leaves a $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit.
Bush needs to rub his head and say.
"Senator exactly which one of your many plans are you refering to?
Another idea is to tell people that the RATS are going to throw the election into choas if it's close and there is one way to avoid it, vote GOP.
Good advice. GW has to take charge of the debate from the first and that means giving Kerry no quarter. He has to attack every one of Kerry's statements, lies, misstatements, positions. He has to use a short, punchy line like: You can run, but you can't hide...which he used to great effect about Kerry's senate record in the last debate. That line drew blood, so much so that Kerry used it in his stump speech the next day.
The MSM's new slur about GW when he's energetic and effective is that he's 'angry' or 'out of control', this along with asides that he's mentally ill, dangerous, are polluting the political discourse. So if possible, GW has to attack with a smile, unless he's talking about defending America from terrorism.
Kerry clearly had the questions in advance in the first debate. He had his answers memorized, for heaven's sake. Even Susan Estrich said he'd gotten them down to under two minutes. The second debate was a total turnaround. He had to think on his feet and couldn't. He's thrown off balance when called to account for his lies and he looks bad. If you noticed his daughter's face when she hugged him after the second debate, she looked griefstricken. Couldn't hide her expression. She knew he'd lost and lost badly. They all knew it.
ping
With Bob Schieffer of CBS as the moderator tomorrow night, and it being obvious to the Kerry campaign that their candidate plays like cr*p on a level playing field, I am worried that once again effin' might be given a heads up on the questions. We may have been lulled into complacency by the good job that was done by Gwen Ifill and Charles Gibson.
It was a well-reasoned article. I hope it gets seen and used.
Thanks. I try ;-)
Kerry was verging on funny the way he started every response with "This president" or "Because of this president", then blah blah blah.
Honestly, I wanted someone to ask him what he had for lunch, just to hear him start off with "This president...
I was glad he kept at it because it made him look like the downer, negative, pessimistic loser he is.
He sounded like a broken record of doom and gloom. Everything is wrong, etc.
Bush really does need to say something in the same way Reagan did, to set up the listeners to tune into this continual droning on...like "Can my opponant start off with something positive, answering the question directly rather than launching another negative attack at me?"
You have also made a great deal about the War on Terror and the deployment of our American fighting forces around the world to combat terror at its roots in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You have belittled the significant contributions of our allies and friends around the globe, describing the Iraqi actions as the "wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time".
Yet with all we have asked of our fighting men and women, the long days and months away from friends and family, fighting a war that began in earnest when we were brutally attacked on that September morning, fighting an enemy that knows no rules of war, that obeys no recognized morality other than that the ends justifies the means, that fights from behind women and children and hides in mosques, schools and hospitals; with all that, the vast majority of them want to stay the course.
Now you can call that an endorsement of my proven record as commander in chief, or a rejection of your 30 year record of trashing the military and denying them the tools they need to do their jobs - which is it?
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.