The plan boss......the plan!!
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.
Good catch! Thanks!
BUMP
You are so right, all Kerry does is attack, never answers a questions, and bores us with his arrogant, elitist rhetoric.
One thing I find so disturbing is Bush's "new tone" garbage, well new tones and nice guy doesn't smack the ball out of the park right into Kerry's botoxed forehead.
I'm tired of seeing Bush slammed at every question. I'm hate the fact that these debates are being moderated by a bunch of democrat hacks, particularly that set-up last question to Bush in the debate last week about listing his mistakes. Talk about feeding into what the liberal press has wanted for Kerry , Bush to admit mistakes, and Bush's answer was the pits.
My advice for what it is worth, if for the President to be himself, treat Kerry like he is a nuisance and just tell it like it is in his own manner.
And, finally, ask that pompous stiff bones Kerry " Got Wood ?".
I think the President should early and often say "my opponent keeps saying he has a plan, but he never says what it is. I'm telling you what I'll do--everybody knows who I am and what I want to do--but my opponent can only bring himself to say 'the President is wrong, and I have a plan.' It's disrespectful to you in the audience, here and at home, to just say he has a plan. It's disrespectful of the Senator to have these plans written for him but never learn what they are. I'm sure someone has written him a detailed plan, it's too bad he won't tell any of us, here, about it."
"This is supposed to be a debate, but it's hard to do that when one fella tells you what he plans to do and the other one won't say anything but 'I have a plan.'"
Wonderful! I hope 'they' read and listen. When the Swift Boat Vets began their ads you could see Kerry actually disintegrate. He was virtually spinning out of control. I told my husband then that the pressure and criticism should be kept on.....John Kerry has a superego and cannot survive his personna being 'attacked'. He is vulnerable...very vulnerable and if President Bush wants to save this nation he will do what he has to in order to be reelected. This is a war ever bit as vital as the war against terrorism.
Even if he said, "As a former great statesman once said, there you go again".
I'm not a professional debater so I don't know if it's considered appropriate or effective but it sounds good to me.
Bye the bye jm, the as you know the debate's tomorrow so...get it out quick!!!
LOL!
Beyond the gist of your excellent article, that is basically the contradiction inherent in Kerry's whole campaign.
HE can only attack, because his base instincts, and positions are reflexively liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with that...lol. However, The American People, wisely IMHO, reject anything with the Liberal Label On it.
Which is now the attack thrust for the Final March of the BC04 campaign.
Yes..
everytime he lies his forehead wrinkles.
"When Kerry plays defensive, he is ineffective and unlikable."
Very good advice in this post! And good luck getting it published online.
How about, "No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity."
Combined
:)
Bump for an excellent article!
Of course this cannot be mentioned, but what soldier wants a traitor for commander in chief?
I would like Bush to put Kerry down with something like, "Talk is cheap." Also, although Debate #3 is about domestic issues, Bush should look for an opportunity to mention Kerry's vote on the 1991 Gulf War. If Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power and in Kuwait. Kerry's failure to authorize military force despite the fact that, (1) Saddam invaded and took over a country vital to the world's economy,(2)the UN authorized force to oust Saddam, and (3)we had a large coalition including many countries in the Middle East is a damning indictment of what Kerry would do in the WOT.
Great advice jmstein7! If you don't mind I will paste this on some emails and send them to a list of people I email almost weekly in the Bush campaign. I don't know that anyone ever reads what I send them but I just feel it's better to do something than nothing. I'm gonna go ahead and spend my morning sending this out to a bunch of Bush people and Peggy Noonan. Actually, you might want to contact her because she does have a direct line with the top people in the Bush campaign. I hope and pray that your editorial gets published in a lot of places today.
"That was the Carter debate, not the Mondale debate"
My first thought too, when I read this. Apparently the hotshot with all his academic 'credentials' and
SAT scores didn't do very well in history.
That would be GREAT! Please send this out to anyone you think can put it to use.
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.