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.
Bush should and probably will hammer it home that Kerry is indeed a liberal. Kerry has no defense other than to say he doesn't like labels.
I suspect the Bush team has already figured out to put Kerry on defense but sometimes that is a lot easier said than done.
PING
LOL! I was typing so fast, I apparently made a few errors like that; hence, I posted it on FR so that y'all could catch and corrent such things.
Senator, what makes you think that the troops will fight for you? Your fellow Democrats put a draft on the agenda to prepare the way for you because if you are elected many of those in the military will vote with their feet against you and many who would join will walk away. They won't fight for someone they can't trust and we all know that you have a record that will make every man and woman in uniform distrust you. Its not what you say that matters, Senator, it's what you do. You betrayed their fathers once and they know you will betray them if you think it is what your supporters like George Soros and Hillery Clinton want...
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.
Over the past year you have posted a number of very sensible and insightful comments on the political situation. They strike me a showing profession competence and good political sense.
This is another instance of that good sense. Kerry needs to be hammered on his liberalism and he needs to be prodded and poked on his sensitive skin. For months he has been shouting, "Bring it on!" yet every time anyone brings it on he has revealed a very thin skin and quick temper.
His handlers will have warned and prepared him for this, but I don't think he has any plausible way to counter it.
Exactly. There are certain things that just can't be countered.
If you are trying to get this message to President Bush, edit it severely, like to two paragraphs. He and his people don't have time to read this much copy and they already know the background of the best way to engage in verbal combat. President Bush is great at verbal jujitsu and he knows "The Art of War."
"All Bush has to do is warn anyone watching the debate to watch out for the word "but" coming from Kerry"
I like it and I think you are correct. I was thinking something similar. Like at the beginning challenging sKerry to answer all questions by first pointing out the success or experience that makes him qualified. Then Bush could state flatly that he won't be able to do it. I'd love to see sKerry's reaction.
To add, President Bush can also say, "I have a plan and its working." "From what little we know of your plan, its the same one used for eight years by Clinton, and we can all see what that "sensitive plan" led to, which was 9/11.
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!
Just a small change in wording to give it more '2-birds-with-one-stone' punch, excellent, sir!
BUMP
"I have a Plan". His plan is to ridicule the pres, and claim to have a plan, but not tell anyone what it is til he's elected? The American people need to demand to know what his plan is. My guess is he is just on a I have a plan power trip, and has nothing going on between those ears that is ever going to solve anything.
WOW! Cha-Ching!
Agreed. Once Bush asks the audience to watch for the BUT word, people will be doing just that, and Kerry will be aware of it. Kerry will try to do something else and fail because he cannot stop using BUT to modify his positions.
Bush can disable Kerry on Taxes and put him totally on the defensive. Kerry will say he is only going to tax the rich. Bush should respond with...
"In 1993 John Kerry cast the deciding vote on the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. He raised taxes on EVERYONE. He even taxed your social security. That's right, your social security.
The really amazing part is that he will tell you that he is proud of that vote. Oh, he will try to explain it as it did this or it did that. He can try to frame it in a positive light. The thing you need to remember, the next time Senator Kerry talks about raising taxes, is that he was the man that passed the largest tax increase in US history and he was PROUD of it.
The largest tax increase in United States history and he was proud of it."
Add a pregnant pause...
"And he was proud of it!"
Excellent post. I am confident that the President will be most effective at Wednesdays debate.
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.