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.
He was offering involved and self-contradictory statements in debates in 1963. That's when I debated against his Liberal Party at Yale in the Political Union, and beat them. LOL.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "America Fails the 'Global Test' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Good for you. Similar point to what Rush was making yesterday on his show. Rush reeled off all of John Kerry's quotes including the word 'but'. That wasn't as impressive by itself until Rush reminded listeners just what the word 'but' means. If George Bush were to start off by reminding the audience of Kerry's tendency to preface all his statements and what the word 'but' actually infers, it would leave Kerry virtually speechless. The audience will spend the entire night listening for the word and not paying attention to what Kerry is actually saying (not that it should matter...).
In watching debate number 2 it was quite evident that Kerry did not like being called a Liberal. Calling him a liberal early and often causes Kerry to respond about 'labels' and gets him off stride.
I understand that Rush is also an advisor to the Bush campaign.
Man I really did like the notion of inserting the military poll, but somehow my instincts says don't quote polls.....
They drive ME crazy because they BECOME the story, and we now have so many fraudulent polls (of which I am now aware of because of my new association with this website! :) Not a good move IMHO........
Interesting.
I think the President did this in the last debate, just far more tactfully than you are suggesting. Unfortunately for Bush, the winner of these debates have been based upon who scores more in the "attack" aspect of the debate, then in the substance aspect of the debate.
Frankly, I think Rove and company were concerned that the President was leading too soon. They new they were going to get a strong performance from Kerry in the first debate.
A sitting President during a war, with a small lead, must move a little more cautiously. Kerry has nothing to lose...throw the "kitchen sink" and hope you hit something. Heading into the last few weeks, with Bush in commanding lead can't really attack John Kerry and expose his record for what it is. People might actually start feeling sorry for Kerry. In what appears to be a much closer races, its no-holds-barred, and Kerry has less ground to stand on.
Sorry.
I read another post you made on the same subject. That one was good too.
One thing's for sure. The bar is low for Bush in this debate and the Democrats are already talking about how Kerry will win. Bad strategy. Perhaps they don't realize Kerry lost on domestic issue questions during the last debate.
Billybob
It is excellent advice. He needs the knockout line as you said. "You can run but you can't hide" served its useful purpose, but he needs a better line in the 3rd debate. Something in response to the common Kerry refrain of "I have a plan". GWB should ask pointedly, "Is that plan, A,B, or C"?
No problem. I appreciate your being out there battling for the good guys.
I heard Rush talk about it too. My wife actually deserves the credit because she caught it during the first debate, before Rush or I did. Once I thought about it I watched for it during the second debate, and there it was.
As to Rush, I like listening to Rush but he's not always the first to notice something. < grin >
Billybob
Excellent point made about criticism being Kerrys only play. I have hoped that the President would talk to the American people about this in the debates myself.
He needs to communicate something to the effect of "This is an election and I understand that an election means my opponents will attack me and our successes. But, it is not just my success that we have had the last four years, it is all of Americas success and I will not allow somebody to cast a shadow on our countries success just because they want to be President. There are a great many accomplishments that Americans can be proud of and I will stand up for those accomplishments on behalf of all Americans"...... etc, etc.
Also, I think that they have missed an opportunity to point out how much more valuable it is to have Afghanistan and Iraq as allies in the WOT than France and Germany.
Everything sounds good but how do you get the mainstream media from spinning a victory for Bush if this works to a victory for skerry. What's the plan for the media? Even if sherry does sh!ty in the debate the media will find a way to make it smell like roses.
I'm tryin' :)
You're primary point, though, is good. Here's my take.
First of all, Bush shouldn't repeat Kerry's charge in his rebuttal. Repeating the charge, even in rebutting it, implants it deeper in the viewer's mind. Second, he needs to state clearly, "You have no plan other than criticizing my plan."
I like, "Is that your final answer?"
This is the prosecution of the president throughout. President Bush needs to give Americans a Civics lesson and explain what happens in Congress and the opportunities that John Kerry had during his time there and did nothing.
I really enjoyed reading your suggestions to Karl Rove and offer this with regard to Homeland Security - this point came from a really great op-ed the other day:
"He (John Kerry) said American ports are not secure. This is true. But in reality terrorists do not need to send their destructive terror through the ports. There are so many ways they could hit America and the rest of the civilized world that only their diabolic imagination sets the limit. We really can’t protect ourselves everywhere. If you try to secure the airports by checking the passengers, they could blow themselves up in the crowded lines while waiting to be checked. They could attack schools, subways, busses, hospitals, restaurants, water-reservoirs, shopping malls…, the list is end less. Can we really secure all these places? So the point is moot. Yes it would be nice to secure the ports but does that make America any safer? What if atomic bombs are delivered to various ports and detonated simultaneously while waiting inspection? What Sen. Kerry is proposing will only make Americans spend more money for a false sense of security."
Later in the same article, the author continues:
"Senator Kerry plans to fight terrorism defensively. The problem is that no amount of defensive measures can eliminate the risk of being hit again. President Bush favors preemptive war, or in other words he wants to fight this war in the backyard of those who started it, instead of fighting it in the cities of the United States. Whether he will succeed or not remains to be seen. But the fact is that no war has ever been won by fighting defensively. So, although there is no guarantee that the President’s plan will succeed, the failure of Sen. Kerry’s plan in fighting terrorism defensively is foregone."
It is truly a well thought out and considered article and it makes devastating blows to John Kerry's arguements. I truly suggest you read the entire piece.
It was on FR, but I don't know how to find it to give you that info other than to say it's called "Kerry for President? An Election Like No Other" and it was written by Ali Sina.
Here's the link to read it (leaves FR):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41007.htm
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.