September 30, 2004
How to Debate W
Tonight, John Kerry and George W. Bush finally face off in the first of three debates between the two Presidential nominees. Time to move beyond the mud-slinging of the past few weeks and actually discuss the issues important to the American voter.
Having debated W. during the 2000 election cycle, former Vice President Al Gore gives some advice concerning how to debate Bush.
In his New York Times Op-Ed piece published Wednesday, Gore states the critical importance of the debates, "In this era of media clutter, it is all the more important for voters to have this moment of simple clarity when the candidates appear before them stripped of advisers, sound bites and media spin."
Gore warns Kerry of Bush's ability to set "low expectations" which gives him an advantage by not having to live up the same level that others have had to in debates.
But Gore also suggests attacking Bush's record in office. That is "the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure." Kerry needs to hold Bush accountable for the inability to capture Osama bin Laden, the state of the economy and for the deteriorating situation in Iraq. And he also needs to hold up Bush's track record against his debate promises of four years ago, when he promised:
If elected... he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."
Clearly, Bush has not lived up to these campaign promises. But simply pointing out Bush's weaknesses will not win the election. Kerry also needs to clearly state to the American voters his stance on issue and how his different views on issues like Iraq, medical insurance, and jobs growth differ from the President's and will set this country onto the right path over the next four years.
It's clearly time to end the inane criticism over purple hearts and national guard duty, and engage in true dialogues about the state and future of our country. Hopefully, Kerry can succeed in convincing voters he has the better plan lest we face another 4 more years of unnecessary military deaths, squashing of civil liberties, and an expanding wealth gap between the rich and the rest of the population.
Posted by blipsman at September 30, 2004 01:10 PMThe Pelican File
Complete debate coverage from all major U.S. newspapers: www.pelicanfile.com
I am definately looking forward to something from the Kerry camp that will provide any type of direction or stance on Iraq that is different than President Bush’s. Not just ‘I would have done it better’ but actually telling people how.
My suspicion, and the realization dawning on most americans, is that such a detailed plan is not forthcoming.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2004 02:10 PMLong but fantastic overview/analysis of Bush and Kerry in past debates:
The Bush on this tape was almost unrecognizable—and not just because he looked different from the figure we are accustomed to in the White House. […] the real difference was the way he sounded.Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 30, 2004 02:33 PMThis Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. […] More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones.
Rhinehold-
I suspect you are right. Kerry’s base is split on the war, and if he goes either way he stands to alienate half of his voters. He can probably lean towards the hawkish side as most of the anti-war crowd will still vote for him, but he does risk low turnouts that way.
I look for him to continue to dance in the middle while still attacking Bush. That’s a tough spot to be in, and Bush’s strategy will be to continue to hammer him while he’s there.
But he may have no other choice.
Posted by: George at September 30, 2004 03:00 PMWe are all waiting for Kerry to say something.
His campaign agreed to the rules for the debates and has already began to whine about at least one of them.
The red light that is going to come on and stay on for all of America to see while he tries to explain his positions after his time is up.
They think the people in TV Land shouldn’t get to see it because it may distract them from what he is saying.
Maybe the red light will keep us awake while he takes 5,000 words to answer a yes or no question.
Don’t get mad at me … it comes straight from the democrats talking about the debate tonight and Kerry’s weaknesses.
Posted by: bugcrazy at September 30, 2004 03:43 PMIf I were John Kerry, I would stay away from anything Gore told me. Look what the Gore endorsement did for Howard Dean and I will never forget the second Gore-Bush debate when Gore tried to flex his muscles (literally) while standing behind Bush. I think he got that “alpha male” advice from Niomi Wolfe.
Posted by: jack at September 30, 2004 03:58 PMFascinating (and a little scary) article, Joseph. Do you think it’s possible that maybe Bush’s original ease and self-confidence on the podium came from chemical enhancement?
Posted by: Alejo at September 30, 2004 04:21 PMActually, Alejo, I was thinking it was the other way around.
My theory is he went straight, became Governor of Texas, no problem, then Rove set George’s sights on the presidency, so he started drinking again. Thus, the many clumsy accidents, the clumsy speech, the clumsy policy.
It’s mostly a joke theory, though. I would never defend it or anything.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 30, 2004 04:38 PMThat’s okay because someone slipped yesterday and said she heard a rumor of how Kerry likes to take a drink before debates to help himself relax - LOOK for boodshot eyes and drool.
funny - ha ha
Posted by: bugcrazy at September 30, 2004 05:15 PM
