Political debates are often likened to tennis matches, but Tammy Bruce says they are more akin to golf. The objective is to advance your own game, not to outperform your opponent. Tonight in St. Louis President Bush will be playing on a different course with its own unique hazards but, as any dedicated golfer can tell you, a new day brings the opportunity for a do-over.
To succeed in the debate, President Bush must be himself and John Kerry must be who he wants us to think he is. Bush is a practitioner of the Golden Rule, which means that he could share the stage with a lying sociopath but we won’t hear that from his lips. The trademark Bush compassion is probably an advantage in the town hall format. My impression of Kerry is of a vain man with a hollow biography, a legend in his own mind with a compulsion to spread his robust self-opinion. If that legend is challenged, I expect that Senator Do-You-Know-Who-I-Am will be tempted to rebut every single charge.
Meanwhile Bush has a task that is simple though far from easy, one perfected by Ronald Reagan but well within Bush’s grasp. With humor, confidence and good will, he has to define the Bush doctrine in clear contrast to the Kerry plan while calling Kerry to account for his record of always being on the wrong side of history. Bush needs to block out distractions like bias and spin, which can never completely obscure undeniable truths. Yesterday’s horrifying attacks in Baghdad, Egypt and France are timely reminders that the war on terror is more than a campaign issue to be manipulated by the cynical.
If Bush focuses on his game while drawing Kerry into sand traps of his own making, he may take a mulligan that changes the course of this election.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
That's My Special Boy
It was obvious to me that Dick Cheney would and did win the V. P. debate. I missed his beguiling wit, but his solemn demeanor reinforced the gravitas gap between the Republican and Democrat tickets. Cheney understands better than anyone "not just in the globe, but elsewhere," as John Kerry might say, how serious are the times in which we live – as serious as a ... well, I won't go there.
John Edwards appeared nervous, dry-mouthed and tentative during the foreign policy half of the debate with a few flashes of confidence when asked about domestic issues. His task was to promote John Kerry, cement the impression of leadership Kerry tried to convey during the first presidential debate, and perpetuate any momentum their campaign might have gained. Edwards, I think, seemed a loyal but lightweight running mate.
For the most part, Cheney eviscerated the Kerry charges left unanswered by President Bush while hanging Kerry’s record like a millstone around Edwards’ neck, an effective offensive that Kerry will ignore at his own peril. Cheney provided a feast of talking points that I hope and expect Bush will use in his speech this morning and during Friday’s second presidential debate. Of these, the most memorable may be that Kerry could not stand up to Dean, so how can he stand up to Al Qaeda.
Cheney made news when he drew a direct correlation between the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, which used to pay the families of suicide bombers for their individual acts of terror, and the subsequent reduction of such attacks in Israel. Cheney also explained the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq as I hoped, although without much detail about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and no mention of Abu Nidal, Ramzi Yousef or Abdul Rahman Yasin.
Conservatives are so conscious of media bias that we tend to be overly grateful moderator Gwen Ifill was not as one-sided as Jim Lehrer when she deserves criticism for injecting unwarranted conclusions into some of her questions.
In 2000 the media buzz on Cheney was that he brought gravitas to the GOP ticket and they repeated it throughout that campaign ad nauseam. After the debate many of the same pundits seemed surprised by Cheney’s gravitas, which they acknowledged with grudging respect. They have become so irrelevant that even they don’t pay attention to what they write and remark themselves.
The initial spin focused on Cheney’s avowal, which is accurate, that he never linked Iraq to September 11. Ironically, the journalists who appreciate Kerry’s nuanced explanation for voting for the $87 billion military appropriations bill before voting against it fail to comprehend the clear distinction between an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection and an Iraq-September 11th connection.
The Fox News post-debate panel was cautious but unanimous in its praise of Cheney, mindful that the audience was not as large for the Veep showdown and the more critical Kerry-Bush rematch will take place this Friday.
The entire MSNBC panel pronounced Cheney the winner. Joe Scarborough seemed euphoric. Tom Brokaw shocked me by listing a litany of Cheney lines for which Kerry-Edwards will have to answer.
I wanted to watch more of CNN, but Larry King was hosting a panel including David Gergen and Ann Richards. Adios!
On CSPAN2 Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan debated the debate. Traditionally, CSPAN features analysts from both sides of the political spectrum. Which was supposed to represent the right? Both Kaus and Sullivan will be voting for Kerry, but CSPAN's confusion about Andrew can be excused.
John Edwards appeared nervous, dry-mouthed and tentative during the foreign policy half of the debate with a few flashes of confidence when asked about domestic issues. His task was to promote John Kerry, cement the impression of leadership Kerry tried to convey during the first presidential debate, and perpetuate any momentum their campaign might have gained. Edwards, I think, seemed a loyal but lightweight running mate.
For the most part, Cheney eviscerated the Kerry charges left unanswered by President Bush while hanging Kerry’s record like a millstone around Edwards’ neck, an effective offensive that Kerry will ignore at his own peril. Cheney provided a feast of talking points that I hope and expect Bush will use in his speech this morning and during Friday’s second presidential debate. Of these, the most memorable may be that Kerry could not stand up to Dean, so how can he stand up to Al Qaeda.
Cheney made news when he drew a direct correlation between the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, which used to pay the families of suicide bombers for their individual acts of terror, and the subsequent reduction of such attacks in Israel. Cheney also explained the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq as I hoped, although without much detail about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and no mention of Abu Nidal, Ramzi Yousef or Abdul Rahman Yasin.
Conservatives are so conscious of media bias that we tend to be overly grateful moderator Gwen Ifill was not as one-sided as Jim Lehrer when she deserves criticism for injecting unwarranted conclusions into some of her questions.
In 2000 the media buzz on Cheney was that he brought gravitas to the GOP ticket and they repeated it throughout that campaign ad nauseam. After the debate many of the same pundits seemed surprised by Cheney’s gravitas, which they acknowledged with grudging respect. They have become so irrelevant that even they don’t pay attention to what they write and remark themselves.
The initial spin focused on Cheney’s avowal, which is accurate, that he never linked Iraq to September 11. Ironically, the journalists who appreciate Kerry’s nuanced explanation for voting for the $87 billion military appropriations bill before voting against it fail to comprehend the clear distinction between an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection and an Iraq-September 11th connection.
The Fox News post-debate panel was cautious but unanimous in its praise of Cheney, mindful that the audience was not as large for the Veep showdown and the more critical Kerry-Bush rematch will take place this Friday.
The entire MSNBC panel pronounced Cheney the winner. Joe Scarborough seemed euphoric. Tom Brokaw shocked me by listing a litany of Cheney lines for which Kerry-Edwards will have to answer.
I wanted to watch more of CNN, but Larry King was hosting a panel including David Gergen and Ann Richards. Adios!
On CSPAN2 Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan debated the debate. Traditionally, CSPAN features analysts from both sides of the political spectrum. Which was supposed to represent the right? Both Kaus and Sullivan will be voting for Kerry, but CSPAN's confusion about Andrew can be excused.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The Professor and Mary Ann
Tonight's Veep-Wannabe debate might fall short of the statesmanlike lesson in civics and civility that we remember from 2000, but it promises to be my favorite matchup of the four this election year.
Dick Cheney may be the smartest, most commanding politician since Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Edwards has a full head of hair, a boyish grin and a smooth Southern drawl. Cheney is a human encyclopedia. Edwards is Mr. Congeniality, eclipsed in the primaries by Howard Dean and Al Sharpton.
The Vice President is likely to be on the offensive and prepared for personal questions about Halliburton, Pat Leahy, his health and his gay daughter. I hope he explains the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which would be a real public service. If Cheney performs as well as I expect, the Democrat and mainstream media spinmeisters (pardon the redundancy) will use his success to ridicule the President’s intelligence. No doubt Edwards and Kerry will escape the Cheney comparisons.
Cheney has a disarming sense of humor, an air of quiet authority and mastery of even the most complex issues. He seems comfortable in his own skin and is extremely bright without being showy. These are but a few reasons that many women find him enormously appealing, myself included.
Humor Advantage: Cheney
Gravitas Advantage: Cheney
Sex Appeal Advantage: Cheney
UPDATE: See? I told you so! (Courtesy of Hindrocket)
Dick Cheney may be the smartest, most commanding politician since Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Edwards has a full head of hair, a boyish grin and a smooth Southern drawl. Cheney is a human encyclopedia. Edwards is Mr. Congeniality, eclipsed in the primaries by Howard Dean and Al Sharpton.
The Vice President is likely to be on the offensive and prepared for personal questions about Halliburton, Pat Leahy, his health and his gay daughter. I hope he explains the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which would be a real public service. If Cheney performs as well as I expect, the Democrat and mainstream media spinmeisters (pardon the redundancy) will use his success to ridicule the President’s intelligence. No doubt Edwards and Kerry will escape the Cheney comparisons.
Cheney has a disarming sense of humor, an air of quiet authority and mastery of even the most complex issues. He seems comfortable in his own skin and is extremely bright without being showy. These are but a few reasons that many women find him enormously appealing, myself included.
Humor Advantage: Cheney
Gravitas Advantage: Cheney
Sex Appeal Advantage: Cheney
UPDATE: See? I told you so! (Courtesy of Hindrocket)
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Advantage: Bush
The first presidential debate of 2004 is over. Let the pundit class debates begin!
Conservatives are disappointed that Bush was no Reagan and Kerry was no Gore. Upon brief reflection, our expectations about the former were unrealistic and our hopes about the latter appear simplistic. We will know before November 2nd if Senator Kerry can sustain the buzz his campaign is trying to generate about his performance, which was remarkable due primarily to its restraint.
President Bush, normally the soul of discipline and self-control, was visibly rattled from the start, as though he just received terrible news. With only a few deviations, Kerry stuck to his game plan with atypical consistency. Theirs was the most unexpected role reversal since Dr. Evil stole Austin Powers' mojo.
The debate was a grim affair, although my family and I laughed long and hard when Kerry claimed that he never wavered. We also took turns shouting suggestions to Bush through the TV. I think the biggest negative for Bush was that he lost the light, humorous touch that was on display as recently as his interview with Bill O’Reilly, which Fox News televised earlier this week. Bush’s mistakes, if they deserve to be classified as such, were more of omission than commission. For every time he capitalized on a weakness, he let pass a golden opportunity to frame an issue and define Kerry’s position.
On the positive side, the President’s growth as a debater since 2000 is obvious and commendable. He has become a more confident public speaker with an easier grasp of facts. Kerry exhibited his infamous tendency to overreach for supporting information that sounds impressive but crumbles under examination, like his visit to Treblinka. For someone who describes the war in Iraq as the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Kerry has a quirky habit of inserting himself in the right historical places at just the right moment with a dramatic flair reminiscent of Zelig, the Woody Allen character with whom Kerry shares other less-than-desirable qualities.
Viewers with a critical ear might find repetition and plain speaking dull or even grating, but the voting public long ago accepted the President’s stylistic shortcomings. Robotic wonkiness might be worth a few points in a CBS poll, but honesty and consistency are priceless.
Conservatives are disappointed that Bush was no Reagan and Kerry was no Gore. Upon brief reflection, our expectations about the former were unrealistic and our hopes about the latter appear simplistic. We will know before November 2nd if Senator Kerry can sustain the buzz his campaign is trying to generate about his performance, which was remarkable due primarily to its restraint.
President Bush, normally the soul of discipline and self-control, was visibly rattled from the start, as though he just received terrible news. With only a few deviations, Kerry stuck to his game plan with atypical consistency. Theirs was the most unexpected role reversal since Dr. Evil stole Austin Powers' mojo.
The debate was a grim affair, although my family and I laughed long and hard when Kerry claimed that he never wavered. We also took turns shouting suggestions to Bush through the TV. I think the biggest negative for Bush was that he lost the light, humorous touch that was on display as recently as his interview with Bill O’Reilly, which Fox News televised earlier this week. Bush’s mistakes, if they deserve to be classified as such, were more of omission than commission. For every time he capitalized on a weakness, he let pass a golden opportunity to frame an issue and define Kerry’s position.
On the positive side, the President’s growth as a debater since 2000 is obvious and commendable. He has become a more confident public speaker with an easier grasp of facts. Kerry exhibited his infamous tendency to overreach for supporting information that sounds impressive but crumbles under examination, like his visit to Treblinka. For someone who describes the war in Iraq as the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Kerry has a quirky habit of inserting himself in the right historical places at just the right moment with a dramatic flair reminiscent of Zelig, the Woody Allen character with whom Kerry shares other less-than-desirable qualities.
Viewers with a critical ear might find repetition and plain speaking dull or even grating, but the voting public long ago accepted the President’s stylistic shortcomings. Robotic wonkiness might be worth a few points in a CBS poll, but honesty and consistency are priceless.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Comedy of Errors
Historically, Presidential debates are proving grounds to prepare candidates to become the leader of the free world, but this election year viewers may think they are watching outtakes from the NBC series Last Comic Standing. Is it possible that one of the contenders, after reading the poll numbers, has his eye on a different prize?
According to the AP's Nedra Pickler, Senator John Kerry "was cracking up his partisan crowd" at one campaign stop and "he drew guffaws" at another. This is news worthy of a Fox alert, although considering the source I will wait for confirmation from CBS.
Pickler reports that "Bush has been effectively using humor" against Kerry, an understated description of the incumbent's folksy, self-deprecating style. The President's reputation for well-timed one-liners makes him the favorite to score laughs Thursday night, but perhaps Senator Kerry like Al Gore in 2000 will provide most of the hilarity, albeit unintentionally.
Pickler cites this example of the Kerry wit, which owes much to the dry minimalism of Jimmy Carter:
"You're going to hear all this talk, `Oh, we've turned the corner, we're doing better, blah, blah,'" he said, running on the phrase as his Wisconsin audience erupted in laughter. "You know, blah and blah and blah."
The same routine elicited nary a chuckle as Kerry worked the MTV crowd during the primaries (pictured below). Far be it from me to expect honesty from the AP or consistency from Senator Kerry, but he really needs to hone his schtick if he wants to replace Conan O'Brien in 2009.
According to the AP's Nedra Pickler, Senator John Kerry "was cracking up his partisan crowd" at one campaign stop and "he drew guffaws" at another. This is news worthy of a Fox alert, although considering the source I will wait for confirmation from CBS.
Pickler reports that "Bush has been effectively using humor" against Kerry, an understated description of the incumbent's folksy, self-deprecating style. The President's reputation for well-timed one-liners makes him the favorite to score laughs Thursday night, but perhaps Senator Kerry like Al Gore in 2000 will provide most of the hilarity, albeit unintentionally.
Pickler cites this example of the Kerry wit, which owes much to the dry minimalism of Jimmy Carter:
"You're going to hear all this talk, `Oh, we've turned the corner, we're doing better, blah, blah,'" he said, running on the phrase as his Wisconsin audience erupted in laughter. "You know, blah and blah and blah."
The same routine elicited nary a chuckle as Kerry worked the MTV crowd during the primaries (pictured below). Far be it from me to expect honesty from the AP or consistency from Senator Kerry, but he really needs to hone his schtick if he wants to replace Conan O'Brien in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
