Debate Matters: Bush v. Kerry

I don't want to spend a lot of time on the debates, though I imagine I probably will end up doing so, because they're mostly a dog and pony show in which no one really learns much about where the candidates stand (when do people learn this these days? do they ever?). But here are a few preliminary thoughts:

If there is one thing that Kerry should do in this debate, it's dispell once and for all the notion that he's a flip-flopper. And I don't think that it's actually that hard to do, but I think it requires the right kind of answer. So if he is asked, for example, "Sen. Kerry, many people accuse you of flip-flopping on your position on the Iraq war; what is your response to those people," Kerry should say:

Well, Jim, my position is the same as is when I first voted to authorize the president to use force. There are two words that you've heard about me throughout this campaign: "nuance" and "complexity." Now, it's certainly true that I like to examine the nuances and complexities of different issues. But my position on Iraq is not nuanced and it's not complex. It's simple and straightforward.

I voted to give the president the authority to use force because he promised to use this authority as leverage with the international community; he promised to go to war as a last resort, and only with a real coalition. Unfortunately, he broke all of those promises, and abused his authority. So I have spoken out against his mishandling of the situation since then. That's not complex, it's simple and straightforward. And it hasn't changed. This idea that my position is nuanced is ridiculous. It's a position based on the facts, and it couldn't be easier to understand.

Say you have a teenager who you let borrow the car for the evening. You might give your consent to letting him use the car. If he then wrecks the car, and you get angry at him, that doesn't mean you're being an inconsistent parent. It means you're being responsible. In the same way, my position on Iraq is simple and straightforward, and it is the responsible position to hold.

And that furthermore carries the implication that the president is a wreckless kid. The important thing, though, as a friend and I were discussing, is that Kerry ridicule the idea that his position is nuanced at all.

Since all polling that I've seen shows that a clear majority think that the Iraq war was mistake (and since April, more than 50% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq), and think that Kerry would handle the economy better (50 to 45 in the middle of this month, though I've seen it as high as 54 to 40), Kerry's main project is to get people to trust him. And since the Bush campaign is committed to the "flip-flopping" talking point as the basis for their entire campaign ("What would YOU do about Iraq Mr. President?" "John Kerry's a flip-flopper!"), if that notion can be successfully dispelled, the rest of the race should be a cakewalk. Seriously. If John Kerry can accomplish this one thing, the race is won for him.

Secondly, I'd like to chastise the mainstream media in advance for their coverage of the debates. All this past weekend, all of the talk shows have focused on the famous moments from the debates, rather than on what the debates were about. Paul Krugman can take it from here:

After the [first 2000] debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."

The result of this emphasis on the candidates' acting skills rather than their substance was that after a few days, Mr. Bush's defeat in the debate had been spun into a victory.[...]

[O]n Thursday night there will be a temptation to revert to drama criticism - to emphasize how the candidates looked and acted, and push analysis of what they said, and whether it was true, to the inside pages. With so much at stake, the public deserves better.[...]

Watching cable news discussion of past debates this weekend, we were shown a two-second clip over and over again, of Ronald Reagan saying the following words:

There you go again.

Let me ask. Does anyone out there know what that was said in response to? Does anyone know what subject they were debating? Time's up. I found the transcript. Here's the surrounding context:

MR. CARTER: Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare. Now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.

MR. SMITH: Governor?

MR. REAGAN: There you go again. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. There is something else about Social Security. Of course, it doesn't come out of the payroll tax. It comes out of a general fund, but something should be done about it. I think it is disgraceful that the Disability Insurance Fund in Social Security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from Social Security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care.

Carter was right, of course. And the irony here is that the "catastrophic health insurance" that Carter mentions is part of John Kerry's healthcare plan. It's something that most Americans favor and have favored for a long time, and that Carter and Reagan were debating 24 years ago. Instead, what has come down to us is the fact that Reagan said "there you go again." There is something fundamentally irresponsible about the way the media reports on these things.

And finally, I would like to say about these debates the following: John Kerry and George W. Bush have been campaigning for the past year. They have given thousands of speeches between them, and shaken millions of hands, kissed an uncountable number of babies. Never though, in the entire campaign, will Bush and Kerry have had a free exchange of ideas on issues. Since according to the rules of the debates, the candidates are not allowed to ask each other questions, never will there have been a real debate, a give and take, in which each candidate was forced to defend his reasoning and offer more details than are possible in 90 seconds.

In a great episode of "The West Wing," Pres. Bartlet complains about the debates with his opponent, Gov. Ritchie of Florida:

It's not even the number of debates, as much as the format. 2 minute response followed by a 1 minute reply. That's not a debate. That's not a debate! It's a joint press conference.[...] It's a joint press conference. It's not neccesary for the candidates to be in the same room. That part's just theater.[...] It'd be nice to be able to respond to what the other person has said, and ask them a question. And the moderator should be empowered to press for an answer, just as a judge can of a witness, or a member of Congress in a confirmation hearing.[...] Cicero wanted to restore the overthrown king of Egypt, and the Roman Senate debated all day and into the night, every military and diplomatic consequence until they collapsed on the Senate floor. Lentulus is trying to overthrow the Republic. Ceaser goes up against Cato-- by the way, in the very first public debate on the death penalty. They were against each other, it was a debate and they explored the meaning of spirituality and suffering.

Would that this sort of thing could happen in the American Republic.

-- Michael

Comments

[bog]

Two things to note on this post:

As mediamatters.org writes (http://mediamatters.org/items/200409280009), Bush's expectations (and these expectations were fostered by the media) were so low coming into the 2000 debate compared to Gore that just displaying knowledge on his part became the story. A quote from CBS (from the article):

Well, I think, clearly tonight, if anyone gained from this debate, it was George Bush because he showed that people will argue back and forth over the positions they took, but, clearly, he seemed to have as much of a grasp of the issues as -- as Al Gore did tonight. So in that sense, I think Bush gained a lot [CBS News presidential debate coverage, 10/3/00].

There are many other interesting quotes from that article. Now, what's interesting this year is to take those quotes and replace Bush's "command of the issues" with Kerry's "flip-flopping." If Kerry comes out and basically says what you suggest above, as well as being firm on any other issue coming at him, then that could be this year's media focus. That could be neat.

Secondly, the use of a dead mood to finish a post which previously mentioned the culture/language where that mood was prevalent is brilliant. Furthermore, the use of that mood in this culture/language has been perpetuated by those who believe the previously mentioned culture/language to be the perfect one. Brilliant.

[Gary]

How I hope and pray that he responds this way, and resorts to some good old fashion mud slinging when Dumbya goes down this path.

He waffles on positions too.

[d meyers]

The anaysis of the debate will make us all sick.. Kerry has the toughest job tonight. The dynamics of a debate of an incumbent Pres. vs challenger is different than a debate between 2 challengers, as in 2000. I honestly believe there is very little Bush can do that will harm him. Everybody in the nation already has their opinion of Bush and he won't do anything to change that.

Kerry almost has to change the perception people have of him. Whether the perception is legit or not is immaterial, he is known as a flip flopper and he has to convince people he is not. I don't expect the moderator to press either Bush or Kerry so I don't expect Kerry to be pressed on his positions. I actually thought Dianne Sawyer did a decent interview with Kerry, she followed up quite a bit.

In the end, Kerry has the toughest job tonight and lets hope he does not resemble an Ooompa Loompa or that will be the focus of the analysis.

[Pax]

Watching FOX right now (am I crazy). The pre-spin cites Kerry's spray-on tan and his manicure today. So Kerry will try to change the perception but even before he opens his mouth... Of course it is FOX.

[d meyers]

with 24 hr news channels that is what you get at times...

you have to admit Oompa Loompa man was quite funny. I mean, what the hell happened to Kerry??? Sun tans are not orange.. You think he has a new makeup person??

just some good, meaningless fun.

Kerry does need to keep metro-sexual man under wraps. Manicures are not the image of a strong leader.

[d meyers]

Pax,

what's up with the lipstick and blush Kerry was wearing last night?