The discussion about the upcoming debates has been distressing me lately, because it seems like it always follows a pattern: someone brings up the debates, saying something to the effect of, "Kerry will totally dominate the debates, and it'll be so awesome." Then someone else invariably adds the "Bush is a good debater" response, and everyone gets angry. In the give and take of an open thread, things get lost in a rush to respond.
I hope with this diary to be able to provide a sort of starting point for a more careful discussion over the Kerry strategy in the debates underscored by his saying on The Daily Show that Bush is "a good debater." Considering the whirlwind of spin that will come up soon regarding debate prep as well as after the debates themselves, I want everyone to remain somehow calm toward each other on this site in the debate fallout.
There's one text of primary importance in trying to imagine both the debates, as well as how the teams are squaring up in the lead up to the first debate. That text is James Fallows's cover story in the July/August Atlantic Monthly, "When George Meets John." It is available for free using EBSCO, and it is also available here, with a bugmenot registration. I encourage everyone interested in this diary (or the debates) to read this article, though I won't be referring to it below the fold, as I'd hoped to.
The dKos echo chamber has provided, to me, a few oft-repeated points regarding the debates:
1. Kerry is going to drop lyrical bombs on Bush
a. Bush is an idiot and can't speak straight.
b. Kerry is a closer and here's where it's going to come out
c. It's going to be fantastic
2. Bush is a scaredy cat who needs Cheney to pull his mouth string
a. This is why he is ditching the town-meeting debate
b. Kerry ought to show up anyway and make, you know, with the bombs.
c. There should be a patsy in place of Bush to smirk while Kerry makes, you know...
3. It doesn't matter; the media decides who wins.
a. Lookit Gore
b. No, seriously, Gore 0wn3d Bush, yet the next morning...
c. See above
Here's the casual engagement of all of the above that I hope will spark some discussion:
I think no one on the planet denies that Kerry is a better orator, is more on top of things, and could probably, all things being equal, beat the hell out of Bush in any form of debate, even in the rare "who can fall off a bike first?" debate format. Give JFK a mountain, and he climbs it. Bush may be careening toward dementia, he may be genuinely just stupid, or he might be coyly playing dumb (or being played as dumb). We all know this. There is an implicit "I Agree" button we click regarding this fact when we register for this website.
It's not we, however, who will use the debates in choosing for whom to vote. Similarly, it's not us who decide what questions get asked, or how the subsequent responses will get spun on MSNBC. This is, perhaps, of vital importance to remember when getting into an argument over the debates here. Whatever we see, it will, I guarantee, be something totally different from what, say, Judy Woodruff sees. Whether Bush is an idiot who cannot speak straight or not, we will not be told that it happened in the debate. Don't hope for it, don't expect it. If he explodes into a seizure of profanity, or something, then that's just icing that will get spun away, anyway. It's not going to happen, though. This boy is so deeply programmed that it won't happen.
Given a regular "debate," Kerry would be able to coax stupefying stupid comments out of Bush. He may still even do this. But it will not get spun as such. I imagine there will be some kind of hammer dropping--a code/sop to us. But I cannot imagine a world in which Wolf Blitzer stares into the monitor after the debate, jaw dropped, and turns to a producer and says, "damn, I picked the wrong horse... is my passport in order?" It will not happen. Sometimes I get the feeling here that anything short of that is a Kerry loss.
This is called, of course, the expectations game. Kerry, I would imagine, in a different world would have nothing but contempt for Georgie. If I were JFK, I certainly would, after all. I'm reminded of Lovitz as Dukakis against Carvey as GHWB: after Carvey spins off into a "points of light" or "prudent" answer to a question, the camera turns to Lovitz who throws up his hands and says, calmly and pathetically, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." That's precisely the wrong attitude and wrong set of expectations. This is why Kerry tells Jon Stewart that Bush has never lost a debate before. Who cares what you, dear kossack, remember from 2000? The SCLM certainly does not, nor do the voters the candidates are trying to sway during the debates. Let Kerry say that. Let Kerry even say that he's afraid of the debates.
Point 2 is why Bush is a favorite to win the debate. He has convinced the world that he is a drooling buffoon, as the Fallows article demonstrates. He was positively coherent against Richards. So if it's not neurological decay that's made him stupid, it's a deliberate ploy to appear stupid. Just like in 2000, Bush gets a leg up just by walking up to the podium or desk without tripping and falling. He's been working this persona for six years now, and it's how he's going to win the debates.
His chickenshittery regarding the town meeting debate is a further example of this mirage. We see it as petulance or fear. The regular voter, however, might think that there is some truth to it. The Democrats have been nasty lately, after all. Maybe they would plant someone to bring up boring old allegations that won't change my opinion about Bush but will make Democrats look petulant themselves. Furthermore, when Bush finally concedes and sits down for a debate (though I think he would be able to use the Clinton precedent to get out of it, should he want to), again, he'll be a leg up. He's the guy who overcame his fears about the debate and came to face the hate of Dem plants. Resolute in the face of adversity.
Should W not show up, I think the idea of an open town meeting for Kerry would be a good idea, although it will probably get spun as "Kerry addresses Dem plants in Missouri 'debate.'" Having a patsy there, however, is a terrible idea. Among the great take-home messages in Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? is that the Democratic party is made up 100% of latte-sipping Volvo élitists, or, at least, the GOP depends very heavily on projecting that image. Putting up a Bush patsy will only, like expecting a giant hammer from Kerry, make us look like bullies who make fun of Bush because he's just a regular guy and didn't go to no fancy schools like PA or Yale. The latte-sipping Volvo élitist plutocrats running the GOP demand that W look like a rube so that rubes, or at least sympathetic and generally "nice" people, will like him and maybe even vote for him out of pity. This is why the "Kerry looks French" meme has been so (un)startlingly valuable. Kerry is presented by the GOP as precisely the sort of supercilious prick that the GOP insists makes up the entirety of the Democratic Party. And I'm sorry, but nothing says "supercilious prick" like having Will Farrell up onstage beside Kerry, mincing. It'd be funny, sure, but other than people like us, giggling and shouting "BURN!" every few seconds, who else will be impressed? Not undecided voters, I'd wager.
I don't remember / have repressed the Bush/Gore debates, but I imagine that a large reason for Gore's "losing" them in the eyes of the media was because he was able to be played as a supercilious prick, scoffing at Bush, doing everything but pulling a Lovitz. And, again, remember, it's the media that anointed Bush the winner. We all saw something different, I'm certain, but the Goreing continued unabated. But we don't have to be convinced in the debates. We should all be so furious with Bush that no amount of further shock from the SCLM will make us do any more to get Kerry elected. But we're not the audience that Kerry is seeking. He had us at hello, or at "Comeback Kerry," or whatever. We're already sold. We're the amen corner. We got some table scraps in Boston, but basically we have to sit by until January, except, of course, for the work we'll still do behind the scenes.
Considering the still present undecided gap, however, as well as the LV/RV gap, now they make up the audience that Kerry should be playing to. To me, the best plan of attack for them is to have Kerry be almost overly gracious and respectful of the (Office of the P) resident. Continue saying that the debates will be tough, that you're looking forward to an exchange of ideas about a vision of a new America. We know it's bullshit. We know Kerry knows better. But, again, we're not the audience. If the walk into the debate can be pitched as a meeting of equals, then when Kerry shines, it will stand a better chance of getting positive spin.
This all said, of course, I'm increasingly convinced that there is no chance in hell that the SCLM will let Kerry win the debates. I can only imagine the wild variance in questions the two candidates will be receiving, and I'm certain that rebuttal time will be so thin so as to not let Kerry get in comments when Bush trots out hoary, glue factory-bound nags like the $87b flip-flop, a flip-flop that still can't be dismissed as easily as it is stated ("I voted for it, and then I voted against it," or whatever). Kerry's best chance, I think, will be if Bush gets a Cheney transfusion beforehand and starts in with a hatchet. I think his smirk line about "what do you expect from a senator from Massachusetts," for example, will not play well at all at a debate, but who knows. That sort of "lack of decorum" is the only sort of thing I think the SCLM will respond negatively to.
This sort of pessimism/realism might suggest that Kerry damn the torpedoes and just, you know, drop the megaton bombs. I don't think that will work, since what we are pessimistic about, he might be optimistic. He might be looking forward to trying to work against this absurd deficit to try and coax a few undecideds to his side. I certainly am.
I understand that this entry could be read as way of discussing/encouraging the "stay nice" strategy of campaign. I don't know that I support that, but I definitely don't respond well to posters saying, "the gloves have to come off now!" The Kerry campaign must have studied the Gore campaign, and I seriously doubt that they think that the only thing Gore did wrong was have Nader on the ballot in every state. Still, what I hope this will do is let us remember that, at least publicly, caution is the best course of action walking into the debates. It's like acting like you're ten points down. Cockiness is precisely what the GOP wants us to show, since then they can repackage that as America-hating élitism. They don't deserve the satisfaction.