|
Edited on Fri Oct-01-04 01:10 PM by calimary
Kerrying the John and George Show
By calimary
Well, they’ve gone and done it. The first debate between John Kerry and George Bush has wrapped up, leaving me with several strong impressions – AND more than a couple of reasons not to obsess on my frown lines.
As I sit here, I’m pressing myself for that two or three word reaction that comes straight off the cuff without any studious analysis. My instant impression would have to be “reaction shots.” As in Bush’s. I saw a number of them that made me glad they were coming from him rather than Kerry. John Kerry stood straight and tall, an attempt to project confidence that worked, in my opinion. He seemed at ease at that podium. He smiled. Didn’t move around, much, but wasn’t wooden, either. No face farts. No smirks. A very occasional nod or shake of head. On the other hand, every time the camera showed Bush reacting, it was clear that he hadn’t checked his smirk at the door. There it was, again and again. In question after question as he waited his turn. Plus, he slumped, neck jutting forward, making his five-inch height disadvantage more obvious in a wide shot. His eyes shifted around fairly frequently, and his tongue occasionally pushed against the inside of the lower lip. This is a Presidential Debate, George, not the Mirrored Funhouse at the County Fair. It wasn’t just me picking up on this, either. Even Jeff Greenfield had to concede that Kerry looked “as presidential” on stage.
Kerry DID look presidential. More commentators than Greenfield noticed that Bush clearly looked as though he didn’t want to be there. He stood like a petulant school boy, with a subtle attitude of resentment over being compelled to serve detention. It felt almost as though he didn’t appreciate having to submit to this exercise. Yes, George, sometimes even you have to work for a living. You have to present your case. Preferably without so much pounding on the lectern –which I suspect was a debating technique designed to convey an air of forcefulness and conviction. To me it was just annoying, reminiscent of the guy in the next apartment nailing picture-hangers into the wall on the other side of my bedroom headboard. Kerry’s response accurately pointed out that there’s a difference between being certain and correct is different from being certain and wrong.
I was surprised to see Bush falling into another debate trap (that unfortunately seems to snare more Democrats than republi-CONS – except in this case). I’ve had this argument with Michael O’Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution about such a sparring technique. I once saw him square off against a young woman from the conservative American Enterprise Institute and, in about four out of six instances during their encounter, O’Hanlon said “I agree with my opponent that…” or “well, my opponent is correct about…” A major league no-no in my opinion. Why would you EVER, under ANY circumstances, throw your opponent a bone like that in a debate? A mortal sin. A first-degree felony. Summa cum stupid. I’ve watched, covered, and critiqued debates over almost three decades, back to Carter versus Ford. I’ve seen and considered a LOT of debate anaylsis. And it just seems to me that the one thing you do NOT do is voluntarily to hand over an unearned point to your opponent by saying you agree with him/her on WHATEVER it is.
If, indeed, you do share ideas, then describe yours better, or highlight how you’d implement yours more effectively. But why reinforce the opposition? Especially in an election year like this, when some people still complain that there’s really no difference between the parties or the candidates, it is fatal to do that. That irresistibly leads the listener to wonder – “well, then, why should I vote for you if all you’re saying is that the other guy has it right?” O’Hanlon disagreed, claiming it was preferable to show how, in effect, we’re all able to “just get along,” as Rodney King would say, and don’t forget the kumbaya. Baloney! That’s what you do if you want to present yourself as a compliant doormat while the other guy wipes his muddy, cleat-studded jackboots on you.
There’ll be plenty of time to get along after we’ve won and the vanquished have to spend time licking their own wounds rather than inflicting wounds on other people (like us). Never give a single electron of credit to your opponent. Bush blew that one TWICE, thus telegraphing that his opponent had framed the debate or set the agenda and he was implicitly going along with it. When you do that, it’s a signal that you’re playing defense, not offense. You are following in this dance, not leading. To appear as though you’re controlling the debate, you should maneuver your opponent into saying that about you. Point Kerry.
Then, there was Bush’s declaration that the “the enemy attacked us” on 9/11 (ah yes, 9/11. I knew Bush would wrap himself in that one like a Burrito Supreme. In fact, it was the first thing out of his mouth after he said his “thank you and hang in there, Florida” introduction). Kerry caught it. I’m glad he did, too. But it’s a shame that there STILL has to be so much effort put into correcting the record about Saddam, Osama, and September 11th. Kerry reminded that the 9/11 Commission found no evidence to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and that we veered away from catching the real 9/11 culprit in Afghanistan so Bush could pick a fight with Iraq. In addition, it provided a colorful soundbite that earned many replays during the Pundit Postmortems. Another point Kerry.
True, Kerry forgot to mention Poland when he brought up England and Australia as the only big-ticket members of the “Coalition of the Willing.” Bush caught him on that. But Kerry also left out Micronesia, too, didn’t he? For shame (Hey – don’t flame me – I love and wish I were vacationing in Micronesia)!
I think Kerry won the “Duel of the Dads.” There was an almost incomprehensibly cordial exchange in which Bush was asked what sort of character flaw would keep Kerry from being a good president. Mainly, Bush was complimentary, about Kerry’s war service, 20 years in the Senate, and fatherhood skills – raising daughters who were friendly and helpful to the Bush twins. Nice of him to handle some of Kerry’s PR for him. Kerry responded in kind (accurate word choice). Bush then quipped “sometimes I’d like to muzzle them.” Kerry chuckled and replied “I’ve learned not to do that.”
On the other hand, I’d give Bush the “Bushism” award for “mexed missages” as a particular standout amid numerous hemmings, hawings, tentative um’s and uh’s, momentary brain-blackouts, and gropings for words. Kerry had the one “oh-HO!” moment of the night when he accused Bush of dropping the ball on terrorism when our troops were hot on Osama’s heels in Tora Bora, only to turn the job over to Afghan warlords to close the deal so they could divert off to Iraq. Kerry said Bush “outsourced that job, too.” Bush repeated the talking points we’ve heard him say incessantly “you know where I stand.” “You can’t criticize our allies” (uh, “Old Europe,” Mr. Bush?), and many claims of Kerry switching positions. No real zingers, though. The only time Bush came close to his own “oh-HO!” moment was his “of course we’re after Saddam Hussein – uh – uh, Osama bin Laden.” He kept insisting “Saddam. Hussein. Was. A. Threat (pound, pound).” It made my husband roar. It made Bush look almost desperate.
Bush was off his game again in his closing statement. Kerry went first – DRAT! I never like seeing that. It was respectable enough, but I always prefer my guy’s message to leave the freshest taste in viewers’ mouths. Bush had the last word, but he failed to make the most of it. Earlier in the debate, he’d gone into overtime, his timer light blinking red. Not here. He wrapped up just before the green timer light could turn yellow. Even more puzzlingly, Mr. Hit-Below-The-Belt Dirty-Campaigner uncharacteristically attempted to take the high road, to talk himself up. He skipped one last opportunity to take a clear, unrefuted potshot at Kerry.
Out of many subtle signals sent out by both sides, perhaps the slickest and MOST understated came AFTER the end – when the wives came out to hug their husbands. As I watched Teresa Heinz Kerry and Laura Bush embracing, I noticed them - noticing each other’s outfits. Teresa had dared to wear an attention-grabbing white suit, reminding me of Nancy Reagan, resplendent in blinding white at a past Republican convention, surrounded in her balcony by a phalanx of friends and family all wearing deferentially drab and muted colors. Barbara Bush, in a truly tasteless display, tried the same look-at-me technique when Ronald Reagan’s body lay in state earlier this year in Washington. The Bush dowager arrived to pay her respects in an eye-piercing white outfit, in sharp contrast to the darker, more somber, and far more respectful tones worn by everyone else. A bright white outfit amid a sea of deeper colors is a staging device that almost literally forces you to look THERE, and it’s a definitive, if covert, queen-crowning statement. But guess what? Laura had dressed in white, this evening, too. I spotted Teresa’s on-stage arrival first, the implication thus being that Laura had copied her. Point Heinz Kerry.
Overall, I think they argued to a draw. But it’s not a draw if you factor in the “intangibles.” Bush’s smirky reaction shots were deadly. Anyone packaged as meticulously as he usually is should have known better. Bush’s stammering and spoonerisms didn’t work for him, either. On those points, plus the fact that Kerry didn’t make any glaring errors, I’d have to give Kerry the win. Most post-game shows and instant public opinion polls seem to agree with me. The long-range effect, like a really heavy meal, will have work its way through the political digestive tract over the next few days – and beyond.
This should go into www.democrats.us tonight.
Cheers!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
