Could Bush and Rove be using the "rope a dope" ploy?

[rfranklin]

Could it be that they are just trying to sucker Kerry with a poor performance on foreign policy and national security just to roar back with a legendary performance on domestic issues?

[Richard D]

1. I had the same thought.

Briefly though. I don't think * is capable of that kind of performance intentionally.

[Chichiri]

2. Are you suggesting that Bush threw the debate?

I wouldn't put it past Rove . . . how do you suggest we would counter that?

[kokomo]

9. Implant a radio receiver in Bush's ear, feed him answers from backstage

[movonne]

3. And what would that be... I can't think of one domestic issue he

could brag about.

[RT Atlanta]

4. dont think so

WTF does bush have to stand on domestically?

He's left every child behind; our skies are not as clear as they were 4 years ago; health care costs are going up faster than income....

I dont just dont think so, but that is my humble opinion.

[JI7]

5. But their entire campaign has been about Bush strong on war

they wanted people to look past the poor economy and other mess and support bush by scaring them into thinking Kerry is weak and would not defend them.

unlike foreign policy issues which people don't really have a good understanding of , the economy is something they can at least feel and view personally.

[Rambis]

8. Half right

the dope ploy is working-

[Mz Pip]

6. The election is too close

to play around with blowing a debate on purpose.

I do believe they will force Bush to be better prepared next time but he really is a lazy ass so he may not work as hard as he should.

MzPip
:dem:

[kokomo]

12. Does that mean fewer rounds of golf???

[Mz Pip]

43. No golf

No chopping wood, no clearing weeds no hunting for bugs...

MzPip
:dem:

[gardenista]

7. A legendary performance on the 2nd debate would be a miracle.

Remember, those are going to be real people.

The one thing I worry about is Rove somehow packing the audience with ringers.

[Dawgs]

10. Trust me. George Bush is no Muhammed Ali!!!

[RoyalWickedness]

11. Don't think so

Shrub wouldn't know good domestic policy if it jumped up and bit him on the ass. This was supposed to be his moment to shine, and he tanked. Either he'll cancel the remaining debates, or another terror alert/national emergency will take precedence. If he dares to show, he's toast.

[mourningdove92]

15. I agree. Kerry creamed Smirk in his strong point.

You better believe Kerry is more than prepared for the domestic issues. Thats the area he is already leading Smirk in.

[Technowitch]

13. I doubt it, really

No, at the very least, they would've been hoping for something approaching a tie, so that they could spin it into a victory.

That ain't happening. All the Happy Talk(tm) I see coming out of the Repugs spin machines today makes NO reference to the actual debate performance, and instead merely tries to attack various Kerry positions (misrepresenting them, of course).

I honestly think that they're dismayed, panicked, and dearly hoping they can do better in the next two debates -- assuming they aren't looking for excuses not to have them.

[HFishbine]

14. Hmmm

I don't think they'd intentionally give up what was once their high ground by throwing the foreign policy debate, but you do raise an interesting point about what may be next.

Bush was handcuffed to "stay the course" in Iraq. He really hasn't been so unwavering on domestic policy (dogmatic yes, but his "strong" persona isn't wrapped around domestic issues.) This gives him some latitude for the next debates. I wouldn't be surprised to see some "bold new initiatives" coming up -- introduced for the first time at one of the next debates. Look for some enhancement of the "ownership society."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Kerry will clock him on that

I watched last night wondering what they had up their sleeves...it almost appeared as though Bush was intentionally blowing it...but I think Kerry isn't Gore...Gore did strategy...Kerry understands this is war.

[calico1]

16. You mean did he pretend to

be stupid, ignorant and cocky on purpose to try and throw Kerry off? No, I think that came completely naturally.

[peacetalksforall]

18. Thirty minutes could be taken up with all the broken treaties and

executive orders related to a more toxic environment starting with arsenic.

Another 30 on outsourcing.

Another 30 on corporate crime.

As if we didn't have enough health issue problems to fill and hour and a half. Or an administration that wants us to give our money to corporations for safekeeping.

[EndElectoral]

19. you gotta be kidding...Bush domestic polcies are a shambles

This was the one he wanted to put Kerry away on...

Rove will bring out the swift vets in force, and begin the lies and undermining again without keeping Bush involved (plausible deniability).

Rove will alos orchestrate some kind of October Surprise...

Either

1. Bin Laden capture
2. A thwarted terroist attack
3. A major invasion in Iraq of Fallujah
4. A trip by Bush to the front lines with cheering soldiers
5. A sexual tryst by Kerry
6. Cheney's heart attack and an appeal to the nation to pull together
7. Or the big one,,,,Bush coming down from the mount with the eleventh commandment..Thou shalt not vote against me.

[Anaxamander]

20. The answer is

We worry too much.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Naw.

Bush was just like he is everytime he has to respond and think.

Bush is ok when he has a handpicked audience and an ear plug and a monitor, but when he's not in a controlled situation he's always like this.

[Bongo Prophet]

22. The brilliant Rope-A-Dope strategery caper.

Okay, Bush "acts" like a dope. Check.

Give Kerry enough rope to hang himself. Check.

Kerry takes rope and macrames a hammock, rests comfortably while Bush "works hard" to keep "acting"

We'll get'im next time Karl.
Domeshtic policy! I know that!
And the shredding begins.

[rfranklin]

24. Ha-ha-ha! that's a good one!

I just wanted to see what everyone thought.

[zoeybug]

23. I think the opposite

They were being all pollyanna about Iraq last week, hoping to force Kerry to be negative about the war, while Bush took the high ground. They were counting on Bush seeming positive, hopeful, and strong in the debates, and thought they'd win easily, and coast to the election. They wanted to debate foreign policy first to take an early advantage.

Kerry pulled the rug out from under them. They lost the debate, and like everyone else is saying, Bush got nothing when it comes to domestic issues.

[killbotfactory]

25. No, they tried to sink Kerry with Bush's "strong point"

They failed. Miserably.

[Rosco T.]

26. they've got the DOPE.. now if someone could find a ROPE...

Texas Justice

[cheshire]

27. I wondered to but it will backfire as did all his bullying about the

debate rules. He looked orange, small and really quite ill. And I think some of it had to do with what he asked for as far as the setting.

[RobinA]

28. This Might Be a Worry

if Bush had ever shown an iota of evidence that he is capable of "roaring back" in any way. I mean, it's not like that performance last night was uncharacteristically bad, it was par for Bush. Maybe even a little better than in 2000. If that was rope-a-dope, he's been saving up for the next debate his entire life.

[rndmprsn]

29. this assumes that shrub has got it in him...

[guntherconcept]

30. Bush is the dope, but who's the rope?

[sofa king]

31. Not a chance.

Nobody intentionally tries to look that bad. Bush's poor performance in this debate is a catastrophic loss, not only because it showed Kerry to be a viable and even preferable candidate, but because it severely shrinks the bag of dirty tricks that Karl Rove can use.

Here are some of the dirty trick options I believe are now neutralized:

* Poll manipulation. Call me paranoid, but my greatest concern was that the press and pollsters were manipulating their polling methodology this week in order to show a close race. After the debate, I feared they would return to their original flawed methodology to create the appearance that Bush "won."

They can't do that now, because the public simply won't believe the figures. Any poller that tries to juggle the figures will be scrutinized and risks losing business. (Kudos to MoveOn, by the way, for nailing down the most egregious offender, Gallup, with a full page ad in the New York Times prior to the debate. What do you know? Gallup's post-debate poll showed Kerry to be the debate winner.)

* Credibility evaporation. Even as we speak, the right-wing press is spinning its ass off trying to cast the debate in anything but the light of total failure. But fifty million people saw the smackdown with their own eyes and won't be deceived in the post-debate debate, either. Word of mouth will also go very far toward detracting from the spin doctors' efforts.

Novak, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly and dozens of others are all going to take a credibility hit for spinning in the face of total disaster. That means that when Rove unleashes his next dirty trick, it is going to be less credible, since it will come from the same blindly partisan mouthpieces.

* Kerry gets more slack. The public was more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton his personal foibles, in part I think because he was so obviously competent. John Kerry now gets a similar break. So say Rove dumps a photo of Kerry peeing on a flag. Not only will the allegation be viewed with suspicion, but many people will be willing to let the matter slide because of the larger credibility the Senator has gained as a result of this debate.

* Bush gets less slack. Successes by the President will be viewed as desperate attempts to shore up his credibility. Witness for example the new offensive he launched in Iraq on the day of the debates. Fair or not, the President can and will be accused of "wagging the dog," and some people will believe it because he's obviously a dumbass who doesn't know what he's doing in Iraq. In fact, the entire press coverage of this offensive may take a ghastly and unwelcome turn for the President, regardless of the results.

Similarly, should Osama be thawed out tomorrow, the event will be greeted with considerable suspicion.

_________________________

I think that should the President lose this election, we will all look back to last night and say, "that's when the public realized that the Emperor had no clothes." Bush can still win--or steal--this election, but everything is going to be more difficult for him.

[treading_water]

34. Excellent post!

/nt

[sofa king]

44. Looks like I might have spoke too soon on the poll juggling, though.

CNN just ran through a raft of polls, all of which showed Kerry winning. But none of them were by a huge margin. The margin of error for virtually all the polls were 5%.

I don't understand polling statistics all that well, but a margin of error of five percent is, I think, a significant departure from the quality standard of 2.5%.

[Bongo Prophet]

36. Agreed on all points!

The nekkid empoorer cowboy.
Like the UN speech- when there are no brainwashed throngs prompted by the applause pause (complete with the paid fluffs that go "Yeah!" to start the applause) there are nothing but crickets. Oh, and a tumblin' tumbleweed, "like in the OLD west, when I was growin' up."

He was stripped and wounded last night. We must all re-double our efforts before he grows another head.

[goodboy]

32. Except the only other thing bush has screwed up more than foreign

policy, is domestic issues. BRING IT ON!

[Jack Rabbit]

33. I doubt it

What happened last night was that Bush lost his best weapon; the issue of national security was neutralized if it did not become just another issue on which Bush is vulnerable. Perhaps Kerry didn't deliver a knockout punch, but the Bush camp is looking wobbly right now.

Moreover, the presumption that Bush is effective on matters of national security is one with no basis in fact and should have been turned against the junta some time ago. Only a complacent corporate media has kept Bush bouyed by not reporting effectively inconvenient stories about Saddam's lack of ties to al Qaida or the doubts that existed before the war about his military capabilities. Think of the closet GOP pundit Cokie Roberts asking, "Are we safer or are we really safer?" That sentiment is being replaced by an overdue skepticism. As my son said, "Saddam was a psychopath without a gun." In short, he knows the war was unnecessary.

The fable that Bush is effective on national security issues took a big hit last night. What does he come back with after that?

The next debate is on the economy. Bush's solution for everything is an upper-class tax cut. Is the economy in recession? Give the rich a tax cut and they will employ more people (nevermind that they're employing people in India). The economy is looking up? Give the rich more tax cuts because it works. So what has this brought us? Two million lost jobs, that's what. Moreover, the jobs that are now only starting to replace those lost are not as good.

Are you better off than you were four years ago? Most would say no.

The strqtegy based on the idea that Kerry will be caught off guard after a bad performance by Bush's on what was supposed to be his strong suit is too dicey. Rove may be overrated, but he knows enough not to assume that Kerry's people won't be playing a full-court press from here on out.

[Nevernose]

35. "rope a dope" was my first thought after the debate

Except I was connecting it to Kerry, who's been on the ropes for the last month or so, and has now come out swinging.

[dave123williams]

37. Nope. No way.

Nobody takes a beating like that on purpose; particularly when they could have ENDED Kerry last night.

TKO, IMHO.

[elsiesummers]

38. As long as Kerry doesn't become overconfident

then the next debate should go well for Kerry also.

I can't think that Bush can do as poorly as he did on the first debate again - they will have at least trained him to retain his cool and not get so angry by the next debate, IMO.

[SiouxJ]

39. Too risky

they wouldn't take a chance.

[enki23]

40. that's absurd

the image george projected last night will be lasting. it can be overcome, surely, and cognitive dissonance is already doing its work. you can be sure it won't actually change many minds. but the image itself won't help him. this kind of "lowered expectation" isn't really such a good thing, at this point in the game. it wasn't "folksy" he projected. that wasn't a "plain-spoken man of the people." only the people who get their entire exposure straight from karen hughes and the like will buy that. people who didn't watch any of it. the image bush presented last night, to anyone who tuned in at all, was of a petulant, ill-prepared, nervous and stammering little man. and i mean little man.

bush's image took a damaging hit last night. and that image is what the entire bush campaign, with its prepared backdrops, tightly-controlled media access, and carefully screened audiences, relies on. image is everything. they know it, and they are on the record *saying it.* as karl rove would say, watch the debates with the sound off. what you see is what matters. *how* they talked, more than what they said, is what matters. that kerry defeated him with both style *and* substance is just a small bonus. style, in this case, is 90% of their grade.

the one thing bush has in his corner, however, is a much larger, better organized, and better *funded* spin machine. and they are spinning furiously. even then, the best they can do is try to play for a stalemate after the fact. they're spinning for a tie. that, in itself, is a small victory.

even though they'll likely win in the end, and rewrite history once again.

[progressivebydesign]

41. No.. absolutely NO ONE could have faked that..

Emphatically. NO.

[donco6]

42. Bush would NEVER purposely humiliate himself like that.

Way too proud.

[dubyaD40web]

45. The opposite is more likely. Kerry is finally coming off the ropes...

...after playing Rope-a-dope all through August (no advertising) and September. Kerry sat back and blocked and dodged a lot of swings at him not doing much in the way of fighting back (remember how just, oh, yesterday people were defeatest that Kerry wasn't on the attack). He let * unload all he had on him and show his weapons and tactics, waiting for the right moment while at the same time holding his own cards close to his chest (sorry for the mixed metaphor - but it's Friday and I've got beer on my mind).
Last night, the right moment arrived, Kerry came off the ropes and started taking it to *, who is tired, overconfident, arrogant, and completely unprepared.

I think it has been Kerry rope-a-doping * the whole time.

[bain_sidhe]

46. No, but don't forget, Bush is a vicious competitor

He doesn't like getting beat. And he will throw ALL of his not-inconsiderable cunning into preparing a few landmines for Kerry before and during the next debate. I'm one of those who doesn't buy the "bu**sh** is dumb" line. He's not dumb, he's intellectually lazy. But laziness is a CHOICE, and he most definitely chooses NOT to be lazy when it comes to saving his own hide, and he can be *extremely* cunning. Don't misunderestimate him.

[dubyaD40web]

47. Kerry is also a vicious competitor

...and vastly smarter than bush. Kerry has 20 years of Senate experience, so is difficult to fluster. He's studied the * team's tactics with Gore and others. There's not much that * can do that will surprise him. Looked to me like Kerry was having fun in the debate last night. He was comfortable, relaxed, and smiling through most of the evening. He was in his element. It was like last night, when they shook hands (bush reached out arms length, and Kerry stepped into him, standing close, looking down at him, almost fatherly - my wife said "Check it out, he's already in his face"), that is when the race began. Until then was all warm-ups.

I'm not saying we have it in the bag, and I'm definitely worried about them pulling Osama out of a spider hole in the next couple weeks, but more and more I'm becoming a believer that Kerry is a bear of a finisher, and * has never been in a "real" fight in his life. Given that, I know where I'm placing my bets.

[bain_sidhe]

53. No, Kerry is ruthless, not vicious

There's a difference. But, I agree with what you said. He doesn't get flustered, and I don't think bu**sh** will "win" the next debates either - but as in the 2000 selection, he may get close enough to steal it - or at least for his lackeys to spin it into a "win". There's no way they can do that with last night's debate, but we can't count on that the next time. I'm fairly certain that bu**sh** WILL be better, and better prepared, and that his press lackeys will call it for him AND portray it as a "roaring comeback." What I don't know is whether the American people will buy it this time. I suspect not. Although I'd be more sanguine about that if the lackeys HAD tried to spin this debate into a win. I think they didn't precisely because they knew it would absolutely destroy their credibility, and thus ruin any chance of spinning later debates.

[doni_georgia]

48. Rope a Dope? What they gonna do? Give * the dope a lasso? N/T

[sangh0]

49. Of course Rove uses a "rope a dope" ploy

How do you think they got bush* to go to the debate. They told him to look under the couch for WMD's, and when he bent over to look for them, Rove tied him up.

[freeplessinseattle]

50. no, * was obviously rattled

he's an accomplished liar but no actor.

[liberal N proud]

51. The dope (shrub) has already been roped n/t

[bringbackfdr]

52. They wanted a KO last night

While I don't think a poor Kerry performance last night would've doomed him, the Repukes would have had that much more grist for their media mill - the campaign is over, Kerry is cooked, let's move on to something else. Now they are scrambling because it is going to be awfully tough for them to make chicken salad out of Shrub's chickenshit performance on domestic issues.