A Great Closer
It seems that lately everyone (myself included) has been playing armchair quarterback with the Presidential campaigns. It’s pretty easy for us to glance at the headlines and complain “Why isn’t he talking about _____?” After re-reading the post I did this morning and glancing at the debate schedule, I’m starting to think that Kerry’s masterplan might be a brilliant bit of rope-a-dope.
As it stands right now, the Kerry campaign is focused on domestic issues while the Bush campaign is focused on trying to scare us. If this continues for the next two weeks and a day going into the first debate, we’ll have a pretty clear dichotomy here : Kerry’s the economy / healthcare guy and Bush is the terror / national security guy. If that holds true, we can expect a pretty strong performance from Kerry in the debate focused on domestic policy. “Fine,” you might say, “but what does that matter in an election in which the war on terrorism is the most important issue?”
Well that takes us to the third (or second, if Bush gets his way) debate on October 13th. The focus of the third debate is national security and foreign policy. Ask any random person on the street about Kerry’s position on Iraq, the only thing they’ll be able to tell you is about $87 billion and a war authorization. As far as the rest, the Bush campaign has gone to great lengths to make people think that Kerry’s plan for Iraq is identical to Bush’s. Considering how negative and uninformed the perception of Kerry’s position is, he’ll have nowhere to go but up.
This is especially true when you look around and see just how little people know about the Iraq war and its planning. The current fog of war will provide Kerry a perfect opportunity to use his 45 minutes to educate voters about the harsh realities of Iraq and why they’re all the fault of George Bush. The Fallujah flip-flop, the growing insurgency, the inadequate planning, prison abuse, and Bush’s unreasonable loyalty to the men responsible for the mess we’re in will all be brought up. The dots are pretty easy to connect when you can see them all at the same time.
And how will Bush counter this? By trotting out the line about “the world being safer” without Saddam? C’mon. With all the lip service Bush and co. like to give about cutting off sources of terrorist funding (like Islamic charities), the biggest threat we now face is the strong possibility that the instability in Iraq will lead to a terrorist-friendly, Islamic fundamentalist state that controls one of the largest oil reserves on Earth. This wouldn’t be the case if we had given the weapons inspectors enough time to conclude that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. Or if Bush had planned for enough troops and resources leading up to the war. Bush promised this war would be cheap and quick, but it’s turned out to be an untenable clusterfuck with no way out.
So I’m optimistic that the debates will reveal Bush for the charlatan that he is. He’s spent four years doing everything he can to avoid the media, but for three (or two) nights over the next month, he’s got to face harsh questions about his performance. He doesn’t really have a leg to stand on (I doubt that “throwing out the first pitch” bullshit will work in a debate question about 9/11). If Kerry exceeds expectations and really hits Bush hard on the 13th, he’ll likely convince voters that he’s worth trusting on national security. Like with the 1980 election, many have already decided they don’t like the current guy, they just want to be convinced that the other guy would do better.
If Kerry is downplaying Iraq and national security for now, let’s try to not freak out so much. In the face of disappointing poll numbers, the one important thing to remember is that we’re still 48 days away from the only poll that counts.
7 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
that’s all good and well, except that most of this country will not be watching the debates because they think politics are boring.
Comment by tom — September 15, 2004 @ 12:25 pm
It is very optimistic of you to think that Kerry has a brilliant masterplan that requires him to intentionally lag in the polls. That is some Perot logic right there. I’m starting to get really disappointed and upset here by what is going on here, and I think we all should. It’s easy and completely justified to play armchair quarterback because Kerry’s campaign has been run so poorly so far, and the debates are probably not going to change that. All Bush has to do is parrot what’s he’s told (which he’ll do) and then he’ll glide through and win this election.
Comment by Kyle — September 15, 2004 @ 2:06 pm
I think it’s just as pessimistic to take that position, Kyle, as it is optimistic of Greg to take his. He’s got a good point: Bush is hopelessly outmatched as a debater, and if Kerry actually delivers the assault that brainless fratboy deserves, he’ll come out of the debates looking a lot better.
Comment by Brianotron — September 15, 2004 @ 2:15 pm
Now I didn’t say his plan included lagging in the polls.
I’m starting to think it’s a good idea for Kerry to bolster his standing on domestic issues in the lead up to the first debate (which will be focused on them). The fact is, right now the public and the media aren’t paying attention to the harsh realities in Iraq. If Kerry was the lone voice of dissent right now, he’d look out of touch. Better to save his voice for when he knows people are listening.
Well, fuck it then. Let’s just give up and hope Bush doesn’t have us all arrested for treason.
Seriously though, I agree with you somewhat, but it’s important to remember that watching the debates directly is only one way the information gets to the voters. Word of mouth, the coverage by the media, and the conventional wisdom about both candidates will be shaped largely by debates. Just because they aren’t TIVO-ing it doesn’t mean the public gonna be completely ignorant of what’s happening.
Comment by greg — September 15, 2004 @ 2:53 pm
What did everyone expect Kerry to do? The Democrats chose the man they thought Republicans would be most likely to vote for/have the hardest time attacking. That this approach might backfire when said canidate is revealed as a poltical wimp and/or incompetent, I don’t think should be surprising. The Democrats picked their poison; in this case, they picked a military hero of middling campaign ability over a rabble-rouser who was very attackable (Dean), a slightly fascist General (Clark), a trial lawyer (Edwards), and a host of improbabilities (LaRouche, Leiberman, Kucinich, et al). Now we’re stuck with a guy who thinks he can beat Bush by running to his right on national security. It’s no wonder the progressives in this country turned to 527s early on, recognizing that the canidate not only would need a lot of help, but would practically need his campaign run for him by others.
However. Everyone is gonna watch those debates, if they happen at all. The main thing to do is to counterspin them. The media will frame the next-day reporting in a way hostile to Kerry, as they think they must to maintain “balance.” The left has to spin it the opposite way if Kerry is gonna come out okay. Unless he totally creams Bush, in which case we can spend our time waiting for the “October Surprise.”
Comment by Joe — September 15, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
Bush debated Ann Richards and Al Gore then won both those elections. And Ann Richards is charismatic as hell. The simple truth is that Bush does not have to stick his neck out during the debates and his team knows that, so he will just play it safe and read the script. It’s Kerry’s job to risk something in the debates, and I can already see the spin of “desperate candidate” that the Repubs will put out there immediately after (and that Kerry’s campaign will, no doubt, haplessly rebut a week later).
Comment by Kyle — September 15, 2004 @ 6:35 pm
As a number of people have pointed out, Bush wins debates by a very simple strategy of appealing to the moron angle, aka, “Gosh, this smarty-pants here thinks he/she is such a smarty-pants and I know I beat up nerds in high school, don’t you hate nerds?” All Kerry has to do is play rope-a-dope to defeat that strategy–Greg is right. Instead of trying to show off smarts (Gore) or charisma (Richards), he needs to say pointed things that draw Bush out. Once he’s out he’s bound to start fucking up/losing his temper.
If Kerry really wants to play mean, he needs to see if he can tempt Bush to lose his temper. He’s laying the groundwork now by have the DNC run ads that call Bush a spoiled brat and by calling him a liar.
Comment by Amanda — September 16, 2004 @ 8:00 am