The day after
After a good night's sleep, I can admit that the debate wasn't exactly a knock-down drag-out affair. Kerry missed some opportunities (he forgot to hammer home the "Bush is out of touch with reality" meme). And he still has a go-on-the-defensive tic he should have more thoroghly suppressed.
Bush had a few delightful deer-in-the-headlights moments, but he usually managed to swerve back on to message before disaster struck.
Most of all, Kerry failed to land a knockout punch when he had Bush on the ropes. He didn't go in for the kill. He didn't seize on Bush's weak moments to rub his beady-eyed face in the mud. (Didn't he learn anything at Yale?)
How could he have done this? How about saying "How can you have a serious debate with a guy who just keeps repeating the same two sentences?" Taking it to the next level. Stating plainly that the emperor has no clothes.
Would it have worked? Maybe, maybe not. I think it would have been worth the risk. Bush was so unconfortable with even minor criticism, imagine full-on mockery.
Moreover, Bush's onlly high marks so far have been in "relentlessly hammering home his message" (i.e. however bad he is, Kerry changed his position and doesn't agree with the war so can't be voted for). But with a single sarcastic phrase, Kerry could have transformed "hammering" into "mindlessly repeating the same phrase", and its consequent "has nothing else to say for himself". This would utterly disarm Bush, who relies on his two or three stock phrases to get himself back on track when his mind goes blank.
Anyway, back in the real world, Bush has to hope that his endless repetition of the “inconsistent" and “sending bad messages” trope will win the day, but my feeling is that it has already run its course, and may backfire now. Whereas the press bought his “Gore is a liar” epithet, it is beginning to question the flip-flop assertion and is defending Kerry's right to criticize the war. More importnatly, where Gore essentially ceded the point, Kerry is flatly, succintly denying it. As a result, I can’t see anyone who isn’t already convinced getting convinced by it in the next six weeks.
I can, on the other hand, see people being convinced by Kerry, especially if he keeps up the attack.
In fact, I'd say the same applies to the race as a whole: the only kind of person who could watch last night's debate and conclude from it that Bush is somehow "stronger" or "firmer" is one who already holds that to be an a priori truth. Bush's performance was good enough for those who are already in his camp, but I cannot honestly imagine a truly undecided voter (as opposed to Republican stooges posing as undecideds) being won over by what was on display.
Bush had a few delightful deer-in-the-headlights moments, but he usually managed to swerve back on to message before disaster struck.
Most of all, Kerry failed to land a knockout punch when he had Bush on the ropes. He didn't go in for the kill. He didn't seize on Bush's weak moments to rub his beady-eyed face in the mud. (Didn't he learn anything at Yale?)
How could he have done this? How about saying "How can you have a serious debate with a guy who just keeps repeating the same two sentences?" Taking it to the next level. Stating plainly that the emperor has no clothes.
Would it have worked? Maybe, maybe not. I think it would have been worth the risk. Bush was so unconfortable with even minor criticism, imagine full-on mockery.
Moreover, Bush's onlly high marks so far have been in "relentlessly hammering home his message" (i.e. however bad he is, Kerry changed his position and doesn't agree with the war so can't be voted for). But with a single sarcastic phrase, Kerry could have transformed "hammering" into "mindlessly repeating the same phrase", and its consequent "has nothing else to say for himself". This would utterly disarm Bush, who relies on his two or three stock phrases to get himself back on track when his mind goes blank.
Anyway, back in the real world, Bush has to hope that his endless repetition of the “inconsistent" and “sending bad messages” trope will win the day, but my feeling is that it has already run its course, and may backfire now. Whereas the press bought his “Gore is a liar” epithet, it is beginning to question the flip-flop assertion and is defending Kerry's right to criticize the war. More importnatly, where Gore essentially ceded the point, Kerry is flatly, succintly denying it. As a result, I can’t see anyone who isn’t already convinced getting convinced by it in the next six weeks.
I can, on the other hand, see people being convinced by Kerry, especially if he keeps up the attack.
In fact, I'd say the same applies to the race as a whole: the only kind of person who could watch last night's debate and conclude from it that Bush is somehow "stronger" or "firmer" is one who already holds that to be an a priori truth. Bush's performance was good enough for those who are already in his camp, but I cannot honestly imagine a truly undecided voter (as opposed to Republican stooges posing as undecideds) being won over by what was on display.
posted by Benjamin Lessing at 3:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home