Debating The Debate
By Vincent Fiore (10/06/04)
It will take a few days before we know if the first presidential debate in Florida will have any lasting effect on the race itself, but from my point of view, it won’t.
Senator Kerry acquitted himself well during the ninety minutes of thrust and parry that essentially comprised this debate. While winning on style and composure, he lacked on fact and the ability to inspire belief in regard to a Kerry presidency.
I disagree with the “spin alley” assessment that Senator Kerry came out of this debate looking “presidential.” It seemed to me that Kerry spent the majority of his time mouthing every attack line and negative that voters have been subjected to since the beginning of his campaign.
Kerry still cannot give solutions to problems or policy. He prescribes no remedy for what he says ails the country, which in his opinion, is principally President Bush. Kerry continues to maintain that, in essence, the solution to every policy impasse can be righted by simply changing “horses in midstream.” This is something that you hear from a raw and pure politician, as opposed to a statesman.
President Bush, meanwhile, seemed at times tired and disinterested. It was highly anticipated that Bush could seal Kerry’s fate on this night, especially since the debate opened on Bush’s preferred footing, foreign policy. Kerry had more attacks, which Bush had to defend against. In this, Bush could have been more factual and forceful, but instead stepped back more often than not.
While the president committed no outstanding gaff or glaring factual misstatements, he missed an opportunity to put Kerry away. The remaining two debates will now take on an added significance, as they are supposed to showcase Senator Kerry’s strong suit, domestic concerns.
While I was not overly concerned with the president’s occasional sluggish performance, I was concerned with his deference to continually taking the rhetorical high road.
PBS moderator Jim Lehrer’s assertion to Kerry “you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq,” Kerry responded with “Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then. And I try not to. I've been -- but I'll nevertheless tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people. And I'll tell you exactly how.”
Of course, this is not only a lie on Senator Kerry’s part, but in my opinion, part and parcel of how Kerry relies on the public having short memories and even shorter attention spans in regard to his history of saying nearly anything that is politically expedient.
At a John Kerry campaign event on 9/20/03 in Claremont, NH, Kerry said "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us.” Also in New Hampshire on 12/8/03, Kerry is quoted by the Boston Globe as saying that Bush “lied” about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. (www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2003/12/08/kerry_camp_lowers_nh_expectations/)
Kerry, and I will be generous here, misstated many “facts” during the debate. Here are just a few of the highlights:
-Kerry says that the New York City subway system was shut down during the Republican National Convention, due to the Bush administration not properly funding the Department of Homeland Security and vital infrastructure projects. This is false, as the subway system (MTA) was up and running the entire time, as were all New York City tunnels and bridges. Only Penn Station was shut down for a very short period of time.
(www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/29512.htm)
-Kerry states that, specifically, the war in Iraq has cost some 200 billion dollars to date. This is false. Though the Congress has budgeted 200 billion in war spending, only 120 billion of it has gone directly for the Iraq war. The rest is for the war in Afghanistan, and economic and reconstruction aid for both countries.
(www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005689)
-Kerry accuses Bush of “diverting forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.” This is false; says retired General Tommy Franks--“That’s absolutely incorrect.”
(www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=44763)
These are just a few of Senator Kerry’s rhetorical flourishes meant to shock and awe the undecided voter watching last night. If people only paid attention to how something is said and not what is being said, I would say Senator Kerry scored a TKO in the first debate.
But the facts kept getting in the way, and they will become even more obvious as the first blush of the debate wears off.
If Kerry were more factually pronounced in his attacks against Bush--and then had offered solutions--he would have won this debate hands down. Since he did not, and Bush countered effectively by simply staying on message and using Kerry’s own words against him, this debate was primarily a ninety-minute campaign speech from the point of view of each candidate, the only difference being a moderator was there to tell them when to start and stop.
For all the buildup before the debate, it truly turned out to be a referendum of sorts.
Kerry’s despondent base expected him to come out swinging as much as Bush’s base expected him to stay on message. In 2000, Al Gore was perceived as the winner of the first debate, his at times bullish sighs notwithstanding. About two days later, the media stubbornly cut down Gore on points for style, but held on to the fact that Gore was…more factual.
I do not expect that to happen here, as this would spoil the “here comes Kerry” happy dance that the media will engage in till the next debate.
By staying alive to debate another day, Kerry will be perceived to have won this round, and for that alone, I will cede it to him, but just ever so barely. Stay tuned for round two.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
