We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Need to win creates a reason to win for Bush.
By David Rogers
Monday, October 11, 2004
The New Editor
The debates so far have functioned like tourniquets in triage, stopping the bleeding for
whoever needs the bleeding stopped most badly. Friday night was no exception.
In the first debate, John Kerry, hemorrhaging credibility from the dual attacks of his fellow
Swift Boat Vets and the Bush campaign flip-flop charges, needed badly to look presidential
and sound like he knew the facts; while the president, without a clear goal, floundered. Bush
essentially tried to repeat his stump speech with interruptions for questions.
In the second debate, Cheney had these goals: beat John Kerry about the head and shoulders,
attack his record, drive up his negatives, and make John Edwards look like a junior-high
student council wannabee. As usual, Cheney succeeded. And Cheney needed to succeed,
since Bush’s floundering had opened a wound in the re-election campaign’s previously
impervious hide.
Cheney stopped the worst of the bleeding by being serious and well-informed on the war on
terror and Iraq, and managed to inflict two wounds on Kerry – the Massachusetts Senator
has been wrong on national defense for thirty years and he picked a not-ready for prime-time
Dan Quayle wannabee as his running mate.
Despite that, Bush was still bleeding going into the second debate. No one else could make
him look ready to lead, in command of the facts and the situation. He had to do that himself,
and he did.
So, how did the president do? Pretty darn well. He landed some hammer blows, particularly
on the $87 billion (again), wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, his enacted tax cuts for the
middle class, and Kerry’s goofy “global test.” Additionally, the President’s invocation of
Ronald Reagan and his stands in the Cold War that were unpopular with John Kerry’s Euro-
weenie intellectuals and his strong statement early that “9-11 changed it all” set up a stark
contrast with Kerry.
Kerry, amazingly, underlined the president’s strength by making the laughable claim that he
had never changed his position on Iraq. Kerry has changed with the wind, and the best spin
is not to deny this reality, but to claim that he responded to changing facts on the ground and
accuse the president of being inflexible. Kerry landed some blows in that regard in the first
debate, but this new strategy fails the giggle test. Additionally, Kerry’s “labels don’t matter”
claim reminded viewers immediately of similar claims from the man for who Kerry served as
Lieutenant Governor, Michael Dukakis.
Bush did drop the ball on occasion: he let Kerry invoke Reagan on international affairs
without saying “I knew Ronald Reagan. My dad served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice-President.
You, Senator, are no Ronald Reagan.”
On domestic issues, Bush hammered home his decision on stem cells in a completely
defensible way and nailed a clear position that no federal money will be spent on abortion,
while Kerry attempted to hide his position on both issues.
Kerry, it must be said, landed some blows of his own, but fewer, and less powerfully, than
the president. Kerry’s tax-cut plan was specific, and his claim to have scaled back some of
his spending plans in the face of the deficit was admirable, if not credible. And his claim to
have voted for tax cuts 600 times was a nice touch, picking up from Edwards’ defense in
the vice-presidential debate (one of Edwards’ only bright spots). Kerry’s "right war, right
place, right time" statement on Osama Bin Laden and Tora Bora was something that will
resonate with undecideds and the frightened. It is to Bush’s discredit that this claim went
unanswered.
Kerry undermined himself, however, when he claimed he would “get tough” on Iran, and
said sanctions were not enough, though he claimed sanctions were enough against Iraq.
Additionally, Kerry’s criticism of Bush for “unilateralism” in Iraq was undermined when
Kerry said Bush was not being unilateral enough against North Korea.
On domestic issues, Kerry’s attitude of “respect” towards pro-lifers with whom he disagrees
won points among voters who are not single-issue-pro-lifers. Additionally, he fuzzed up his
answer on federal funding for abortion and stem cells enough that he gave little offense on
the topic. On the Supreme Court question, Bush was clear, and even pandered to black
voters (Dred Scott was wrong), and Kerry clarified Bush even more, trying to paint him as a
far-right extremist. In addition, Kerry pandered on the right to abortion but otherwise fuzzed
up a question on judicial appointments which is a clear Democratic loser.
Overall, the president came through as someone who knows his own mind and is willing to
follow through to victory in a dangerous time. In contrast, he managed to paint Kerry as a
waffler whose faith in international systems, while nice, is naïve and dangerous. Kerry,
having no clear goal, wandered around the stage playing defense. He sounded smart but
unsure of himself. The president seemed less facile, but more certain. In wartime,
uncertainty is not the first characteristic voters will choose.
Unfortunately, the President’s best line “I own a timber mill? That’s news to me,” was, like
Dick Cheney’s best line “The first time I met you was when you walked onto this stage
tonight,” somewhat dubious. Nonetheless, his performance was not only enough to beat
expectations, it beat John Kerry.
The last big test is the Wednesday debate on domestic issues. Since domestic issues favor
Democrats (or so Chris Matthews and every other liberal has been telling us for years) and
because Kerry has an (undeserved) reputation as a “strong closer,” the expectations have to
be that Bush will lose. That situation, where the CW is that Bush has no chance, is exactly
the situation where the President excels.
David Rogers is a contributing editor for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers