TheAgitator.com
Debate Prologue
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004So it looks like this whole democracy thing is going to interrupt my viewing of The Apprentice tomorrow night. Pshaw. Primetime’s paean to capitalism gets bumped so we can watch pompous posturing (Kerry) and bumbling self-righteousness (Bush). Once again, political society elbows civil society to the back.
My take on the debate: I think Kerry’s dead on arrival. I’ll have more on why Kerry lost my vote (I’m not voting at all) as we get closer to the election. But as for the debates, the deck’s stacked against him. Bush’s biggest weakness is that he comes off as a dunce. But America’s already been exposed to that. Lots. Tomorrow night will be the first time much of the country sees Kerry up close, and for an extended period of time. That can only hurt him.
Think back to 2000. Gore mopped the floor with Bush on policy. He had a far better grasp of the issues, was far more articulate, and presented a far clearer vision (I thought that back in 2000 — and I voted for Bush). Problem was, Gore was an asshole. As one analysis I read put it, Bush came off as the affable kid who never came to class prepared, but was likeable, and cut jokes at the back of the room. Gore came off as the kid who reminded the teacher that she forgot to collect the homework.
Voters still open to being swayed by the debates aren’t as interested in policy as they are in personality. It’s all about the “guy you’d rather have a beer with.” That pans out once you go back over the last few elections: Bush over Gore. Clinton over Dole and Bush Sr. Reagan over Mondale and Carter.
And let’s face it. Kerry’s a schmuck. Or at least he comes off as one. If Gore was the kid who reminded the teacher to collect the homework, Kerry’s the prep school trust-funder who drives a Beamer and ties a pastel Izod across his shoulders. If swing state demographics resembled Greenwich, Connecticut, he’d be golden.
I can see only one scenario where Kerry betters himself tomorrow night, and that’s if he somehow goads Bush into saying something the Kerry camp can conslusively prove is false, and for which they have a post-game assault alread prepared. If Kerry’s staff’s post-debate message can convincingly be “Bush Lied!” instead of “No! Seriously! Our Guy Isn’t a Dick!” well, then maybe he can climb a few points in the polls. But that would require a significant Bush gaffe (certainly possible), and some competence from the Kerry campaign (no signs so far that that’s possible).
My guess: A repeat of 2000. Kerry wins on points, and would win convincely were the debate on paper. But the polls stay the same, or Bush’s lead goes from 6-8 points to 8-10.
The map looks as like Kerry’s still nip and tuck in the electoral college. But I think the remainder of the campaign plays to Bush’s strengths — or, rather, Kerry’s weaknesses.
Voters still upen to being swayed by the debates I think aren’t as interested in policy as they are in personality. It’s all about the “guy you’d rather have a beer with” factor.
As Jon Stewart said, as President, I want the designated driver.
The Apprentice was on tonight. Get a TiVo.
Voters still upen to being swayed by the debates I think aren’t as interested in policy as they are in personality. It’s all about the “guy you’d rather have a beer with” factor.
This is the saddest truth.
Which means voting would put you in league with this most idiotic of majorities.
Well… at least voting with the BigTwo anyhow.
I’ll be voting Badnarik as a visible protest that reflects my principles. He won’t win so I can’t be too tied up about the morality of it.
You don’t seem to find voting morally questionable, so why won’t you vote Libertarian Party, Rad?
“Gore mopped the floor with Bush on policy. He had a far better grasp of the issues, was far more articulate, and presented a far clearer vision.”
It’s a freaking shame that reason gets trumped by who’d you like to have a beer with. I don’t disagree with your analysis, but it’s a pathetic and dangerous state of affairs. I mean, I know people and superficially charming and intellectually vacuous as Bush, and they’re generally fun to hang out with, but by God, I’m not ever putting them in charge of something important.
Another Kerry strategy as a result is a “serious President for serious times” spin. He’ll have to define flip-flops as an ability to handle complexity anyway, so go all the way with it. Complex vs. simple. Serious vs. glib. Intelligent vs. My Pet Goat.
If seriousness is a negative discriminant, we might as well just give up on the pretense of politics and make the whole damn thing a beauty pageant.
Yeah, they put the Apprentice on last night.
“I can see only one scenario where Kerry betters himself tomorrow night, and that’s if he somehow goads Bush into saying something the Kerry camp can conslusively prove is false, and for which they have a post-game assault alread prepared. If Kerry’s staff’s post-debate message can convincingly be “Bush Lied!” instead of “No! Seriously! Our Guy Isn’t a Dick!” well, then maybe he can climb a few points in the polls. But that would require a significant Bush gaffe (certainly possible), and some competence from the Kerry campaign (no signs so far that that’s possible).”
First off, I doubt it will be very easy for Kerry to “goad” Bush into anything. These two have set this thing up to go as scripted as possible; they have both agreed to the format, which is an initial answer, followed by a 90-second rebuttal from the other guy. The kicker is that they can’t ask each other questions. What is wrong with Kerry? Why would he agree to that? If he could get into an impromptu, unscripted dialogue with Dub, it wouldn’t take much to make him look not like the “affable kid who never came to class prepared”, but instead, like the idiot who couldn’t answer the simplest questions, and got laughed out of the room.
Plus, this makes me not want to watch it. I would have tuned in for the entertainment value of unscripted dialogue vollying, but this, well, something tells me that Bush and Kerry are in a room somewhere rehearsing this together as we speak.
As for a possible Bush gaffe, would it really matter? His entire presidency, every word he speaks, every thing he does, is one big Gaffe with a capital “G”. And he still holds a sizeable lead over Mr. Izod Sweater.
David Cross hit the nail on the head. What’s left for him to do? George Bush could bite the head off of a little jewish baby on national television, and it still wouldn’t matter. “Mmmm, that’s gooood jew baby!”
Michael:
Yeah, by this whole line of “who would I like to have a beer with” thought, why the fuck doesn’t the idiot electorate just elect Larry the Cable Guy as leader of the free world?
“Mr. President, North Korea has armed its nuclear ICBM’s. What do you want to do?”
“GIT UR DUN!”
It seems like that’s what this f’ing country wants, so why not just stop beating around the Bush and go all the way?
BTW, Radley, this typekey thing most assuredly blows. You can’t stay logged in for more than 10 second. And you never know if you’re truly logged in, so, sometimes it posts your message, and sometimes, for whatever reason, even if you JUST logged in, it gives you the “thank you for commenting” page. Pain in de balls.
If we are voting for the best guy to have a beer with, I have this friend that I went to high school with who would mop the floor with Bush…and probably make a better president too.
I’m just relieved that Radley’s not voting for Kerry, not because I want one less vote for Kerry (since I am pro-Bush), but because I don’t know if I could have respected him the same after. Kerry IS a shmo, and I can’t believe hard-working self-respecting Americans think THIS guy represents their beliefs and values. Gimme a freaggin break.
Evan,
I, too, gave up on the gatekeeper for the comments section. Now, if I have something to post I just post it, and wait for it to be approved. I’m in no hurry for the world to see my finely crafted and extremely witty prose!
Radley,
I’m pretty sure that in most states you don’t have to vote for President when you go vote; just leave that line untouched. Things may be different in the District, as there’s not a lot its citizens have any control over, but if there are any local issues they probably deserve your consideration…
Ms. Dani,
Kerry is a schmo, granted. But if you want to play the loss of respect game, the loss you feel for those voting for Kerry pails in comparison for the loss of respect I have for all those who still support Bush. He’s either a liar or an idiot – and no matter which it is, he’s dangerous to the safty of the country.
I’ll add, I am someone who strongly supported Bush in the begining of his administration. He wants to be judged on the war, however, and anyone who thinks he should be relected after the way his administration has handled this war is nothing more than a blind partisan.
Luckly, I live in a non-battleground state, so I have no problem voting libertarian (not that I would really mind anyway).
A few questions though, and this is open to any Bush supporter, name one thing that you think Kerry might do that is anywhere near as dangerous as Bush’s war or post-911 reaction (Patriot Act, et. al.)? I hear vague allusions to “leadership” but do you really think terrorist are more likely to attack with Kerry? Do you really think the damage that might be done by repealing portions of the tax cuts is as significant as the damage done by the war in Iraq? What is it specifically that makes Kerry worse than Bush?
boy, that had a lot of misspelled words. sorry – typing too quickly I guess.
Westy, I do not disrespect everyone who votes for Kerry. I would only lose some of the respect I have for Radley knowing some of his beliefs through his writings. He would be compromising (tentatively) whereas someone who believes in what Kerry believes and thus votes for him would not be compromising. Therefore, I would not lose respect for them. At least, that’s what I was thinking when I posted that comment.
“Kerry IS a shmo, and I can’t believe hard-working self-respecting Americans think THIS guy represents their beliefs and values.”
Kerry’s “schmo-ness” really shouldn’t be an issue. Yes, he’s a pedantic aloof bore. He’s got a brain in his head and he uses it. It’s scary when this disqualifies you from being President.
As for Bush representing the beliefs and values of “hard-working” Americans – all hat, no cattle. He’s got that folksy rancher charm down, sure, but if Bush is the personification of the American work ethic, all y’all are screwed.
I think it’s pretty clear right now…perhaps more than ever…we most vote with our conviction, not convention. I have decided to vote for the one person whose views are most like my own. I refuse (this year) to vote for the other one. We must empower ourselves by voting for the individual most deserving, not for the guy who’s not dubya, or not izod. The only person I see in this election who cares about my freedom and liberty is Michael Badnarik.
Michael,
It is probably phsysiological fact that Kerry has a brain. That he uses it is quite questionable. I haven’t seen any well thought out plans for anything. Just generalities. “We should bring our allies in to help rebuild Iraq.” Okay…”We should cure cancer within the next two years.” Great, how in the hell do we get there? Kerry is every bit all hat and no cattle when it comes to his positions, but his pretentiousnessmakes him more believable.
My personal opinion- niether one of these clowns should have risen above middle management.
The Burden of Watching Debates
I’d recommend heading over to The Agitator for the ‘Debate Prologue.’ Good stuff. I’ll have to agree with Balko, and
“I haven’t seen any well thought out plans for anything. Just generalities.”
Specific plans on both sides are slim as hell. I would argue that if Kerry speaks in vague generalities, Bush speaks in optimistic platitudes that are increasingly discordant with reality. Both aren’t particularly helpful.
It would be nice to see either speak more precisely to the issues, but in this age of talking points, avenues for such discussion are almost non-existent.
The extraordinarily high relevance placed on talking points are arguably the single most pernicious attack on reason.
Tufte outlines this quite well in his rant on the evils of Power Point, summarized quite well in this Wired article here and, in beautiful irony …in this Powerpoint presentation.
The reduction of complexity to authoritatively stated take-away points is good marketing but horrible thinking.
Bush’s campaign may be many things, but I’ll give credit where due – they’re great marketers. Bush’s consistency and ability to stay “on message” even in the face of contrary truth somehow becomes a plus.
Consistency is strength. Ignorance is strength. It does not necessarily mean that consistency is thus ignorance, but in this case, I’m not at all convinced it isn’t.
So, screw the debates.
If anything, sit them down for an exam. Invite Nader, Badarnik and even Petrouka in for the fun, why not. Your question: Given generality X, please describe how you would frame the problem, what consituents shape and are influenced by said problem, what solution you’d propose to remedy this problem, and a SWOT analysis of this solution. You have 90 minutes. Ready? Go.
Horrible television, sure, but way more useful than the crap we’ll see in about three hours.
Radley, I enjoy reading your political columns and your effort in challenging the ideologues, hypocrites, and panderers on both the left and the right. But with your libertarian leanings, I cannot understand why you are not endorsing the Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik has no chance in hell of winning, but every vote cast for a Libertarian is an unambiguous vote against either of the two major parties. Our only hope is for whoever wins the election (be it Bush or Kerry) to do so with the smallest proportion of the popular vote.
It seems as though we should focus on the issues. Do you support the costitution some other agenda? After having fallen into the lesser of two evils and a little soul searching I’ve come to the conclusion that it does not matter who U vote for Bush or Kerry if you do not want to uphold the Values found in the constitution. Does it not appear that Kerry was elected by the democrats to get Bush back in office? The only people that I can hoenstly vote for to represent me are found in the Libertarian Party. Every other option seems to have no merit. We should all get behind the education program of the Libertarian movement to better prepare ourselves and others to return to a dDemocratic Republic that follows the Constution rather the judical precidence.
You gotta give the Dubya man props for chiding the Kerrster for going to Yale. Reminded me of Bart Simpson chanting to Lisa – “Your going to Stanford”.
Kerry Beats the Commander-in-Chief in Round One
Senator Kerry blew into Coral Gables and all President Bush could do was hang on to a tree and recite some mantra over and over again hoping he could hold on for ninety minutes. In many ways, Bush was no…
Radley this is a post debate post. As you well know from my previous posts I am a Bush supporter but I refuse to “spin” on anyones behalf. Kerry nailed Bush last night and a lot harder that anyone could have foreseen. I don`t think that he got him on substance as much as he did him in on style. I am still a Bush supporter but my man now has his job cut out between now and the election if he hopes to win. I would anticipate W falling in the polls after this debate and Kerry gaining, the only thing Bush has going right now is the fact that this was the first debate and not the last.
One comment: its’ Beemer, not Beamer otherwise, spot on. Frankly, if the election were purely a popularity contest, Bush’d win hands down. Also, Teresa flat-out scares me. Oh wait, that’s three comments…