Two Americas
Last night, I started the germ of a point that I want to elaborate on. It's one that Laura Ingraham's been hammering on, and one to which Hugh Hewitt puts a perfect coda in his blog.
I think there are two ways of reacting to these debates - call them "Two Americas".
One America is on the morning talk shows, and most of them thought Kerry won. That America took debate in high school, and admires things like polished prose and smooth delivery. They focused on trivia - Bush's occasional stammer, his facial expressions, that sort of thing.
Another America - one I live in - saw him articulate a baker's dozen positions on the war, on pre-emption, on homeland security. They saw him cut Allawi loose, and insult Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, South Korea and every other nation that has troops in Iraq. They saw him going wobbly on the war; they saw him rant about how he'd finish the job, and then contradict himself. If they were like me, they saw him put a relatively smooth face on equivocation.
Sitting at the Undisclosed Location last night, I noticed something interesting; the higher up the wonkery chain you went (John Hinderaker, John LaPlante, King Banaian), the more pessimistic they were. The farther down the scale of political erudition you went - and I count myself in that group - the more enthusiastic about Bush people seemed.
I'm involved in an email discussion group populated mostly by lefties - generally fairly vapid, koolaid-drinking fever-swamp dwellers at that. I wrote a message that stated "So what if Bush stammered a bit? Most of the audience know that they'd stammer, themselves, in front of a crowd." Three or four of the usual suspects responded, almost simultaneously, "The President isn't 'most people'". They missed the point; "most people" are the electorate. "Most people" can tell the difference between substance and a good show. "Most people" don't care how someone talks when they're standing at a lectern, unless they're unbearably incompetent or pedantic - and neither Kerry nor Bush were.
"Most people" care about substance - and Bush had it. So did Kerry, but it was self-contradictory.
Hewitt notes: "Gallup says viewers gave Kerry the win 53 to 37%. Heh. That's like saying the horse thief who sold rope to the posse was a good businessman. "
He gave Bush enough ammunition to float the rest of the campaign last night. And in early November, when the speakers' points totals in the "debate" are long forgotten, Kerry's competing positions will still be there.
And, in true Kerry form, he'll have multiple competing explanations for the contradictions. And the people will look at him as he tries to knit mismatched swatches together, and think "This guy wants to lead the free world?
After 12 hours of thinking about it, I'm calling it a tactical draw or even a very minor setback for Bush. Strategically? I think we'll look back and see it as a win.
Posted by Mitch at
October 1, 2004 10:35 AM
| TrackBack
I didn't watch the debate, and this morning I was glad I didn't because everything I heard on TV and radio chalked up a big win for Kerry. I got the transcript on line about half an hour ago and read it and in my opinion, on substance, Bush won in a walk. Bush's message never changed and I'm sure there were times he just wanted to ask Kerry straight up, "what the hell are you talking about?" I would have loved to see the President's face when Kerry spouted off about taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden. I thought we had him tied up in Karl Rove's basement?
Posted by: Terry at October 1, 2004 10:58 AMAs I quoteth last night on my blog, Kerry lectured. Bush talked. My kids thought Kerry "won" which worries me a bit, but they are too young to vote. However, there are stupider people than they who can :-(
Posted by: Wog at October 1, 2004 12:03 PMI listened to the debate while live-blogging and thought Bush sounded much more real and relaxed than Kerry. From the accounts of people who watched the debate, Bush didn't look and act as polished as Kerry. Well, what's new? I voted Bush as the winner, based on my listening to the debate. I'm looking forward to the next debate.
Posted by: Theresa K. at October 1, 2004 12:17 PMKerry did better style-wise than substance-wise. He'll pay for some of the comments he made and still remains incongruous, if not delusional, as a serious, viable statesman. The transcript is most revealing in this respect.
Posted by: Curtis O at October 1, 2004 01:14 PMFirst impression, reinforced by the punditocracy, was that Kerry was polished and smooth and managed to stay more consistent than usual for a whole 90 minutes.
Posted by: chris at October 1, 2004 02:37 PMBut if you ask anyone this morning what Kerry actually said, the only thing they'd remember is Global Test, Wrong War, and Mixed Messages.
Bush drives you nuts because there are a million pithy responses you'd like him to give. But that's his brilliance in debate. Ask anyone this morning what Bush said and they'll say We're Safer, We're Winning, We Are Resolved.
Ann Richards said Bush is impossible to debate because if you ask him Coke or Pepsi he'll still answer with his chosen message for the night.
MSM gives the win to Kerry. The polls will give the win to Bush.
Mitch,
I plead guilty to being (a) part of that America that took high school debate and (b) a member of the policy nerd community.
I also admit to having been pessimistic after last night. I thought Kerry put together some arguments that might stick with the person who was just tuning in to the campaign. ("Hey yeah, why did that guy get a tax cut when we aren't inspecting cargo?") When I later read some post-debate material from RocketMan and Jay Nordlinger, I took perverse satisfaction in having my pessimism confirmed. Kerry gained significant ground in presenting himself as a serious candidate, and gave people enough intellectual ammunition to make them wonder ... "Hmm. Maybe he's right."
Then again, I'm not a politician, or even much of a political analyst. I realize that my interests and semi-academic nature make me, as the nerds may put it, an outlier. May my political judgement of the debate be an outlier as well. A European president is not what this country needs.
Posted by: John LaPlante at October 1, 2004 02:51 PMKerry actually did better than you think, Mitch, because he moved the debate off of himself and back onto Bush. Last night's debate was all about Bush's failures--and Bush didn't defend himself well.
If this election is about John Kerry, then I think Kerry's in trouble. If it's about George W. Bush, Kerry wins easily. I don't know that that says good things about either candidate, but it's the truth. Kerry moved the sights back toward Bush last night--and that's more important than anything that was said. (By the way, Bush didn't look "relaxed"--he looked annoyed. And closed circuit to Terry: you cannot tell who won a presidential debate by looking at the transcript.)
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 1, 2004 03:10 PMClosed circuit to Jeff: Saying things like "Kerry wins easily" based on "who the debate is about" is obtuse.
The debate to most of us is about who is going to keep us from getting blown up. "Bush wins easily". It's about who isn't going to bog the economy down in more Democrat-style spending. "Bush wins easily", at least among those who are paying attention.
Posted by: Alison at October 1, 2004 03:22 PMMitch,
Posted by: Jo at October 1, 2004 07:29 PMI'm proud to be on the "lower part of the chain".
Anyone that sits down to READ the transcript can clearly see that Bush did well. On the other hand, Kerry said shameful things and made me even more frightened of the possiblity of his ever winning.
Jo
Huh. So if you think about it another 12 hours, will Bush have won the debate? And another 12 hours... maybe Kerry wasn't even there?
Are you sure you guys weren't drinking KoolAid instead of Summit?
Posted by: Chuck Olsen at October 1, 2004 10:02 PMsorry, I didn't read the whole thing nor the comments, but this makes me think of Joe Soucheray's 'Two Americas' .. um.. theory? bit? whatever, it sounds similar.
Posted by: lt at October 2, 2004 10:43 AMChuck:
"I'm not a liberal, so I'm not an expert at stuff I know thing about"
-- PJ O'Rourke
I get to *think* about things, don't I? The only way to absorb 90 minutes worth of stuff instantly after the debate is if you...already had your mind made up on every point?
Posted by: mitch at October 3, 2004 08:03 AMWow, I can't believe I scrolled back down here.
I have a question for Jeff, and don't think I'm being snarky or even arguing for that matter. Jeff doesn't think you can tell who won a debate by reading the transcript, and I'm wondering why not? Should they even bother printing the transcripts?
When I read the transcript I was able to find at least four statements Kery made that will make great commercials for the Bush campaign. In fact, I think they've already started running one on the "Global Test" nonsense (it's nonsense in my opinion, Jeff). I would think that a lot of people who were watching the debates, at least from what I heard the pundits saying after the debate, were concentrating on Kerry's style; ie did he come off as an overbearing stuffed shirt? Evidently he didn't, good for him, but that's enough to give him a win? On paper, he made mistakes, soundbytes that the RNC will use against him. In my opinion Bush didn't make those kind of mistakes. I think that's why Hugh Hewitt and others are crowing over a Bush win that most people didn't, don't or won't see. Until the commercials come out. That's called strategery.
But I could be wrong, I often am. Does parsing the transcripts do no good whatoever and is phyical appeal and the sound of a canidate's voice the only measure of a win? Or is it the political hay a canidate can make out of his opponents response. Or both?
Posted by: Terry at October 4, 2004 08:52 AM