....so spake John Kerry about midway through the first presidential debate last night. Go John.
I'm behind in my news reading, so I just came across this op-ed piece in the NYTimes by Al Gore.
Almost to the letter, Kerry used some of the same phraseology that Gore suggested. Kinda unsettling, or is that reassuring? I'm not sure which.
CLICK for some debate "highlights."
Anyway, here's the Gore piece and then just a quick few thoughts of mine about what I observed of the debate.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR: AL GOREPublished: September 29, 2004
This year, as usual, the dominance of attack advertisements on television has made it hard to get a clear picture of where the candidates stand. But the same media revolution that brought us the 30-second commercial also brought us televised presidential debates - and ever since the first of them 44 years ago, they have played a crucial role in shaping voters' opinions of the candidates.
America has long been devoted to the clash between opposing advocates as the best way to evaluate information. In this era of media clutter, it is all the more important for voters to have this moment of simple clarity when the candidates appear before them stripped of advisers, sound bites and media spin.
My advice to John Kerry is simple: be prepared for the toughest debates of your career. While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.
But more important than his record as a debater is Mr. Bush's record as a president. And therein lies the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure. And the debates represent a time to hold him to account. For the voters, these debates represent an opportunity to explore four relevant questions: Is America on the right course today, or are we off track? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what happened and who is responsible? How do we get back on the right path to a safer, more secure, more prosperous America? And, finally, who is best able to lead us to that path?
A clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. The reasons are obvious. The situation in Iraq is getting worse. Osama bin Laden is alive and plotting against us. About 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. Forty-five million Americans are living without health insurance. Medicare premiums are the highest they've ever been. Environmental protections have been eviscerated.
In the coming debates, Senator Kerry has an opportunity to show voters that today American troops and American taxpayers are shouldering a huge burden with no end in sight because Mr. Bush took us to war on false premises and with no plan to win the peace. Mr. Kerry has an opportunity to demonstrate the connection between job losses and Mr. Bush's colossal tax break for the wealthy. And he can remind voters that Mr. Bush has broken his pledge to expand access to health care.
Senator Kerry can also use these debates to speak directly to voters and lay out a hopeful vision for our future. If voters walk away from the debates with a better understanding of where our country is, how we got here and where each candidate will lead us if elected, then America will be the better for it. The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show'' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver.''
The debates aren't a time for rhetorical tricks. It's a time for an honest contest of ideas. Mr. Bush's unwillingness to admit any mistakes may score him style points. But it makes hiring him for four more years too dangerous a risk. Stubbornness is not strength; and Mr. Kerry must show voters that there is a distinction between the two.
If Mr. Bush is not willing to concede that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, can he be trusted to make the decisions necessary to change the situation? If he insists on continuing to pretend it is "mission accomplished," can he accomplish the mission? And if the Bush administration has been so thoroughly wrong on absolutely everything it predicted about Iraq, with the horrible consequences that have followed, should it be trusted with another four years?
The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."
Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000.
---------------------------
I watched the entire debate--and my 12 y.o. son did as well (for extra credit at school, natch).
Although it sometimes seemed less a debate and more a mud-slinging competition,
by the end Kerry had a chance to clarify his stance on several issues, not the least of which is that we need to re-establish a presence with North Korea before we get nuked.
Bush stayed on message, all right. My son and I were amused at how often he repeated his "stay the course"-type statements. No substance there what.so.ever., though he did have a couple of moments when he seemed to have memorized what he practiced for six months.*
As far as demeanour, Kerry must have worked very hard to relax because with just a few short exceptions, he looked and sounded sure of himself.
Bush OTH, often looked angry. He was on the defensive yes, but knowing how important "style" was in this, the most important debate (historically, audience viewing drops off for the next two), I was quite surprised.
*It was reported by several news sources that Bush studied for this debate for six months.
When it became clear that Kerry was to be the candidate, Bush's bulldogs obtained every scrap of info on Kerry's debating style, personal habits, etc.
They gleefully discovered that Kerry (under the hot lights) is a "sweater," so in pre-debate "negotiations," when Kerry asked that the room temperature be kept under 70 degrees (lights on-stage would have brought this up at least 10 degrees) the Bush camp said no. Kerry's team went with it as they had one goal in mind--to have three debates. And the Kerry camp won on that issue.
One of Bush's repeated mantras was "It is hard work." He said it several times and it made it sound as though this war is really inconvenient for him. "It's hard work" sending our young boys and girls off to war and "it's hard work" consoling the widows and mothers of the ones that don't make it home alive. Give me a break. A real president should be humble and tireless in the face of adversity.
Posted by: Jack | October 03, 2004 at 07:00 PM