National Journal’s Chuck Todd, in setting the stage for tonight’s debate, captured the significance perfectly.
As clichéd as it sounds, this is the first debate in the most important election of our lifetimes on the most important issues of the day (Iraq and terrorism) in the most important battleground state (Florida).
Overdramatic? Actually, no. Tonight’s debate is getting a lot of hype, and for a change, it’s warranted.
On the other hand, there are so many pre-debate items out there — with questions that should be asked, zingers that could be offered, issues that must be addressed, qualities that may be displayed, primers and previews of what to expect — that even I’m finding it overwhelming. And I’m the type who lives for this stuff.
With this in mind, I won’t bother with a list of things I’d like to see happen tonight. I will, however, make note of a couple of articles that I enjoyed and that raise worthwhile points.
First, Josh Benson had a suggestion in The New Republic that I’ve been thinking about for a while.
[T]he rules forbid Kerry from asking Bush any direct questions, a prohibition that constrains Kerry’s options and makes a mockery of our civic process precisely when open debate matters most.
But Kerry does have an amazingly simple way out of the predicament imposed by this last rule: He can ignore it. Americans have a right to ask tough questions of their president. So does the Democratic nominee.
Damn straight. My favorite moments of the third debate from the 2000 race came when Gore ignored the ridiculous rules and starting challenging Bush directly. Bush looked rattled and helpless, looking to Jim Lehrer to save him from having to deal with a substantive question during a presidential debate.
At one point, Bush was so exasperated by Gore’s audacity to ask about his positions on issues, he whined, “[T]here are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don’t mean anything.” He sounded like a frustrated child.
Gore put Bush on the defensive with direct questions. Kerry can, and hopefully will, do the same thing.
Would breaking the rules backfire on Kerry? I doubt it. Imagine that toward the end of a response, Kerry turns to Bush and says: “Mr. President, Iraq is on the verge of civil war. Entire towns are under the control of terrorists. A thousand American soldiers are dead. Yet you say peace and freedom are on the march. How do you explain this?” Bush would be put instantly on the defensive, and any answer he gives would be filtered through Kerry’s question — not whatever softball Lehrer subsequently lobs in. If Bush completely ignores Kerry’s query, it would only solidify the idea that Bush is ducking reality. If either Bush or the moderator challenges Kerry for breaking the rules, a handy line would turn the tables right back: “This isn’t about rules,” Kerry could say. “It’s about the right of our soldiers’ families to have answers.” Kerry becomes the candidate prioritizing patriotism and honesty; Bush becomes the one hiding behind legalese.
I think this is absolutely right. Does the typical voter care about which candidate better adheres to a silly campaign “understanding” about the mechanics of a presidential debate? If Kerry asks a legitimate question that deserves an answer, Bush’s “He’s breaking the rules!” defense probably won’t go over well.
The other point I wanted to mention is something you’ve probably already heard about, but it can’t be emphasized enough: what happens in the 90 minutes during the debate isn’t nearly as important as the two or three days after it.
Four years ago, Gore destroyed Bush in the first debate. It wasn’t even close. Slate’s Jacob Weisberg called it the “Boston Massacre” and accurately noted, “I don’t think Bush won a single exchange all evening.” Then Bush’s spin team kicked things up a notch, talked endlessly about Gore’s audible “sighs,” and everyone forgot about the fact that Bush was utterly humiliated on the stage.
Rob Garver noted in The American Prospect this week that the media will drive the results far more than the candidates will.
By preemptively declaring the debates to be meaningless political theater, the television news networks are giving themselves permission to cover them not as a battle of ideas but as a spectacle.
Ditto in the print media. Writing for The Washington Post on Tuesday, media critic Howard Kurtz derided the debates as “structured parallel press conferences.” (“Not that I want to give up a chance to go to Miami,” he added.) Clearly, if he has already decided that the whole thing is pointless, Kurtz isn’t headed for Florida to assess the candidates’ positions on the issues. He must be looking for something else.
Here’s a guess: Cafferty, Kurtz, and company will be watching Thursday night’s exchange hoping that John Kerry displays some annoying personality tic or that George W. Bush makes one of his more egregious malapropisms, either of which they will replay as a laugh line for the next five weeks, all the while bemoaning the lack of substance in the candidates’ discussion.
As much as I hope this doesn’t happen, I know all-too-well that it will.
But don’t let all of that spoil tonight’s fun. As high-drama political theater goes, this is about as good as it gets. To force this into a football analogy, I’m predicting Kerry wins, 28 to 20 — a solid win, but not a blow out.