There was one fact I couldn’t get out of my head throughout last night’s debate. The Bush campaign’s only real demand throughout pre-debate negotiations was that the national security debate come first. The debate commission had that slated third, but BC04 was adamant. It may turn out to be the single biggest mistake Karl Rove has ever made.
I understand the logic. The Bush camp saw a landscape in which their guy enjoyed a small lead, which they were anxious to build on. They also saw polls that showed the public favoring Bush’s approach to foreign affairs and national security. If this is the president’s greatest strength, the campaign figured, then a decisive win in the first debate would put Kerry at a disadvantage he’d likely never recover from.
That was the idea, anyway.
In reality, the strategy backfired. Badly. By insisting that foreign policy be the focus of the first debate, BC04 delivered Kerry a tremendous gift, which the challenger was all too willing to accept. No wonder KE04 went along with Bush’s demands for the first debate’s topic; it was a sucker’s bet.
Throughout the debate, Kerry was given a variety of opportunities to undermine Bush’s perceived strength as a war-time commander-in-chief. Kerry took advantage of all of these opportunities — he showed a commanding understanding of foreign policy, he effectively challenged Bush’s failed leadership, and he expanded the playing field by explaining why Bush’s tragic mistakes include Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.
Meanwhile, for the life of me, I have no idea what Bush’s strategy was for this debate. This was the set-up his campaign was desperate for, but the president gave no indication of preparedness.
Bush apparently thought playing the “flip-flop” card would be enough. It’s worked relatively well the last few months, he assumed, so why not make the debate about it, too? Bush talked endlessly about the horrors of “mixed messages” and “mixed signals,” but he articulated no defense of his foreign policies, no vision for the future, and no real understanding of ongoing threats. If the idea was to solidify his reputation as an effective head of state, Bush failed miserably.
Stylistically, Kerry helped himself enormously. He was calm, confident, and most of all, intelligent. He effectively criticized Bush’s record without being overly harsh. Kerry also had a few solid, memorable lines, which he delivered without making them sound forced:
* “It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.”
* “Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
It’s an annoying cliché at this point, but Kerry really did seem presidential. If viewers were expecting the media caricature of a weak, dissembling flip-flopper, they must have been pleasantly surprised by the assertive leader they saw on the stage last night.
Bush, meanwhile, seemed confused and irritable, especially as the debate wore on. In the beginning, Bush seemed on his game, delivering his talking points effectively and confidently. But the solid start quickly faded. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman said it perfectly: Bush was a candidate with “35 minutes of material for a 90-minute debate.”
Perhaps most embarrassingly, there were also a series of uncomfortable pauses, as if Bush had either forgotten the question, lost his train of thought, or both. It hardly instilled confidence.
Bush’s most memorable lines, intended to highlight his experience as president, were almost silly:
* “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.”
* “I know how [world leaders] think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.”
* “Of course we’re after Saddam Hussein — I mean bin Laden.”
Kerry kept challenging Bush’s policies, and Bush stayed on the defensive. BC04’s pre-debate planning probably intended the opposite. One got the impression that Bush simply wasn’t used to having anyone question him directly — which, as it turns out, is true.
While many have and will compare last night to the 2000 and 1992 debates, I largely agree, oddly enough, with conservative writer Andrew Sullivan’s analogy between this and the 1980 debate between Reagan and Carter.
“In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar.”
I think that’s absolutely true. In 1980, Carter’s campaign tried to convince the public that Reagan was incapable of being a world leader — his ideology was too extreme and his temperament was too coarse. Voters had soured on Carter’s policies, but the questions he had raised about Reagan had reinforced voters’ doubts. The debates, however, put many of those fears to rest.
Kerry did the exact same thing last night. It may very well propel him into the White House.