Style versus substance
George W. Bush, ahead in the polls, could get by in the first debate just by not losing. John Kerry had to change the momentum of the campaign. Bush had the advantage in that virtually all of his supporters agree with him on terrorism, while 1 of every 3 Kerry voters disagrees with him. How far did each succeed? If Bush won on substance, Kerry prevailed on style. That's why many TV viewers thought Kerry won, while many radio listeners thought Bush won. The visuals, the drama, the body language seemed to help Kerry more than they helped Bush. The cutaway shots to Bush especially were not helpful because he looked irritated. Kerry was direct, articulate, lucid, and forceful, demonstrating a command of the facts and even adding fresh elements to the debate, such as nuclear proliferation. He passed the gravitas test all challengers must to be credible as president.
President Bush came through best when he passionately reiterated his moral clarity and commitment to persevering in his war on terrorism in Iraq until victory--a point that resonates with the American public. By contrast, Kerry has two tough hurdles. One is reconciling his past statements with his present position. The other is his present position. He deserved the crack that he has "57 varieties on Iraq," because since 9/11 he has said virtually the opposite of everything he proposed in the debate, be it on Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or America's response to terrorism. But the nature of TV is that it is in the moment, so viewers without total recall missed the senator's many zigzag contradictions--what Bush calls "mixed messages," aka flip-flopping.
Looking to Churchill. Kerry says Bush dangerously diverted troops from Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq, but Americans increasingly see Iraq and Saddam as part of the global war on terrorism. Kerry would focus everything on al Qaeda and its networks. Bush more credibly sees rogue states as sponsors of terrorism to be confronted. Add barbaric beheadings of civilians to suicide bombers, and how could Americans not associate Iraq with terrorism when such monstrous acts are daily fare there?
Kerry is in danger of giving the killers a feeling we are not committed to do what it takes to win. He says he will kill them, but suggesting a timetable for bringing troops home--when more allies join in--is an incentive to terrorists for it implies that they can outlast us, that we are losing. Then Kerry says, "We must make Iraq the world's responsibility." But if it is an American quagmire or, as Kerry puts it, "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," why should anybody else want to get stuck in it? If Americans, in effect, have died in vain in Iraq, why would the French and the Germans have their soldiers die that way, too? Why on earth does he think our allies will shoulder this burden when they are falling short even in Afghanistan, a war they supported from the start--and when French and German spokesmen have made it clear they will not be sending troops to Iraq "now or ever" ?
advertisement
