Yes, here's yet another diary of unsolicited advice to the Kerry group on the upcoming debates. This is in no way meant as an indication that they need such advice. For the record, I think Kerry is by far the strongest and most qualified of the Democratic nominees. And I think he is a far more able politician and debater than our candidate of four years ago. But for my own peace of mind I am compelled to give advice, however unneeded, because I do not want to see the open enemy of the people of this planet reelected. Plus as we've all been told lately, "George W. Bush has never lost a debate." (Of course, he's never won one either, so I don't quite understand what the accomplishment is.)
1.K must not act like he personally needs this job or is in any way desperate for it. It's America that gains from his being elected, not John Kerry. He's doing this for the country, not for himself. (This conveyed through attitude, not verbally.) Remember the hapless Al Gore in the last debate? "I want to be your president." This said repeatedly, no less. I don't know what he expected to gain from this, but he couldn't have done worse if he had gotten on his knees and begged in front of the camera. K should act like Clinton (or Reagan): cool, calm, collected and simply offering himself to America as the best executive for the job. Take it or leave it.
2.Every so often there's what I call a low ball question. A question based on specious information or that is so completely irrelevant or so biased in what it implies that it should not have been asked. Sometimes they're asked because the questioner has an agenda (Russert in the H.R. Clinton/R. Lazio debate) or because the questioner is a moron and cannot tell a legitimate question from its opposite (Lehrer in the second Bush/Gore). There are at least two possible low ball questions that can be asked of Kerry (not counting flipflop which I'll get to).
"The Swift Boat veterans contend that on the date of __ when you earned your first medal..." I absolutely do not expect this to be asked. But on the outside outside chance that it is, "Well, thank you for that timely and relevant question." Then a laugh. Essentially this tells the questioner, "You're an ass and I know you're an ass." Then the shortest answer of the evening.
In the fewest words possible K should say that any questioning of how the US military gives out medals should be taken up with the US military. If probed for a response, K should simply repeat this and stand his ground. The controversy is between them and the US military. Period. The more time one gives to this type of garbage, the more one legitimizes it. K should not, repeat, not act morally indignant. All this accomplishes is that by investing emotion in it, people think there must be some truth to it. And it smacks as over defensiveness. Treat it as a minor joke and people will forget it. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by adressing this like it's a real question.
Another such question would be in regard to any anti Vietnam war activity. Again, this is yesterday's papers and is simply designed to put K on the defensive and make the American public think he did something wrong. As with all low ball questions, an extremely short, perfunctory answer. Literally five or six sentences. The more time spent on an answer, the more one legitimizes the question. (Any question on CBS documents should likewise not be dignified with a detailed or passionate response.)
3.It's now as famous as any ad copy of the past forty years so we can bet it will be asked. "You've been referred to as a flipflopper..." This is a non-issue. Everyone changes their mind from time to time, they just don't expect to be branded for it -- so the less time spent on it, the better. First, a laugh to show it's a joke and has not touched any nerve. Then, "Everyone changes their mind from time to time. It's an entirely normal thing. But there are worse things than changing one's mind. For example, making a decision that leads to the unnecessary deaths of over 1,000 American service men and women and over 12,000 Iraqi civilians." Then K should turn to Bush and not say another word. The topic has now gone from flipflop (non-issue) to deaths of 13,000 people (real issue). Bush will come back with jingoistic platitudes, but he will be squirming; he's just been rightly called a murderer.
4.Bush will probably use the standard cheap shot Republican one liner: "If Kerry had his way, we'd still have Saddam in power." The following possible response is a bit raw, but it is the truth. "The invasion of Iraq was a vanity production, a showcase for the ego of one George W. Bush. Yes, we got Saddam Hussein who had been entirely contained and neutralized for the past twelve years and presiding over a country that was crippled militarily and economically. But because of that invasion, we'll be facing one thousand bin Ladens over the next thirty years. Maybe Mr. Bush can tell America if he thinks it was really worth the ego gratification."
5.Bush will say he will keep America safe and vigorously fight the war on terrorism (the theme of his campaign). There is a simple way to totally embarrass him on this subject. K should go back to the summer of 2001 and methodically go through all the ways he would have acted on the warnings that were being expressed to the president by people like Tenet and Clarke. The public needs to be reminded that the events of that day did not happen out of thin air like an act of God. The warnings of something going down were expressed all through that summer and this administration ignored them. Hence 9/11. It is an outrage that this team runs as the best to protect America against attacks. It is a greater outrage that the Kerry team has as yet let them get away with this in light of documentation from the Clarke book and the 9/11 report.
6.Finally, there is one subject Bush brings up on any given topic whether it's terrorism, Iraq, the deficit, the economy, education, Social Security, etc, etc. It is relevant with regard to only one of those topics. The rest of the time it is employed as an emotionally charged smoke screen. We all know what that subject is. Somewhere around the middle of the debate, after about the twentieth mention of it, Bush needs to be calmly told to stop using 9/11 as an excuse for the failures of his administration.