Rove's Debate Tactics

by Chris Bowers, Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:54:29 AM EDT

From The Note:MIAMI, WE HAVE A PROBLEM: A senior Republican official tells ABC News' Jonathan Karl that the first presidential debate, scheduled for Thursday in Miami, could be canceled unless there is a breakthrough soon in negotiations between the two campaigns and the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The only remaining sticking point, Karl reports, is the reluctance of the Commission on Presidential Debates to sign the agreement negotiated by the Bush and Kerry campaigns.

The commission and the campaigns have been negotiating a side letter the commission (and moderators) would sign instead of the agreement, but the Bush campaign finds the current draft of the letter too weakly worded.

This "strategy" could potentially be an attempt to reduce the number of debates on the part of the Bush campaign. This is certainly a possibility, since it makes sense for an incumbent to have as few debates as possible. The less exposure the challenger receives, especially exposure that puts the challenger on equal footing with the incumbent, the better things are for the incumbent's campaign. Further, with the bar set so ridiculously low for Kerry, in no small part because of the Bush campaign's attacks, Rove might know Bush is in trouble going into the debates.

However, what I really think is going on here is an attempt by the Bush campaign to shift the post-debate focus away from the content of debate itself and toward a "Biased Debate Commission" storyline. This would especially be the case if things do not go well in the debate for Bush, and would be very similar to what happened with the CBS memo story. The Republican post-debate spin could center on how the commission and the moderators, who refused to sign the agreement, did not abide to the agreement and were unfair to Bush during the debate (a couple of lame examples will be offered up and hammered over and over again by the VRWC). It is an attempt to make the medium the story, and once again produce the culture war narrative of a small conspiracy of liberal elites working against the President and the majority he represents. It will become impossible for Kerry to win any future debates, because the pundits will be frightened and many people will have the perception that Kerry has an unfair advantage due to the Protocols of the Liberals of Hollywood and Academia.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

12 Comments

Sort by

permalink

When stacking the deck isn't enough...

I saw last night's "Now with Bill Moyers" which went into gruesome detail about what a sham the debates are. Since 1988, there haven't been any truly nonpartisan debates, because nonpartisan organizations (like the League of Women Voters) were shut out by the big 2 parties.

It's bad enough that the campaigns set up these debates so that they're debates in name only. Remember when Gore tried to follow-up on a statement Bush made in the 2K debates? Bush and the moderator said that violated the contractual agreement the two parties established. Imagine the havoc Bush will wreak by lying about Kerry's record, knowing that Kerry cannot question him, EVEN THOUGH HE'S STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM!!!

Not only will we not get any actual debates, but now Bush wants to deprive us of even these sham debates. It's like he doesn't even care about appearances anymore. Who cares if he calls voting for a war hero treasonous? Who cares if he says, "Vote for me, or we'll be attacked again"?

by jakefans 2004-09-25 11:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

'Debate Agreement'

Has this 'contract' been published anywhere?

Shouldn't the people be informed on what has been agreed?

by JimPortlandOR 2004-09-25 11:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 'Debate Agreement'

>Has this 'contract' been published anywhere?

The 2004 'contract' has been 'published' on the NOW website at 'www.pbs.org/new/politics/debates.html'. 'Read' the following 'excerpt', and then 'download' the MOU from the 'link' on that 'page'.

Pressure by Open Debates and other groups has led to some significant changes in the 2004 debates. For the first time in 16 years, the contract drafted by the Republican and Democratic campaigns -- the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding -- has been made public.

Most of the broadcast story focuses on author George Farah's analysis of the debates, based in part on leaked documents. I can't find a transcript of the show online, but I will record the repeat tomorrow AM. Here's some details of the piece from the NOW site:

Presidential debates can change the course of elections, but George Farah, a remarkable young author and executive director of Open Debates, has evidence showing that the debates' rules of order have been hijacked by the two main political parties. The result? Moderators can't ask follow-up questions, important issues are never raised, and credible third-party candidates are excluded from the proceedings altogether. Bill Moyers interviews Farah, who details the secretive process by which the party handlers ensure there won't be a real discussion of the issues at what are, for many voters, the most important events of the campaign.

by jakefans 2004-09-25 05:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 'Debate Agreement'

My bad; I flummoxed the link. Here's the link to the NOW page with the MOU.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html

by jakefans 2004-09-25 05:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Excellent Analysis

Now, how to we counter this spin? By asking, "Why is Bush always the victim?" and making fun of him and his supporters when they try this line. "Aw, the rules were unfair. Poor you. You are the most powerful man in the world, and this is so unfair. I don't think people want a president who whines."

by Alan S 2004-09-25 12:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree, Alan S

Ridicule would be the most effective response to any RNC complaints.

by CathiefromCanada 2004-09-25 12:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rove's Debate Tactics

So what exactly is the sticking point here? Why won't the commission sign the Bush-Kerry agreement, exactly? Why the need for a new letter for the commission to sign?

by dwbh 2004-09-25 12:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

GOP - Media intimidation working against CBS

I sure many people have seen this by now;

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092504I.shtml

Also, on a different point the web site;

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I think this individual and his team are making a valiant effort, but I believe have some errors in methodology I hope will be discussed by this group.

In short they are grouping together polling data from all sorts of organizations - which individually use all different sorts of methods and criteria and then the color - graph the results on a daily basis on one current results electorial map and run a linear regression attempting to forcast an outcome in Novermber in another color coded electorial graph.

Here are my criticisms;

given the mix of data sources and methods the result tends to be that entire states flip back and forth from deep red one day to light blue the next (for example). I have called this "poll flapping".
running a linear regression against data from mixed sources and methods in my view really streatches the presumptions about what a linear regression is thought to possibly offer, a trend line among scattered data showing a consistent pattern within. Given the mix of sources and methods from the data sources, I think this is suspect in this instance.

Your constructive comments are sought in response.

by leschwartz 2004-09-25 01:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rove's Debate Tactics

You have a good point, but I have viewed this from a slightly different light.

This is an attempt to cow the moderators. By screaming, "they're so biased against Bush," the Bush camp actually puts pressure on the moderators to be more "fair" (ha ha) to Bush during the debates. That means fewer mean questions.

When the Bush people started complaining about CBS's Bob Schieffer as a moderator, I thought the Kerry campaign should immediately agree with them -- possibly with a demand that Brit Hume be excluded, too.

If Schieffer is still in the debate, the pre-debate "bias" accusations are likely to have some small influence on the tone of the questions that are posed to Bush, and that doesn't bode well for Kerry. Better to get rid of him and get somebody with a clean slate that doesn't owe Bush a freebie.

The most important part of the debate won't be the debate. It will be the 30 minutes afterward post-debate. That will set the narrative. I pray to God the Kerry camp realizes this and is getting their big guns ready to keep Bush's people from doing what they did after Gore's first debate in 2000. Bush got creamed, but Luntz and the echo chamber all painted it as, "Yeah, but people like Bush's personality more so Bush won."

by Dumbo 2004-09-25 02:19PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Rove's Debate Tactics

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

I just went and ready through the 2000 debate; and Bush did demolish Gore there. Look at the way Bush rips into Gore, calling him "this man", it's pretty ruthless. Plus, Bush just plain ol' lies about shit up and down making it up. I think this year, he'll have a hard go of it, as the blogs will call him on the two-faced lies he makes up.

by Jerome Armstrong 2004-09-25 02:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rove's Debate Tactics

I wish that were true.

The victor of the debate will be decided in the first few minutes after the debate's conclusion. The deciders will be: Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Joe Scarborough, Howard Luntz, Dee Dee Meyers, Bay Buchanan, Donna Brazile and whatever shills the two parties can get on the air.

The media is such a vacuous bunch of suck-ups that they will just latch onto whatever is said in the first ten to thirty minutes and echo it to death. That will be picked up the print media, etc.

You can be sure that the blogs from both sides will have some fine things to say, but it won't hit the media fast enough.

This will not be decided on the merits. It will be decided on the spin.

Watch for somebody to point out how terrible Kerry looks on TV, how stilted his speech is, how the average person won't understand his answers. Watch for Howard Luntz to steer his focus group towards saying that Bush was more resolute and a better leader.

I'm very worried. The Kerry campaign NEEDS to pre-load the post-debate with good people. I'd very much like to see Donna Brazile get sick and be replaced by a good on-message cheerleader like Loretta Sanchez or a good attack dog like Kristina Vanderheuvel(sp?)

by Dumbo 2004-09-25 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Rove's Debate Tactics

Jackfan...the way for Kerry to handle Bush's lying is to hit him right back with one of his own and then say.."if Mr. Bush will promise to stop telling lies about me then I'll stop telling the truth about him". There's an old Kentucky mountain saying that's the attitude Kerry must adapt when fighting the liar-in-chief...."You ain't been in a fight 'till you've been in a pissing match with a skunk"!!!

by hambro 2004-09-26 06:47PM | 0 recs