Analysis of the debate styles of the candidates....

[Nym90]

By David Von Drehle, Washington Post Staff Writer

For Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.), stuck in second place with just five weeks left in the presidential campaign, the debates that begin this week may be the best chance remaining to close the sale with voters and beat President Bush (news - web sites).


Widespread polling, stubbornly consistent for months, finds Bush vulnerable. Voters report that they are unhappy with the war in Iraq (news - web sites), the state of the economy and the general direction of the country. Yet the same polls indicate that more voters do not like his Democratic challenger than do.


Beating Bush in these debates -- the first on Thursday at the University of Miami -- will be no easy matter, judging from the extensive record Bush and Kerry have compiled in televised face-offs. The president is an unorthodox debater but an effective one, especially against candidates schooled in the traditional rules of debate, such as Kerry.


"Both of them are good. Bush has never lost a debate that I know of," said Democratic campaign strategist Chuck Dolan. "He's very cool; he stays on message. He approaches debates in a very different way than most other politicians."


Against that, Kerry brings an aggressive style and a command of the minute details of policy -- qualities, it must be said, that were not enough to win when Texas Gov. Ann Richards and Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) took them into battle against Bush in 1994 and 2000.


The first encounter will focus on foreign policy. Bush's debate history shows one thing above all: His themes in debate are the same ones he preaches on the trail. By that yardstick, Bush will defend the war as a tough decision with no acceptable alternative. "Do I trust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)? Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th or take action to defend this country?" Bush repeats in speeches across the country. "Given that choice, I will defend America every time."


Kerry's tone on the campaign trail in recent days suggests that he will go after the president aggressively on Iraq. "The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy: al Qaeda," Kerry said last week. "George Bush (news - web sites) made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) the priority."


But while civics teachers, activists and other concerned citizens might not like to hear it, presidential debates are at least as much about style as substance, veterans of the process agree.

[Nym90]

"They call them debates, but they're not debates," said Republican debate coach Sheila Tate. "They're platforms for the two candidates to position themselves" for an audience of undecided voters who, research shows, tend to rely on their gut, Tate said.


Elaborate rules, negotiated by the rival campaigns, guarantee that the sessions are more side by side than head to head; direct engagement is limited. What matters most is not which candidate dominates the room but which one comes across most powerfully, in planned and unplanned stylistic ways, on television. And as the late, legendary BBC interviewer Robin Day once explained, television "strikes at the emotions rather than the intellect."


Dolan learned this lesson the hard way in 1988. He was in the room when the Democratic nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts fielded a question about his opposition to the death penalty for murderers: Would he feel the same way if it were his own wife who was slain?


"We could see in the hall that it didn't go well," Dolan said of his candidate's coldly detached answer. "Then I saw it later replayed on television, and you could see it was devastating."


Many Democrats who watched an often stumble-tongued Bush go from inexperienced candidate for Texas governor to incumbent president battling for reelection have wondered where he gets his ability to win debates against candidates with more seasoning, more verbal dexterity, and a greater supply of names and numbers at their mental fingertips.


Part of it, Tate argues, is that Bush "knows his mind" and thus projects himself clearly. But it is also true that, for a man who is not a trained actor, Bush has a highly expressive face on television, and he uses it to good effect in underlining his points while undermining his opponent.


True, many people recoil at his famous smirk. But Bush knows how to signal incredulity with a slightly cocked head and a flicker of eyebrow-arch. His more emphatic brows-raised, lips-puckered look says: "Get a load of that blowhard." He has a half-wink that signals he is about to land a punch and a half-squint that says, "I really, really mean what I'm saying now."


Among the most effective moments in Bush's debate career came in his third and last encounter with Gore in 2000, and it stemmed not from verbal prowess but from acting skills.


The format that night allowed the candidates to roam about the stage. Gore was trying to bear down on a mushy answer that Bush was giving on a controversial topic. As if to underline his strength and Bush's weakness, Gore edged closer and closer to his opponent until he was looming behind him like the monster on the late, late show. Bush turned slightly, did a quick double take, and reduced the audience to laughter.

   



Deflated, Gore returned to his stool.

Bush matches these signals to a speaking style no professional debate coach would ever approve. Judging from the evidence, it works for him. According to friends and advisers, Bush has a West Texas conviction that people who talk fancy are not to be trusted. So, they say, he tries to project steadfastness and sincerity by using short, simple declarative sentences and a lot of one- and two-syllable words.

In his first televised debate, in which Bush challenged the well-spoken Richards, the novice was cool as a creek while dodging her attacks on his inexperience. But his strongest moment may have come when he was asked about casino gambling.

"I'm opposed to casino gambling," he answered. And shut up.

Richards spoke next. She said she, too, was against casinos, but then went on at length to explain all the exigencies of law and policy that might someday force her to change her mind. When she finally finished, the moderators asked Bush if he wanted to expand his answer.

Flashing his "what a blowhard" look, Bush declined. "I oppose casino gambling," he repeated.

It so happens that one thing Kerry and Bush have in common is the classic comedy "Animal House." Kerry has said it is his favorite movie, while Bush was president of the fraternity that has been called Yale's nearest approximation of the mythical miscreants of Faber College.

The film holds a clue both to Bush's debate skills and to his likely strategy for engaging Kerry on the unspoken, emotional level of television. A toga-clad John Belushi enters the frame. The audience already knows that he's a fairly inarticulate character with a loose grip on the facts. Halfway down a flight of stairs he encounters a long-faced, very earnest fellow strumming a guitar and singing to a group of young women who might well be Romance language majors.

The camera homes in, devastatingly, on Belushi's contemptuously arched eyebrow.

You don't have to guess which candidate is which here. The guitar-playing Kerry, who once bragged to Vogue magazine that his chocolate chip cookies are special because he uses imported Swiss chocolate, and the frat house wiseguy Bush.

But that's not the persona Kerry displayed in 1996, during his marathon of televised debates against Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts. That Kerry was a puncher, not a poseur. Kerry is a classically trained debater, having learned the ropes on debate teams at prep school and at Yale. Kerry is quick on his feet, he pushes hard and he can be ruthless.

All this was on display in the knock-down, drag-out sessions with Weld, a serial drama of shouted statistics, rapier gibes and cheap shots landed so quickly no referee could flag them. Here's the flavor of it, from a debate in which Weld was trying to defend his record on education while Kerry kept butting in.

Weld: We are funding K-12 education . . .

Kerry: Forty-nine states . . .

Weld: A billion dollars more than we were in 1993. I don't know how the priorities could be any clearer than that. . . .

Kerry: . . . That's the problem, Governor. You don't understand how they could be greater. And if you did understand, you'd have a different set of priorities!

A wave of applause ended the exchange before Weld could point out that he said "clearer," not "greater."

Like Bush, Kerry is disciplined about returning to his key themes over and over again. Against Weld he was relentless about tying the moderate governor to the far more conservative Republican leaders in Washington. This, plus President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s landslide victory in Massachusetts, allowed Kerry to stave off Weld's challenge.

The lesson that Richards and Gore both learned, however, is that debate skills alone are not enough to shake Bush. Kerry must latch on to something more. And he may find clues in the two debates in which Bush has not done well. They have something in common: Bush was not playing the role of challenger.

In 1998, as the incumbent governor of Texas, Bush met Democrat Garry Mauro in a single debate. He was uncharacteristically "nervous and defensive," in the view of Austin political reporter Dave McNeely. In 2000, Bush's weakest performance came in a primary season face-off against surging underdog Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ariz.).

"Bush seems to be more comfortable portraying himself as the outsider, but he can't do that anymore," said Bill Benoit, a professor of communication at the University of Missouri who has extensively studied presidential debates. As the outsider, Bush has freedom to stay on the broad, thematic level, above the thicket of details.

"He used the idea that he was on the outside to say, 'Don't pigeonhole me,' " said Benoit. As the outsider, Bush has been able to strike appealing chords -- a promise to be "different" from other leaders, a promise to be "a compassionate conservative," a promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" -- while allowing viewers to convert those chords into music of their own liking.

That won't be so easy this time. "Who is more insider than the president of the United States?" Benoit asked.

Some critics charge that presidential debates, as structured, aren't much good for determining anything beyond who best survives the strange test of 90 minutes under a relentless gaze. A gesture as small as President George H.W. Bush's glance at his watch in 1992 can be enormously damaging. Many of the most important issues a president will face never come up for discussion -- Kosovo came in for far more discussion in 2000 than al Qaeda -- and other issues, such as Social Security (news - web sites), are eternally talked about but never resolved.

Nor are the debates necessarily a good barometer of brains or character.

When he appeared in the 1992 vice-presidential debate, retired Admiral James B. Stockdale was: a former college president, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, an authority on the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (whose work he read in the original Greek), the holder of 11 honorary doctorates and the only man in naval history to wear three stars, aviator's wings and the Medal of Honor.

All that evaporated under the harsh stare of the camera when, with earnestly wide eyes, Stockdale introduced himself by posing two rhetorical questions: "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?" The hero-scholar came across like an addled old man.

Imperfect, even misleading, the debates are nonetheless the crucial final act of this close-fought and momentous campaign. Kerry must do what he has not been able to do so far: make himself a more plausible president for the last few undecided voters than the one they already have.

"In the final analysis, there's a very small percentage of people of who haven't made up their minds by now," Tate said. "And they make their decision based on who they like, who they think they can trust -- and it's a very amorphous, very emotional decision."

Political researcher Brian Faler contributed to this report.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting article.
Thanks for posting it

[Akno21]

Very intersting article. It's kinda of sad that Americans pick their based on how stylish they can be in the debates and not who is in better grasp of the facts.

[Gabu]

That was a great article.  Very interesting reading.

Very intersting article. It's kinda of sad that Americans pick their based on how stylish they can be in the debates and not who is in better grasp of the facts.

Well, it kind of makes sense.  Most voters probably have no idea what the facts are either, so they may not be able to tell who has the facts wrong.  They certainly can tell who presented himself in the better manner, though.

[muon2]

The article reminds me of the 1998 MN Governor's race. For my parents in the Twin Cities the turning point was during one of the debates. In one debate a very technical question on a progam that went only by its initials was asked. The Democrat and Republican each gave suitable technical answers. Ventura said he had no idea what the initials stood for and sympathized with all those in the audience who also had no idea what the question or the answers were about. Many in the audience, including my folks, thought Ventura's response won the day for Ventura by putting him in touch with the average voter.

[Nym90]

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - This fall's presidential debates will pit George W. Bush's folksy manner and big-picture brand of policymaking against John Kerry (news - web sites)'s more cerebral outlook and nuanced world view. Each is a proven debater who knows, only too well, what personal pitfalls to avoid: Bush must stifle the smirk, for instance, and Kerry must cut short his rhetorical rambling.

They'll be under careful scrutiny in a trio of debates, 4 1/2 hours in all, starting Thursday in Florida. In the past, 30 million to 40 million people have tuned in. Almost one-third say the debates will be a deciding factor in their vote on Nov. 2.


On paper, Kerry would seem to have just the right resume to thwack the president in this type of setting. A high school and college debate champ with two decades of Senate repartee under his belt, Kerry knows intimately the details of policymaking and how to argue any side of an issue.


And that may be his problem. Sometimes Kerry sounds like he IS arguing every side of an issue.


His greatest weakness, in the view of political scientist Bruce Buchanan, is "getting tangled up in qualifying locutions of one sort or another. No clear, clean expository lines. Too many qualifications. Too many embellishments. Not enough editing."


"There's an innate caution to him," says Buchanan, who teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, "indicating a fear of not having covered all the bases, and that often leads him to say too much."


The president, by contrast, is rarely accused of offering too much information. He is militantly "on message," often repeating a few set points over and over.


"Bush debates the way Chris Evert plays tennis — no unforced errors," says Democrat Paul Begala, who played the part of the president in rehearsals with Al Gore (news - web sites) for the 2000 debates. "He doesn't get out of his game. He won't try to get into philosophy and nuance and deep thinking."


Where Bush can get into trouble is if he's forced out of his comfort zone, and becomes flustered. Or if his single-mindedness starts to look simple-minded, given the profound uncertainties surrounding Iraq (news - web sites), the war on terrorism and other matters, says Wayne Fields, an expert on political rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis.


"His strongest quality is also a kind of weakness to be exploited, so you don't know how this is going to play out," said Fields. "If all of a sudden the situation looks more complicated, and Kerry is able to show he can take things on and master them, then this could turn against Bush."


Viewers will tune in as much to get a feel for the candidates' personas as for their policies. Everything from their hand gestures and mannerisms (remember Gore's heavy sighs in 2000?) to their physical appearances will be open to judgment. It all feeds into voters' decisions about whether they can relate to candidates, and trust them.


Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, said that when she turns down the volume and just watches Bush and Kerry, "it clarifies why Bush is more effective. He has the nonverbal stuff, the facial expressions and gestures." He furrows his brows, he seems to look through the camera to make eye contact, she says.


Kerry, by contrast, "really has no facial expression," says Lakoff. "He just talks. ... I think Kerry's long sentences and lack of intonation and facial expression say, 'Yes, I'm very smart but I'm kind of phoning it in.'"


Jurgen Streeck, a communications professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said that while Kerry is not a very lively communicator, the debates may provide a good setting to showcase him as "a thoughtful speaker."


Bush, meanwhile, must guard against smugness.


"He has that kind of smirk," says John Fritch, head of the communications department at the University of Northern Iowa and director of the National Debate Tournament. "Given the issues that we're dealing with, the casualties in Iraq, an inappropriate smile will not go over well."


Says Begala, "If I were prepping Bush, I would warn him about crossing the line from self-confident to cocky. People like his self-confidence but there are moments, particularly when he's jacked up on adrenaline, when he crosses that line."

[Democratic Hawk]

Very interesting

Dave

[Nym90]

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - It's a classic pre-debate dance, maybe as important as the matchup itself: lower expectations for your candidate's performance and jab the other guy while you're at it. While President Bush (news - web sites) and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) remained secluded half a country apart on Sunday in preparation for their prime-time showdown Thursday, representatives for each side employed their own double-barreled debate strategy.

In central Texas, where the president spent about four hours at his ranch preparing for the debate, White House communications director Dan Bartlett called Kerry a seasoned debater against whom Bush would merely "hold his own." But then Bartlett accused Kerry of taking more than one position on foreign policy issues — the subject of the first debate.


In Washington, Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Bush a "great debater," but then added that the president wins matchups on "style not substance."


At podiums set up in a conference area of the ranch, Bush practiced a couple of hours Saturday and then another two hours Sunday. Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., played Kerry. Mark McKinnon, media adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign, was the moderator.


"Obviously, President Bush has had to practice twice as hard to learn all the different positions that John Kerry has taken on the big issues of the day," Bartlett said in a shot at the Massachusetts senator. "But he's ready to hold his own."


Low-balling expectations, Bartlett said the White House was expecting 90 minutes of attacks from Kerry at the first of three presidential debates Thursday night in Coral Gables, Fla.


"Senator Kerry has been preparing his whole life for this moment," Bartlett said. "He was an all-star debater in prep school and an all-star debater in Ivy League. He was 20 years in the most august debating society in years, the United States Senate."


"Will President Bush step on his own line and maybe not pronounce a word right? I bet he will. But, I think after the 90 minutes, there won't be any ambiguity on his positions."


In a conference call with reporters Sunday, Democratic chairman McAuliffe recalled Bush's 2000 debate against Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites).


"George Bush (news - web sites) defied expectations and won," McAuliffe said, praising the president. "Let's face it, George Bush is a great debater."


Then the jab: "He wins them on style not substance, and he wins them because he isn't always honest. The truth is George Bush has historically had problems being forthright at debates."


He cited examples from the 2000 debates in which Bush expressed concern about overcommitting the U.S. military around the world. "As we know, he has overstretched our military now to dangerous levels," McAuliffe said.


He said Bush also said that military missions need well-defined exit strategies. "Bush's own officials now concede there was no plan, no exit strategy for Iraq (news - web sites)," McAuliffe said.


Kerry took his own swing at Bush on Sunday for pronouncing the Iraqi mission accomplished while the monthly death toll mounts.


Defending his actions, Bush said in an interview with the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly to be broadcast Monday that he would not back down from declaring, on May 1, 2003, that major combat operations had ended as he stood under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier.


Kerry, arriving Sunday at a resort near Madison, Wis., to practice for the debate, replied: "I will get the mission accomplished."


The Massachusetts senator, who had a practice debate with friend Greg Craig earlier this month in Boston, was taking time Monday to attend a town hall-style meeting with Wisconsin voters.

   



___

Associated Press Writer Mary Dalrymple contributed to this report.