my simple analysis of kerry vs bush tomorrow:

[homerthompson]

Backgrounds:
Kerry was a prosecutor and senator. Both jobs require sharp analytical skills, knowledge of facts, extensive education, and strong speech skills.

* was governor and business man. Both jobs require more style and pizzaz to succeed, rather than true skill or knowledge. Appearance of likeability, and slick smooth talking are oftentimes the only tools needed.

Strengths:
Kerry has the facts of harsh reality on his side - iraq is fubar, economy is great only if you're rich, seniors can't buy drugs from canada, etc. A lot of stuff that all Americans know to be true b/c we're experiencing it daily. He also can respond to any attack with facts, or rebut an attack with logic - he doesn't stoop to ad hominems for defense.

* is exceptionally good at responding to attacks with one, or both, of these two things: a humorous, derisive joke at the other guy, or changing subjects to reiterate some talking point.
ie: "*, you've misled the country into war."
*:"now you're flipflopping again. I'm never gonna choose being attacked over defending America"
This way, * never has to actually respond to damaging questions, or defend his horrible record.

Weaknesses:
Kerry is smart; maybe too smart for many Americans. He will try to convey as much information as possible in each 2 minutes he's given. Many Americans won't remember all the stuff he's saying (however true), and he may pepper his language with too many 5 syllable words. Also understands the complexity of the issues; this understanding is beyond many Americans looking for simple black and white answers in the form of memorable sound bites.

*: Doesn't know anything beyond talking points, has a horrendous four years to defend, and his simplistic views on complex issues is a turnoff to the millions of people dealing with those issues.


Summary: Kerry has fantastic ammo, but * has fantastic defense. Who'll win? I think Kerry will thrash him, but the conservative media will cover up the bruises.

Disagree with me? Let me know! All of this is imho; I'm no studied pundit, I just sorta follow politics to try to stay aware.

[olddem43]

1. Bush did not succeed as a business man and his success as

governor is very doubtful.

[debatepro]

2. Cocision!!!

The debate is already won. The republicans have created artifact in peoples minds in that they don't have to explain anything. All he has to do is say flip flop and we all(even those who disagree) know what he is talking about. Because it is based on preconceived learning. Much like the belief that the US had to nuke Japan to save American lives. A common misconception but everyone knows it until you read A peoples history of the United States.


In fact, the structure of the news production system is, you can't produce evidence. There's even a name for it -- I learned it from the producer of Nightline, Jeff Greenfield. It's called "concision." He was asked in an interview somewhere why they didn't have me on Nightline, and his answer was -- two answers. First of all, he says, "Well, he talks Turkish, and nobody understands it." But the other answer was, "He lacks concision." Which is correct, I agree with him. The kinds of things that I would say on Nightline, you can't say in one sentence because they depart from standard religion. If you want to repeat the religion, you can get away with it between two commercials. If you want to say something that questions the religion, you're expected to give evidence, and that you can't do between two commercials. So therefore you lack concision, so therefore you can't talk.

I think that's a terrific technique of propaganda. To impose concision is a way of virtually guaranteeing that the party line gets repeated over and over again, and that nothing else is heard. Chomsky


The only counter is simplified logic. Like - Allies will be willing to work with a new leader because it won't be political suicide.