IGNORE THE MEDIA: DOLE WON
James Srodes watches their debate and says
that, though it may be different on election night, this time Bob beat Bill
Washington BY ANY fair standard, Republican presi- dential challenger Bob Dole won that tele- vised debate against President Bill Clinton. This leaves Dole's campaign still showing faint signs of life. Still, Dole's skilled perfor- mance was not expected by the media or, truth to tell, by some of Dole's supporters so it cannot be dismissed.
Part of the generally tepid and disap- pointed judging of Dole's performance by newspaper and television analysts flows from Dole's refusal to try some sharp- tongued attack on Mr Clinton's character flaws. The argument goes that since Dole did not leave the President gasping on the floor from some rhetorical 'knock-out punch', the result is a Clinton victory by default.
The sad fact is that most Americans are not used to the kind of cut-and-thrust pub- lic debate of a parliamentary system, and their news media are not willing to educate them. What was wanted from Dole was a repeat of the rebuke Senator Lloyd Bentsen gave to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debates for overusing ref- erences to the late John F. Kennedy. 'Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. . . . You are no Jack Kennedy,' Bentsen snapped, and Quayle stood there blinking and frozen like some animal caught in a head- light. A similar attack by Dole would have been high drama for sure. But it was exact- ly that sort of jibe that the Senator had to avoid at all costs. It would have enabled the networks to cue up archival footage of an angry Dole accusing Democrats in 1976 of being responsible for all of America's war casualties this century. It would have revived charges that Dole is really how Democrats want to portray him — mean- spirited, short-fused and cruel. So °Dole was too gentlemanly' was the common US press refrain. And a good thing too.
Dole's victory was conceded after a fash- ion by President Clinton's own White House staff, including Harold Ickes, who is directing the re-election strategy. 'Mr Dole is a strong debater,' he told reporters who waylaid him on the way to Hartford airport after the debate. He added wanly, 'I don't think it's important who wins or loses.' That's a loser's remark if ever there was one.
But did Dole truly impress uncommitted voters and win back a substantial number of those who are drifting into Clinton's column? Do the prissy rules of American television debates move elections? Does a rigid format (each candidate gets two- minute statements, one-minute responses and 30-second rebuttals on questions posed by a moderator) allow one candi- date to score over the other?
Ronald Faucheux, editor of Campaigns & Elections, a much read trade magazine for professional politicos, says you can add points and swing voters to your side by approaching debates with a highly focused set of objectives. He assigns positive points on the following questions: Did the candi- date accomplish what he set out to do?' Did he meet or exceed expectations?' Did he control the agenda and stay on the offen- sive?' Did he get the better of the opposi- tion in key exchanges and confrontations?' `Did he answer questions effectively?'
After an initial stiffness, Dole seemed to realise the debate was the familiar battle- ground of a Senate floor argument where sharp-witted civility is the rule. He also saw a Senate friend, John McCain of Arizona, grinning at him in the audience. He loos- ened up and accomplished what he set out to do — to draw sharp lines between the policies he would promote 'when' he is elected and those of President Clinton. He cracked jokes. He hammered at Clinton as a patron of Washington's bloated and unpopular civil bureaucracy. 'The basic dif- ference [is] I trust the people. The Presi- dent trusts the government.'
While Dole expressed his policies and personality, Clinton adopted an affable, above-the-fray posture. He often beamed approvingly as Dole punched accusations at him: 'There's no ceasefire in Bosnia . . We shouldn't be doing any favours for North Korea . . . Put tougher sanctions on Castro.. . . ' Clearly, Clinton's handlers had persuaded him to be 'presidential' and he was. But it put him on the defensive and that showed too. Clinton stuck to the basic 'help-me-build- a-bridge-to-the-21st-century' message of his Chicago nominating convention. Dole, too, brandished his $548 billion tax-cut promise, but interspersed the 90-minute confronta- tion with a sprinkling of new proposals that created something of a go-ahead image. He proposed linking the FBI's computer bank — listing 20 million criminals — to stores that sell guns. 'If the computer says "Tilt" that buyer gets zippo — nothing,' Dole said. He also asked Clinton to join him in creat- ing non-partisan commissions to reform the near bankrupt Medicare health system and to mandate firm limits on political campaign contributions. Clinton nodded admiringly.
In fairness, Clinton did not make any of the mistakes for which Faucheux deducts points. He was at his well-dressed, attrac- tive best. And, yes, by contrast he was the more youthful, the more enthusiastic and the more pleasant of the two. He also had a more difficult time from Jim Lehrer, the moderator and a respected newsreader for the public television network. Lehrer pressed the President on his oft-changing leftist leanings, on the failures of his for- eign policy, and, significantly, on some of the 'character' issues that dog the first family. Clinton kept his poise, conceded some of the more obvious disasters (Soma- lia being one) and stuck to his message about moving America forward.
But for all his adroitness the President was blooded several times by Dole. Asked whether he agreed with Clinton that Ameri- ca is better off than it was four years ago, Dole quipped, 'Well, he's better off. . . Saddam Hussein is probably better off. . .
And, perhaps more importantly, he found a way to raise the issue of Clinton's character faults by tying it to his promised tax cuts and reform of the pension and healthcare systems. 'I would not stand here saying we can cut taxes and balance the budget and not cut Medicare and Social Security if I didn't give you my word. I give you my word, and my word is good, and I've always kept my word — which you can't say for President Clinton,' he said.
Apparently, the Dole message is gaining some support. While most newspaper and broadcasting polls report that slightly more than half of those who watched the debates thought Mr Clinton 'won' the exchanges, an independent poll conducted by the Reuters service shows that the Republican challenger has now halved the President's lead on the more germane question of which of them should be elect- ed on 5 November. For the first time, Dole now trails Clinton by roughly 9 percentage points. In the days to come, the vice-presi- dential running mates will have their debate and, on 16 October, Clinton and Dole will have a rematch. Can Dole pass the President and win? A week ago, the answer would have been a firm negative. After Hartford, one has to give him more favourable odds.
Previous page
