Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

Substance trumps style in debate

Kerry makes gains against Bush; Iraq dominates session

By George E. Condon Jr.
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

October 1, 2004

CORAL GABLES, Fla. – For perhaps the first time in the four-decade history of presidential debates, last night's clash between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry soared far above politics and the campaign of the moment.

The political stakes, of course, were huge. But with U.S. troops dying in a far-off land that increasingly seems racked with chaos, the country deserved a serious, somber debate on the policies that put those troops in harm's way and the policies that can get them out.

The country got that debate.

It saw Kerry, the Democratic challenger, enjoy possibly the best night of his campaign. For once, he did not talk like a filibustering senator. He marshaled his arguments effectively, kept respectful but firm pressure on the president, and counterpunched better than he had in any of the three dozen debates of the primary campaign.

But the Republican incumbent stood his ground, hammering home his own points, stoutly defending his stewardship of the war, owning up to no mistakes of consequence, and insisting that his plan for victory trumps what he repeatedly called Kerry's "mixed message."

Too often, presidential debates are dominated by trivia, gaffes and points of style. This, though, was not a debate to be decided by candidate sighs or glimpses at wristwatches. There also were no obvious stumbles.

Instead, there were two polished politicians with very real differences on the life-and-death issue of a war. Perhaps not surprisingly, though the debate was to be broadly about foreign policy, it was dominated by Iraq. The entire first hour, and then the last five minutes, of the 90-minute session were devoted to Iraq and its role in the overall war against terror.

Never has one topic so overwhelmed all others in any debate since John Kennedy and Richard Nixon first dueled in 1960. And never have both candidates so risen to the occasion, particularly on an issue that bedevils both of them and is likely to be the key to the election in November.

"People don't understand what Kerry's position on Iraq is, and they don't understand why Bush sent us there in the first place," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Both have a problem with Iraq, and the debate was an opportunity to solve the problem."

They seized that opportunity.

Some political edge goes to Bush both because he withstood the challenger's assault and because he relentlessly delivered a message, while Kerry too often answered the questions instead of hammering home his campaign points.

But Kerry also achieved much in the debate, appearing forceful and possibly presidential, and that could help him in what is still a close national race.

"He clearly was not the person that he's been portrayed as," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "The American people now will have to take a second look at him – and when you're behind, that's what you need.

Pollster John Zogby called the debate the political equivalent of a baseball "pitcher's duel," with little scoring. Both candidates heartened their core constituencies, he said, and that gives a small edge to Kerry "because he had lost some of his base, and I think he probably strengthened that tonight."

Immediate debate-night reactions often have been misleading in previous campaigns. Instant polls in 2000 had then-Vice President Al Gore the winner in his debate over Bush. But after several days of focus on Gore misstatements, it became clear that Bush's candidacy had benefited the most.

Similarly, it took several days to assess the damage done to President Ford's campaign by his 1976 debate performance in San Francisco. Voters don't so much determine who "won" a debate as they become more comfortable with the notion of one of the candidates being their president for the next four years.

"It usually takes a few days for the public to chew over who they are most comfortable with," Washington-based political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said. "People might have thought you did better in the debate technically, but that doesn't mean you've won their vote."

Bush had better hope that is true, because the immediate verdict was not entirely kind to him.

A poll of 615 registered voters who watched the debate gave a big win to Kerry. The poll, conducted by Gallup for CNN and USA Today, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Asked who did better, the voters said Kerry by 53 percent to 37 percent for Bush. Asked if the debate had given them a more favorable opinion of Kerry, 46 percent said yes, versus 21 percent for Bush.

In a separate survey of 18 undecided Florida voters near the University of Miami campus, more were won over by Kerry than by the president. In a state that determined the winner in 2000 and is neck and neck today, Bush can ill afford any slippage.

But this group gave the debate win to Kerry by a wide margin, with many of the formerly undecideds saying the Massachusetts senator had laid to rest claims by Republicans that he is a flip-flopper. Several expressed pleasant surprise at the crispness of his performance.

At the end of the debate, half of the 18 said they would now vote for Kerry, while just two were won over by Bush. The other seven were still undecided.

Pollster Frank Luntz, who organized the group, said the reaction in Miami suggests gains for the challenger. "Kerry's message came through better than George Bush's message," he said.

Copley News Service correspondent Finlay Lewis contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20041001-9999-1n1assess.html