In a population that loves sports as much as most Americans do, it's only natural that metaphors from football, basketball, baseball, and the like work their way into political analyses. The shorthand question that holds the most potential for being both the most useful and the most idiotic is, "What does Candidate `X' have to do to win?"
The competing paradigms are "getting your base out" [those who are already in your camp] and "appealing to swing [undecided] voters." The CW [Conventional Wisdom] is that while both candidates have used the three debates to reassure their respective bases, Kerry more than Bush reached out to voters still making up their minds.
I would argue that this is wrong, both in general, and as relates to our concerns specifically. In continuing to demonstrate that he is the pro-life champion, the man most dedicated to and most supportive of creating a "culture of life," President Bush has done a far superior job of reaching out to people who are still calibrating how much this issue will affect their vote. Let me explain why.
Given the dynamics, which change slightly from election to election, the lens through which the public sees the candidates on the life issues this year is tax-paying funding of abortion, parental notification, and partial-birth abortion, on the one hand, and the [abuse of] embryonic stem cells, on the other hand. We'll talk about abortion today and embryonic stem cells tomorrow.
As we've discussed this week, the normally sure-footed Mr. Kerry stumbled on abortion. This is hardly surprising for he had to defend very unpopular positions, beginning, in the second debate, with his long support for using tax money to pay for abortions-- which even the Supreme Court says is not required.
His clumsy and incoherent response is that if he fails to make you and me pay for abortion, somehow that would be imposing an "article of his faith" on the public, as if only Catholics opposed subsidizing the killing of the unborn. Advantage Mr. Bush, not just with pro-lifers, but with 70%+ of the American people.
Likewise on parental notification, Kerry found himself trying to explain to the average American why parents shouldn't be told when their minor daughter is contemplating a life-and-death decision. His strategy?
Flagrantly lie about how such laws are written. Pretend that there are not provisions written into that allow the minor to go to a judge when there is suspected abuse at home.
Mr. Bush refused to be diverted, to chase down a diversionary rabbit trail. He cut right to the chase: "My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion." Advantage President Bush.
A couple of times Kerry found himself backed into a very uncomfortable corner-those six votes in favor of the brutal partial-birth abortion technique. After listening to Kerry's convoluted don't-hold-me-responsible answer, Bush replied, "Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality." Big Advantage Bush.
In last night's third and final debate, moderator Bob Schieffer asked Mr. Kerry "about unnamed Catholic archbishops who are telling people it's a sin for them to vote for candidates like Kerry because of their support for abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research," as Mark Brumley described it at www.nationalreview.com this morning. After rambling around, Kerry finally said, "What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."
But "What article of faith was Kerry talking about?," asks Brumley. "That abortion kills an innocent human being? That's not a peculiarly Catholic belief or `article of faith.' Plenty of people who aren't Catholics think abortion entails taking an innocent human life. President Bush does, and he's a Methodist, not a Catholic. So too many Lutherans, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians agree with faithful Catholics and President Bush. Then there are non-Christians, including many Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for whom abortion is the killing an innocent human being. Indeed, some people with no religion at all or who deny God's existence take the same position."
Last night's concluding debate, and the response to it, reaffirms two truisms.
First, this will be a very, very close election. Second, Mr. Bush continues to be seen as the far more likeable candidate. This is an indispensable asset in a race that will be decided by the equivalent of a handful of votes in every precinct in America.
A large part of that sentiment is because he is a genuine human being. Another reason is that most people instinctively recoil when Sen. Kerry uses gutter tactics, as he did again last night.
The cynical cruelty he employed didn't work last night, as the responses of a number of focus groups revealed. It won't on November 2 either.
In a population that loves sports as much as most Americans do, it's only natural that metaphors from football, basketball, baseball, and the like work their way into political analyses. The shorthand question that holds the most potential for being both the most useful and the most idiotic is, "What does Candidate `X' have to do to win?"