An Apolitical Moment

This post is in response to Hugh Hewitt's Weekend Symposium 3: How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

John Kerry's refusal to apologize for abusing Mary Cheney's privacy, his campaign manager's blunt declaration that Ms. Cheney is "fair game," and Elizabeth Edwards' accusation that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter have sparked bipartisan outrage. There are different explanations of why the disgust is so widespread and deep-felt, and different speculations as to how much damage Kerry's blunder on Wednesday night has done to his presidential prospects.

I honestly believe that none of the people I read and respect in the blogosphere, including Hugh Hewitt, really understand what happened Wednesday night and why John Kerry lost the Presidency. In my opinion they are running down the wrong path and I think I can cite facts and the political acumen of Karl Rove to prove it if you're willing to spend perhaps a bit more time than I wish I needed to explain my case. Nevertheless, I believe it is the right case and the real reason why Kerry will lose November 2nd based upon the third debate.

First I'll paraphrase and supplement Karl Rove as he appeared on Fox News right after the debate. The final "undecideds" out there do not vote issues. The people who vote mainly issues made up their minds long ago - some always go right, some left. There is also a middle ground - they weigh the candidate and the issues together to reach a conclusion. After three debates and weeks of campaigning, they are mostly off the table now, too. The remaining undecideds are not overly politically tuned in - they vote the person, first, last and always. It is only from within that group that either candidate could have pulled votes from in the last debate. This was Kerry's last big chance to demonstrate the type of person he was to them. So, what happened? And forget about all the brouhaha we now see from the pundits and the blogs, the Cahill this, Ms. Edwards that. The people we are talking about do not listen to Limbaugh or Franken. They do not DO political blogs. They ain't even hearing this discussion folks. And they are precisely who is going to re-elect President Bush come Nov. 2nd. Now, as to why.

Yes, it began with this comment from Kerry: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Everyone crawled up the back of their chairs. Not because Kerry was playing politics, noone thought about that angle at the time, least of all the apolitical undecideds. It was just the wrong thing for any decent person to say in that situation. It was unnecessary and made no sense at all in any context. Period. It started the ball rolling down hill and right on top of Kerry. At a time when he had to win over those apolitical undecideds, he did precisely what he shouldn't have, he made them uncomfortable. And he did not do it on purpose. More on that below, if you're interested. But I digress.

Kerry ultimately lost the Presidency with the last question, which noone has been paying any attention to, because "we" are political whereas the important undecides at this point are not. You must look at his last answer to see what I mean.

SCHIEFFER: We've come, gentlemen, to our last question. And it occurred to me as I came to this debate tonight that the three of us share something. All three of us are surrounded by very strong women. We're all married to strong women. Each of us have two daughters that make us very proud.

KERRY: Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up. (LAUGHTER) And some would say maybe me moreso than others. (LAUGHTER) But I can take it. (LAUGHTER) Can I say, if I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run. And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing. And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity. Those are the three words that she left me with. And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what's right, what's wrong. They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don't let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don't let me do that. And I'm blessed, as I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I've watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters. He's a great father. And I think we're both very lucky.

Kerry was asked about the women in his life and what did he do? He said "I" fifteen times; he said "me" eight times; he said "my" or "myself" four times. Out of 214 words supposedly about the women in his life, he used 27 first person pronouns, never mentioned a name and only spoke of them in relationship to himself "They keep ME ... They don't let ME..." etc. In fact, he never even described his Mother at all and only ONE sentence dealt with the "women" in his life - "And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what's right, what's wrong." That's it ... period. One sentence about the supposedly most important people in HIS life. Think about that. ONE sentence!! And his last few sentences actually made Bush look like the better man than he - read it: "I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I've watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters. He's a great father." So, who does Kerry "love," who does he "care for?" Simple answer, folks - me me me me me me me. And Americans simply do not want that type of egotism in their president.

Schieffer is an old pro. He knew what Kerry had to do to close the deal and he gave Kerry the perfect pitch to do it with in that last question and Kerry completely whiffed. And I do mean completely. That is where Kerry lost the election to the apolitical undecides who, as Karl Rove pointed out, vote for the man and not the policy. By the time Cahill shot her mouth off and Ms. Edwards chimed in the next day, it was all but over. All that nonsense provides now is some sound and fury for the pundits and perhaps some reinforcement to those undecideds down the stretch. But it isn't about a political strategy backfiring. It's about a man who was given the perfect chance to show the electorate what he was about as a human being - and he had absolutely nothing to show. Look at the remarks below from a focus group of undecideds: *h/t to Wizbang for this

But his (Kerry's) polished performances did not dispense with his main weakness: a personality that even the most sympathetic participants agreed was at best awkward, at worst annoying.

This skepticism about whether they were being spoken to candidly left participants relying on something they do trust: their intuition. Danette Quam, who is leaning toward Bush, said Kerry's formality and distance leaves her anxious, and, while she could imagine Bush at her dinner table ...

There was that wisecrack about how he had "married up" to his heiress wife. Foldery thought it was "smug," not funny. And he cringed when Kerry mentioned that Vice President Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Why bring her into it? Hanging over all this was Kerry's demeanor, which reminds him of that of a recent college graduate who thinks he has all the answers. "In a way, I would kind of like to vote for Kerry," said Foldery, a remarkable statement from a man who always has voted Republican. "But I just don't know, because I still don't know that I can fully trust him."

Everyone seemed to agree that the debate format is hardly natural for Bush. But none of these weaknesses managed to erode what these people regard as the president's core strength, which is that he is a leader who strikes them as decisive and on the level.

Even the participant most hostile to Bush believed that what you see with the president is what you get. His comments about his religious faith, for instance, struck people as genuine and appealing, as did his comments about how he had been influenced by the powerful women in his life.

In the end, however, the participants kept returning to the candidates' personal attributes.

Do you remember Clinton's killer line? "I feel your pain." Do you remember the Townhall Clinton debate with Bush senior when that loon from the audience asked the set up question having to do with a "father-figure" in the Whitehouse? Like it or not, it all worked for Clinton. He knew how to play the game. Clinton, for all his dysfunctionality actually could feel others pain. Kerry portrayed himself in the third debate as someone who understands and feels NOTHING outside of himself. And his life history justifies that conclusion. Kerry is trying to run as a populist and a populist without feelings is nothing. Yes, Kerry can look at poverty figures and SEE where people need help. He can look at bad diets in poor income areas and SEE that children need nutrition. But he cannot FEEL any of it. And showing that to people as he did sealed his fate as a populist. People will never buy it on a scale required to elect him because it is not seen or trusted as genuine.

I've gone on too long. But if you want to understand more of what makes Kerry tick just read the following two pieces from which I have taken some quotes to pique your interest. One is from my look at Kerry at Yale, the other involves his first wife, Julia Thorne: They should give you a pretty good picture of the man and why America can't warm up to him and won't elect him. And with all due respect, it isn't about Dick Cheney's daughter. The apolitical undecideds had a chance to look into Kerry's heart ... and they found it selfish if not mostly empty. Contrast that with the passionate accessability of President Bush, then forget about conservative and liberal. Who would YOU pick as the "better man?"

According to Liberal Party lore, Kerry was among the worst chairs in its history.... either the chairman faced some unfortunate circumstances or he has some personality problems. According to Dominguez, Kerry's leadership caused his probation." "Kerry's problem was that he apparently never got better during his years at Yale. it seems that at Yale, he was generally disliked."

Long before her (Julia Thorne's) 14 years as “spouse of” (John Kerry) —years she associates only with “anger, fear, and loneliness ...” ,,, Julia Thorne, asked him to marry her... The handsome and bemedaled young Navy hero of the Vietnam War did transform her life, but not as she expected ... “Speaking for myself, I found it humiliating. After all, it’s the husband’s career, his job. What’s it got to do with his marriage? A person can be a perfectly wonderful politician, but maybe not a perfect husband or wife. I mean, it’s known that John Kennedy was a terrific philanderer, but does that change his politics?”

Finally, if you are still reading - how do I know the lesbian remark wasn't on purpose? Just listen to the tape. His voice lowers, he's embarrassed, that wouldn't happen to the Yale debate champion with a pre-planned or rehearsed line. It just wouldn't. What you saw was a man who has great difficulty connecting emotionally with the outside world in a time and place where he knew he had to do it. His mind remembered back to when Edwards used the line, it was something he thought human to say because his interpersonal instincts, weak at best, simply betrayed him. It was one of the few times he went off script that entire night. And, as usual with Kerry, whenever he does that - he's toast. He doesn't have the type of emotional maturity to speak spontaneously in an emotional context. Believe me, if he had run that line past any of his advisors they would have told him no and he never would have said it. He had too much to lose and nothing to gain and Kerry is not a risk taker. He's a compromiser, an appeaser and timid in how he approaches such things - particularly with so much at stake.

Comments

[Daisy]

Liberal Eater,

Interesting take. I agree with a lot of it. However, I am certain the Mary Cheney reference was on purpose, b/c Edwards did the same thing. The point was to use the issue against Christian conservatives and to remind ... us ... that "ol' Cheney's girl's a dyke". Kerry is without humanity, I agree, and the undecideds will turn on him for the apolitical reasons you suggest.

But make no mistake about it ... he was trying to use the issue against Christian conservatives to drive a wedge ... all because of his prejudice and misunderstanding of what makes conservative Christians tick.

What he did was a master stroke: He turned off undecideds and energized the Republican base. Genius. I wonder if there is a Hillary adviser in there somewhere.

[Donna]

In the 1st and 3rd debates, Kerry complimented Laura and ignored Theresa. It was noticeable in the 1st and blatant in the 3rd. If he doesn't "reward" Theresa with getting to be first lady, I'm betting she starts proceedings to dump him by mid November.

[David Walk]

I think that your comments has said it all in this matter and is convincing that Kerry will be defeated in Nov. Thanks you made it very clear.

[Terry Gain]

Dan,
Another really interesting discussion. I think you're on a par with the guys at Power Line. I agree with so much of what you have to say. It's no wonder I think your brilliant. The words I used to describe Kerry in several posts were that "it's all about him." I delight in caliing Kerry an unprincipled narcissist. I despise the man because of the impact of his candidacy on the war effort. There are few things as low voting for the war after seeing the same intelligence as the President and then going around telling the world that the President lied the country into an unnecessary war. ( Forgive the aside but I am amazed at Bush's restraint. The Democrats give Michael Mooere a position of honor at the their convention but Paula Zahn wants to know why Bush hasn't united the country)

All of that being said, I agree with Daisy that the reference to Mary Cheney's sexuality was intentional and was designed to cause evangeliical Christians to not vote for Bush. I think Kerry's adviors were so enamoured by that prospect they failed to appreciate the impact on independents.

What I found most interesting in your post Dan is your theory that most of the remaining undecideds will base their vote on personality, or perhaps putting it more kindly based on their perception of character. Having done a lot of canvassing it is my opinion that the numbers who base their choice on personality, in the widest sense, rather than policy, is at least 50%. The policy differences are well known- even though Kerry has managed to pretend his position on Iraq going forward is not much different than Bush's- he will stay the course but make better decisions . (In fact I believe he will withdraw although I concede there is no reason to have any confidence as to what he willl do.)

It makes sense therefore that those who haven't made up their minds will vote based on "the man" -personality and character.

I've not read all of the posts at Hugh Hewitt but once again I find your analysis one of the most compelling posts I've read .

[Terry Gain]

Allow me to correct my mistake: "There are few things as low voting..." should read "There are few things as low as voting..."

Sister Syncleta would be aghast. A paper turned in without being checked.

[Right Makes Right]

Great post. I totally agree. This explains how Kerry is doing so poorly among women, despite being a democrat.

RMR