by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 11, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

roping for perfection and finding only Democrat Vice President Al Gore and Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush, voters find themselves gyrating, as Washington Post’s Michael Kelly poetically puts it, between the 'sleaze ball and pinhead.' Locked in virtually a dead heat, both Gore and Bush can’t afford to make any more gaffes as they head to Winston-Salem, NC for their next match-up. Though the first encounter drove some viewers into narcolepsy and others to channel-surf, Bush still put some licks on Gore, stealing the momentum. Gore’s above-the-fray demeanor will surely morph itself into more aggression this time around. Like a good prizefighter, neither candidate can afford to wimp-out during their rematch. While the public finds 'attacking' distasteful, they also find a weak and pathetic performance even more objectionable. No one likes an anemic, whinny candidate constantly complaining of how they’re getting picked on by their opponent. Proving that they can take the heat, televised debating—no matter how watered down the format—is the candidate’s best test of grace under pressure.

       Whether we admit it, today’s televised debating is part of America’s new Roman Arena. "The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate, it’s the sand of the Colloseum," said Proximo to his slave Maximus in the blockbuster film Gladiator [Dreamworks, SKG, 2000]. Above all else, TV viewers demand stimulating entertainment in which the combatants must step into the ring and strut their stuff. What makes "The Rock" and WWF so popular are all the theatrics and hype. Muhammed Ali knew it, and so does any other stage performer. Running and hiding, evading issues, giving flimsy answers, and showing a lack of spine doesn’t play well with an insatiable audience. While candidates are goaded into letting their hair down, the reality is that voters expect perfection. Talking the talk is an essential part of proving that candidates have met the test. What’s in a candidate’s heart can’t compensate for what comes out of his mouth. Speaking incoherently or hyperbolizing doesn’t breed confidence in voters looking to match candidates to their fantasies of what’s presidential.

       Gore’s challenge involves reining in his propensity toward embellishment, and to show he’s willing to trade punches with Bush. Crying foul won’t impress too many voters whose preference is watching body-slams not tiptoeing around the ring. So far Gore’s lived up to his automaton billing, showing good command of the facts but unable to relate to his audience. He must recapture the magic of his home-run acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Inviting Bush to slam his credibility on campaign finance reform wasn’t his swiftest move. Despite the less formal format in Winston-Salem, he must come out swinging, attacking Bush on the issues and on his fitness to perform as president. While that runs counter to prevailing wisdom, displaying his opponent’s Achilles heal, playing by the rules [the correct protocol for attacking], and discrediting Bush represents his current mission. With record surpluses and economic prosperity, Gore should be several paces ahead of Bush at this stage of the race. Bush’s strategy of attacking Gore’s 'integrity' issue has paid off—so far.

       Bush needs to stay in the ring with Gore without committing too many blunders. While his handlers are worried about gaffes, they need to continue hammering away at Gore’s 'integrity' and credibility. Fitness to be president involves more than mastery of the issues. With the country dragged through the impeachment knothole, raising Gore’s trustworthiness makes perfect sense because it attacks the very heart of his credibility. Like contentious trials, candidates must always impeach opponent’s credibility. With enough damaging information, the most competent, knowledgeable or ethically-minded people can be made to look awfully bad. Following what’s worked, Bush will continue to hammer away at Gore’s credibility inducing reasonable doubt in voters about Gore’s ethical fitness to serve as president. While this tact throws Gore off balance, it won’t erase Bush’s major challenge to explain himself and his programs in a coherent way. Voters simply won’t follow candidates for whom they have little intellectual respect. Beyond integrity, voters expect presidents to be gifted communicators and supremely confident. Showing too much bravado and too little 'gravitas' [intellectual heft] can boomerang by causing candidates to look conceited and incompetent. Beyond the sleaze factor, voters can’t, in good conscience, cast their vote for an incompetent candidate

       Expectations were hyped for Gore’s performance in the first debate leaving some critics disappointed with his performance. Bush benefited by low expectations actually surprising viewers with a better than advertised performance. Jumping into the ring in Winston-Salem, look to Bush to continue an aggressive strategy to attack Gore’s credibility by exposing his well-publicized exaggerations. With the momentum slipping away, Gore’s now run out of options. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Sure he’ll have to maintain some decorum, but look to Gore to pounce on Bush’s programs and his fitness to be president. Voters aren’t impressed with layback candidates, deluding themselves that they’re somehow above it all and don’t need to mix it up. Gore’s handlers know that he can’t hit the snooze button in Winston-Salem. Sparks should fly as both candidates come to grips with what’s at stake. Even challengers like Bush know that while he’s getting his title shot now, tomorrow’s a different day. Should he fall short in November, the GOP won’t share his confidence the next time around. Unlike Gore, he must seize the moment and prove why it’s time for a change.

       While both candidates may be sitting in Winston-Salem and talking to PBS’s mild-mannered Jim Leher, they’ll be kicking each other under the table. Few take the big prize without a nasty fight. Neither candidate is expected to become best friends following the campaign. Civility has its place, but both candidates must step into the ring and stop pulling punches. Bush must reassure voters that he’s in command of his facts. Gore must show more Wild West than just his Tony Lamas. He’s going to have to take it to Bush by methodically dismantling his proposals and fitness to serve as president. Sure, things can get ugly, but then again this is America’s new Roman arena. Viewers expect more than robotic repetitions of standard stump speeches and empty campaign promises. No matter what the format, they expect both men to take some risks, give it their best shot, and dare to be great.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.