Mark's post this morning about word counts from the Thursday presidential debate initially made me wonder how the word "wrong" escaped Mark's list, given my impression that Bush repeated the phrase "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", like, a hundred times. So I did my own search of the transcript (using the Find function in my browser and counting them off by hand; I'm less sophisticated than Mark in this regard and probably a hundred others) and found the reason: Kerry used the word "wrong" 11 times to Bush's 26, which means the ratio was almost 2.5 to 1 -- way too low to make Mark's list.
21 of Bush's 26 uses of the word "wrong" (81%) were in the context of the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" phrase he repeated 7 times during the debate (sometimes with "at the" instead of the commas, sometimes with "wrong place" and "wrong time" reversed, etc.). Clearly, the Bush team thought it would be a great idea for him to make repeated reference to Kerry's statement in early September that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and to contrast this with the fact that Kerry "voted to authorize the use of force", that Kerry and Bush made this decision based on "the same intelligence", and so on. You know, the flip-flop thing. The mixed message/signal thing.
But was this strategy effective? According to George Lakoff, simply saying a word or phrase, whether you're just quoting it or even flat-out denying it, does a good job of reinforcing the word or phrase itself -- perhaps a better job than whatever it is that you're really trying to communicate. As Lakoff put it in his recent interview on NOW with Bill Moyers: "It's like Richard Nixon getting up there and saying, 'I am not a crook,' and people think of him as a crook."
I wonder: how many viewers of the debate now have more significant doubts about the war in Iraq given these 7 repetitions of the relevant phrase?
These quotes are listed here in their order of appearance in the transcript. Notice how the very first one sends the apparently intended message of the Bush camp pretty strongly, but each subsequent one seems weaker than the last. By the last one, I'm thinking: Bush just can't admit he was wrong, and he's willing to sacrifice more American lives just so that he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong.
It helps that this thought in my head is basically the same message that Kerry was hammering home in one way or another in all of his 11 uses of the word "wrong":
The first 2 of Bush's 5 other uses of "wrong" were, in my opinion, seriously off-message by comparison:
The last 3, one right after the other, appear to be back on track:
Debate-viewing swing voters, I think, should be having serious doubts about a second Bush term. But that's already been said.
[ Comments? ]
Posted by Eric Bakovic at October 2, 2004 02:56 PM