Set Him Up and Knock Him Down. The First Debate
By Anthony Wade
Setting Him Up
Watching the pre-debate coverage on MSNBC with Chris Matthews I was hoping for a rational objective discourse on the upcoming debate. I was of course disappointed. In their defense, the panels were better balanced than during the GOP convention, but the rhetoric was clearly setting John Kerry up. Here are some particulars:
"This is about style not substance"
"How do you make yourself likeable (referring to Kerry) in two minute spots"
These comments were made by the Telemundo representative on the Hardball panel. It is entirely insulting to the American people and represents the same media disinformation that killed Al Gore in 2000. The "likeability" factor is nonsense. We are not asking to date either of these men, but want to hear about their vision, or lack thereof. Now, you cannot fault MSNBC for ridiculous comments made by panelists, but that is where Matthews as the moderator should have tried to play a little Hardball. The king of MSNBC should have dismissed such trivializing of the debate and redirected the analysis. Next we heard over and over again:
"Kerry must define himself"
"John Kerry must win this debate"
The entire focus seemed to be on John Kerry. If you were an uneducated viewer, that is the impression given by all the panelists on MSNBC. Once again this is very insulting. One debate does not make or break either candidate unless there is a MAJOR gaffe. To insinuate this is also saying to the American people that the third debate which focuses on domestic issues, is irrelevant. I disagree with this point because for most people, the economy is still the issue. By framing the pre-debate analysis as being a do or die time for Kerry is to make two erroneous assumptions. One is that the economic issues are not important to all of us. That is patently false. The second distortion this presents is that George Bush has nothing to lose in this debate. It is ridiculous to assume that Kerry is the only person with something to lose. It is what they did to Gore in 2000 when all they talked about was his sighing and how "folksy" Bush was and ignored the actual meat from the debate. They ignored the substance and only focused on the style. Because of that, we have been stuck for the past four years with a president with some style, but no substance. The most inane comment though was from Tom Brokaw:
"Kerry has to make himself seem like the guy next door that will come over into your backyard and have a beer, not be the guy who puts up a hedge around his backyard and is in the back seat of a limousine with tinted windows"
Are you kidding me Tom Brokaw? When did George Bush become a hardhat? Both candidates are from the "haves". Bush has led a life of privilege. To hear Tom Brokaw speak about it, Bush is living in your neighborhood and Kerry is a snob. It is inaccurate and does a disservice to the thing that keeps escaping mainstream media, the truth.
I want to be clear, Matthews and MSNBC were better than they were at the GOP convention. I just hope that as a moderator Matthews would lend more credibility to the journalistic process. Kerry can still win, regardless of this debate. To slant things otherwise is offensive and does not lend itself to intellectual integrity. Now onto the debate.
The Debate
John Kerry won this debate. There can be no other rational conclusion. Kerry had far better command of the issues, was more Presidential, and had clearer plans. Bush appeared lost at times, fumbling, smirking, had long pauses as he tried to gather his thoughts and was so repetitive that I thought I saw Karl Rove pulling the string in Bush's back like a Chatty Kathy doll.
Bush's arguments were the same as we have heard, rhetoric lacking substance. Joe Scarborough noted after the debate that George Bush used the term "this is hard work" eleven times during this debate. Other favorite lines repeated whenever Bush lost his way were:
"We must have steady leadership"
"We must stay on the offense"
"We must not send mixed messages"
He said this last one so many times that at one point he said "we must not send mex missages", before recovering. He had no clear substantive points at all, other than stay the course, which even folks on the right side recognize as being a failed course. When asked whether we would be attacked again if Kerry was elected, a clear questioning of Vice President Cheney's comments, Bush scrambled and did not even answer the question.
Bush again reiterated claims that 75% of Al Qaeda has been "brought to justice" even though he has zero convictions and provides no basis or proof of that statement. He also dissembled when saying that there have been 100,000 Iraqi's trained for security when this week it was revealed that the number is no higher than 53,000. Bush flat out went into his own world by saying that Libya dismantled their WMD programs because of the Iraq War, when it has been postulated by the intelligence communities that it was more of a result of the UN sanctions.
Kerry's arguments were more cohesive and thought out. He had specifics. He clearly had far greater command of issues. He correctly asserted that the foray into Iraq was a "colossal error in judgment". He pointed out that Bush has wasted 200 billion in a failed war instead of addressing key domestic problems such as healthcare. One of the most salient points Kerry made was the decision Bush made to ignore bin Laden and go after Hussein. In doing so, Kerry reminded us all that when we had bin Laden trapped, we "outsourced the job" of catching bin Laden to the Afghan warlords. Of course, bin Laden got away. On homeland security Kerry hammered the point home that Bush's policies were all based in other countries, while we close firehouses at home while cutting the COPS program.
Jim Lehrer appropriately pointed out toward the end of the debate that the two candidates clearly disagreed on policy issues. This is what we all have known for some time. The spin machines however have tried to blend the two so that Kerry's position is weakened by looking as if he was Bush Lite. This debate cleared up that misinformation.
As the debate was winding down, Bush answered a question about the fall of democracy in Russia under Putin, a man who Bush had said he "looked into his soul" and supported, by saying that "checks and balances are important to a democracy". Considering the gross violations to the constitution under the Patriot Act, this answer was amusing at best. The Patriot Act has rendered Habeas Corpus useless and has eliminated checks and balances by ignoring judicial mandates. It was a clear insight into the duplicity that is George W. Bush. This debate was important going into it because of the disinformation the media has spun so far, but coming out of it, because that duplicity has been exposed.
Knocking Him Down
I expected in this section to address the post debate spin. At the start of the MSNBC post debate coverage we actually saw an honest reaction from the panel who agreed that Kerry won this debate. Joe Scarborough, a staunch republican, stated "I do not see how any clear thinking person can conclude anything other than John Kerry won this debate". Unfortunately, then he went off for the rest of the night on how Kerry will lose the election, even at one point suggesting to Bush, an idea for an attack commercial to unleash on Kerry. Did you get that? Scarborough , on a news broadcast, scripted an idea for the Bush campaign to attack Kerry. When he was about to be questioned on it by panelist Andrea Mitchell, Scarborough talked louder, over her until she could not respond. Matthews the moderator, did nothing to prevent it.
As the night went on though, we saw the return to the skewed coverage that has infested the media. Later, Scarborough began pontificating that Kerry's message still might not resonate with middle America . This strategy of tearing down Bush's opponent was used against Gore as well. On the following panel, MSNBC had Ed Ginsberg, a republican election lawyer and Tony Blankly from the right-wing Washington Times. It was not surprising that their analysis was that Bush won, despite all obvious indications to the contrary. They of course were not challenged on those flawed assertions.
A bright side for MSNBC was the reporter stationed in the "spin room" who was truly a journalist. She was charged with interviewing the partisan forces and would not let them get away with the lies and spin. If more in the business interviewed as she did, the coverage would be much fairer.
The spin coming out from the right though was absolutely ridiculous. Karen Hughes, Ralph Reed, and Rudy Guliani all came out to actually say that Bush won the debate. Now I understand that they have to try to spin, but this was patently silly. They said Bush looked strong and steady. What? He was slumped over, fumbling and pausing for large portions of his answers. He looked far from strong. He looked defensive and disinterested. Howard Fineman had the line of the night to describe Bush's performance, "he had about 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate."
The reviews are all not in yet on the job the media did. The next few days are crucial. You can expect the right wing spin machine to select one or two things and blow them out of proportion, avoiding the reality that Bush got creamed tonight. You will hear them stick to their talking points coming into the debate and repeat them over and over again, as the president tried to do tonight. You will hear nonsense about Kerry changing positions when it is obvious that he has not. You will hear that he has not clarified his Iraq position, which he clearly has. Kerry also accurately described the Bush plan in four simple words, "more of the same". How the media responds will be vital to the democratic process. If we see lead stories everywhere about these miniscule GOP talking points, instead of the totality of the win for Kerry, we will know that the media is up the tricks from 2000. Their agenda will be exposed to not report the news, but to shape it.
No matter how they try to spin this, Bush lost and lost big. About an hour after the debate there were two online polls I visited. The CNN poll had it 79% to 18% in favor of Kerry with over 100,000 people casting votes. MSNBC had the debate 71% to 29%, with over 400,000 casting votes. These numbers do not lie. Let's hope the media does not either.
Anthony Wade is co-administrator of a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional counselor, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade's Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm
Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com
