Kerry gains the upper hand in a debate as significant for its substance as for what it revealed about Bush.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal for salon.com.
After months of flawless execution in a well-orchestrated campaign, President Bush had to stand alone in an unpredictable debate. He had traveled the country, appearing before adoring preselected crowds; delivered a carefully crafted acceptance speech at his convention; and approved tens of millions of dollars in TV attack commercials to belittle his opponent. His much-touted charisma was a reflection of the anxiety and wishful thinking of the people since Sept. 11. In the lead, Bush believed he had only to assert his superiority to end the contest once and for all.
But onstage the incumbent president ran out of programmed talking points. Unable to explain the logic for his policies, or think on his feet, he was thrown back on the raw elements of his personality and leadership, and he revealed even more profound issues than the policies being debated.
Every time he was confronted with ambivalence, his impulse was to sweep it aside. He claimed he must be followed because he is the leader. Fate in the form of Sept. 11 had placed authority in his hands as a man of destiny.
Skepticism, pragmatism and empiricism are his enemies. Absolute faith prevails over open-ended reason, subjectivity over fact. Those who do not pray at his altar of certainty are betrayers of the faith, not to mention the troops. Belief in belief is the ultimate sacrament of his political legitimacy.
In the frame of the split TV screen, Bush's face was a transparent mirror of his emotions. His grimaces exposed his irritation, frustration and anger at being challenged. Lacking intellectual stamina and repeating his talking points as though on a feedback loop, he tried to close argument by blind assertion. With no one interrupting him, he protested, "Let me finish" -- a phrase he occasionally deploys to great effect before the cowed White House press corps.
John Kerry was set up beforehand as Bush's ideal foil: long-winded, dour and dull. But the Kerry who showed up was crisp, nimble and formidable. His thrusts brought out Bush's rigidity and stubbornness. The more Bush pleaded the case of his own decisiveness, the more he appeared reactive. Time and again, as he attempted to halt Kerry, he accused him of "mixed signals" and "mixed messages" and "inconsistency." For Bush, certainty equals strength. His facial expressions exposed his exasperation at having to hear an opposing view. As he accused Kerry of being contradictory, it was obvious that he was peeved at being contradicted.
Kerry responded with a devastating deconstruction of Bush's epistemology. Nothing like this critique of pure reason has ever been heard in a presidential debate. "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong," said Kerry. "It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right. What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble."
Kerry's analysis of Bush's "colossal error of judgment" in Iraq was systematic, factual and historical. The coup de gr’ce was his citation of the president's father's actions in the Gulf War. "You know," said Kerry, "the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today." With that, Kerry touched on Bush's most ambivalent relationship, the father he recently called "the wrong father," whom he compared with the "higher Father."
In response, Bush simply insisted on his authority. "I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president." He reverted to his claim that Sept. 11 justified the invasion of Iraq because "the enemy" -- meaning Saddam Hussein -- "attacked us." A stunned but swift-footed Kerry observed: "The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." In his effort to banish all doubt, Bush had retreated into a substitute reality, a delusional version of Iraq, ultimately faith based.
Bush's attack lines against Kerry were not descriptive of the surprising man standing opposite him. They had been effective last week, but were suddenly shopworn. But Bush couldn't adjust amid the rapidly moving event. The greater his frustration in the debate, the more frequently he spoke of his difficulties in coping with "my job." "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work," he said. Ten times he spoke of his "hard work": listening to intelligence briefings, training Iraqi troops, talking to allies, having to comfort a bereaved mother whose son was killed in Iraq.
Finally, near the end, Kerry praised Bush for his public service, and his wife, and his daughters. "I'm trying to put a leash on them," Bush said. That was hard work, too. "Well, I don't know," replied Kerry, who also has daughters. "I've learned not to do that, Mr. President." Even in the banter about parental control, Kerry gained the upper hand.
But Bush lost more than control in the first debate. He lost the plot.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Sidney Blumenthal is a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars."
~ Donna sent this to the commgrad listserv.
Continuing with Stephen's concern about the media refusing to 'let Kerry win' - the op-ed by David Brooks, Sense and Sensibility, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?th does exactly that. Presents a "balanced" view of the two mens' cognitive strength's and weaknesses, and concludes that Bush's admitted incompetence with foreign policy resonates with more people because they share the same "cast of mind" about fighting an ideological war. THAT is freaking scary.
Guys,
Below, I've pasted the text one of my students sent to me to be posted on my journalism class blog. Take a look.
FYI, he Blog's address is http://newswriting.blogspot.com. One of the recent posts contains a bunch of links to major US newspapers' coverage of the debate.
"Bushís Republican Policy Prevails in Presidential Debate
The recent presidential, re-election debate highlighted the oxymoronic policy of the John Kerry campaign. If President Bush had not refrained from embarrassing Senator Kerry on every point, the presidential election would, essentially, be over.
It is unclear as to why the President did not embarrass a US Senator on national television; however, Bush was continually provided the opportunity to pull the trigger on ìloaded statementsî made by Kerry. Clearly, Kerry is thoroughly unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Kerry attacks the President on issues of foreign policy, but continually ignores the logic of policy and the actual facts.
Kerry criticizes President Bush on acting in Iraq without UN support. However, recent speeches in the UN are in favor of nation building and any international support that implement, or assist, forms of government that represent the respective population of nations in need. (c-span) Despite a lack of physical support and continual criticism by the United States media, the United States has likely received more respect from the majority of the UN than in past years. The UN is not a subsection of the US military. In basic logical theory, the US is doing a favor for the UN and that would only strengthen ties.
The Presidentís last speech to the UN was very diplomatic and emphasized the importance of democracy. It was not a slanderous attack on UN policy or any other nationís beliefs. (c-span) Most nations in the UN would agree that Democracy is important in the world today.
The ëwar against terrorismí is a global assault against a faction of people that are defined by, support of, or actions of, terrorism. This statement seems to be in support of Kerry, except for one fundamental fact; Iraq was using government funds to support terrorism rather than provide for its people. Although in contrast, it is equally fundamental that the United States should use funds to support US troops.
The proper allocation of funds that balance safety and prosperity is the fundamental purpose of any modern government. Kerry seems to be unable to grasp this point, in policy, or debate. With President Bush as leader, one thing can be sure; if anybody attacks the United States, they will pay. Kerry doesnít seem stand strong on this point either. Kerry doesnít seem to hold any stable, solid policy besides continually deceiving the American people, and playing towards the most ignorant political ideology.
The central issue is whether or not the war in Iraq was appropriate. Kerryís argument would be easily debunked if the President had stated the facts about Saddam Hussein to the US people. The facts are that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism, and President Bush waged a war on all terrorism. (c-span) The President has never lied to the American people about his attempts to end terrorism against the US.
On the issue of nuclear proliferation, the United States now knows of increased production in countries such as Iran and North Korea. Kerry said that he would break a five nation alliance, created by Bush, and take on North Korea in, one on one, negotiation. In contrast with President Bushís policy in Iraq; Kerry would lose strong allies, and Bush is gaining them. Bush does not support limiting focus on nuclear weapons, in any form, and Kerry has a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the nuclear world.
Kerry proposed increasing worldwide intelligence, which was introduced and implemented by the Bush administration. Furthermore, when Kerry addressed the threat of future terrorism, he neglected to mention the fact that many of the people who were a direct threat to the United States are dead; which, as a side-note, in no way diminishes the Presidentís focus on homeland security. Kerryís arguments continually, either agree with President Bush, or negate Kerry's own proposed policy.
The Democratic candidate did have one successful outcome from the debate; he did prove the ability to manipulate information and deceive the American people with confidence and precision.
Personally, when I look at Senator Kerry, I see a candidate who could lead the United States in traditional, domestic affairs. Even then, I couldnít see him handling foreign policy with the necessary level of proficiency.
Unfortunately, the United States is not presently focused on the traditional, economic, domestic agenda. Given the knowledge Kerry displayed, tonight, on the issues of foreign policy, it seems clear to me that Kerry should not hold the position of President of the United States of America. He is wealthy, though."
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:28:54 -0700
From: "sandeep"
Subject: [Air-l] Word count from first debate
To:
Many list members may find this useful. This site provides the word count of key phrases used in the first debate (e.g. hard work, wrong place at the wrong time).
http://overstated.net/04/10/01-presidential-debate-analy.asp (Scroll down to Bush and then Kerry)
Raz, Iím intrigued by this studentís posting. Iíd love to respond directlyóand kindlyóto him, for many reasons, not the least of which is that his piece practices a typical vitriol that we see coming from the right. I shutter to think of this as journalism, unless perhaps on Fox. I fear heís an ideologue in the making, but I wonder if he realizes how such rhetoric might actually isolate him from the political process and from moderate Republicans and open-minded leftists. I understand itís likely his age speaking, but I find it noteworthy that he uses ìfundamentalî four times: fundamental facts, equally fundamental, fundamental purpose, and fundamental misunderstanding. And I canít help but think that fundamentalism is precisely where his mind is at. I noticed no one responded to him at the blog. How did you handle it?