The View from the Meadow

Observations of the Passing Scene

Political and Social Commentary by Dave Satre

Reality TV
The First Presidential Debate

Reality hit home for millions of Americans on September 30th as the nation tuned in for the first of the 2004 Presidential Election Debates and realized that if we’re reduced to these two candidates at a time when America and the world are in desperate need of strong leadership this country is in real trouble.

Bush, trying as hard as he could to appear presidential, was unable to form any solid arguments for his re-election. He continuously repeated his intentions to continue what he has already been doing, but the man has had four years to prove his capabilities and he has failed at every turn. He’s had his chance--- he doesn’t deserve another term --- and the nation cannot afford another four years of Bush.

Kerry won the debate, but it was not a clear-cut, overwhelming victory --- certainly nothing that would cause Bush’s conservative ideologues to change their minds. Kerry, although looking entirely too much like Stan Laurel, proved much more capable of presenting his arguments. The undecided voters might have been influenced by Kerry, who pointed out the obvious failings in Bush’s record and Bush could do little more than say he didn’t agree with Kerry and plead with the viewers to support him.

All of the supposed major networks declared Kerry the winner and Kerry appears to have revitalized his campaign after recently slipping in the polls. The Fox News Network, of course, obediently proclaimed Bush the obvious winner, in accordance with the conservative network’s traditional editorial policies. The Bush camp can be expected to combat the claims of a Kerry victory, probably by attacking the networks’ and reporters’ credibility. Kerry’s makeup did not look good and he had an annoying habit of looking in Bush’s direction and nodding his head as though in agreement while Bush was talking. At times, the image of a Stan Laurel bobble-head doll came to mind.

He also appeared weak when agreeing with Bush on many aspects of the Iraq conflict and spent too much of his debate time actually complimenting Bush, who did not return the favor. It’s fine to be polite, to maintain the high road and avoid personal attacks, but you don’t have to waste precious debate time flattering the opponent.

Kerry agreed with Bush on too many issues, particularly Iraq. He needed to focus on the issues where he differed with GW and offer specific alternatives. He needs to present himself as the better choice for America and stop making Bush’s arguments for him.

Kerry agreed, for example, that we need to win this war, achieve the peace and extract our troops. He should have pointed out that we wouldn’t be in this predicament if it were not for George Bush’s ill-planned rush to war. He should have focused on the fact that our military would not be in harm’s way if it were not for Bush. The Iraq situation is entirely Bush’s fault and he needs to be held accountable for it.

Kerry made a major point that Bush squandered the global good will for America by alienating many countries, including many of our greatest allies, and that success against terrorism will only come through an allied approach in which the global community joins together to stop it.

Kerry’s support for a pre-emptive war was also a major mistake. America should only go to war as a last resort --- never for strictly political reasons. Kerry should have learned that lesson through his experience in Vietnam. We should not be the world’s bully and Bush’s penchant for attacking other countries is one of the major reasons we have lost allies around the world.

Kerry named nuclear proliferation as the greatest threat to the world and boldly promised to stop it. He correctly blamed Bush for ignoring the issue and aggravating the situation through diplomatic failures with North Korea and Iran. He listed Iran and North Korea on his questionable “axis of evil”, thus putting these countries and others on alert, which actually encouraged them to increase their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.

Kerry pointed out the size of our military cannot cover the world and warned against Bush Administration’s clandestine plans to reinstate the draft. Bush denied the charge that he is planning to reinstate the draft, but this secretive administration knows that they won’t win the election if they really announce such plans.

As in his first campaign, Bush will say anything to get re-elected, and he’s so used to such lies that it doesn’t matter to him whether it’s the truth or not. If he had stood up to his statements in the previous election he would have been a peace president and we wouldn’t be in Iraq. If re-elected Bush and Company will have four years to reinstate the draft, during which time they will have plenty of time to justify the move.

Kerry appeared to gain confidence as the debate went on, while Bush looked more worried and defeated, pleading his case rather than arguing it.

Bush began the debate confidently, appearing to be the affable, good ol’ boy cheerleader we’ve all grown to love. He soon found that his traditional techniques of joking with the audience, which according to the rules of the debate was not allowed to respond and remained obediently silent, would not work. Used to loud cheering and hollering whenever he makes a statement to his normal campaign crowd of neo-cons and conservative ideologues, he must have felt like he was working in a vacuum and gradually lost his confidence.

His expression turned to one that mixed worry and defeat with a lack of confidence. He certainly does not like to have his actions questioned and found it difficult to respond. He definitely did not appear presidential --- his was not the image of the firm leader he claims to be nor that of a confident man.

Bush’s responses to debate points were generally pre-scripted. He has been well coached, but when they returned to certain questions several times, such as the war and the failures in Afghanistan, Bush could only repeat the same lines. He is used to sound bite campaigning and appeared unable to discuss topics in depth. He continually repeated his “Stay the Course” line, claiming Kerry is sending our troops a negative message, but our troops know they wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for Bush’s mistakes. All Bush can claim is to have a plan, which he continually referred to during the debate. His plan for Iraq was formed after the total failure to achieve his initial plans for invading the country.

Bush promised Americans a quick victory that would take no more than 20 days, that our troops would be joyously welcomed by the grateful Iraqi people, and our troops would be removed within four months. None of these things happened. We’re still there and over 1,000 of our people have died.

Bush was only able to plead his case and was obviously unable to argue it. His points had little substance, they were they same party line repeatedly daily in the news media and the public is growing wise to the fact that they are deceptions designed to direct attention away from the real issues.

Bush agreed with Kerry that nuclear proliferation is a great threat, but again attempted to divert the focus to terrorism. He pointed out that terrorists with nuclear weapons would be an even greater threat and used the opportunity to promote the development of the Star Wars missile defense system. This decades-long financial boondoggle pushed by the Republicans and the military-industrial complex would be absolutely ineffective in stopping terrorism. Terrorists don’t have missiles --- they use car bombs and shoe bombs.

One of the back stories to the production of this debate is somewhat interesting. Reportedly, in the discussions establishing the elaborate rules for the debate the Republicans were much concerned with the height issue, claiming that the taller Kerry would have a visual advantage over Bush.

When the candidates took their positions at their podiums the producers for C-SPAN went to a split screen, one for each candidate, and immediately adjusted the height difference so that the tops of the candidate’s heads were level. After the adjustment the time warning lights on Kerry’s podium were no longer visible.

However, there was something odd about the images: Kerry looked much smaller than Bush. I got out a ruler to measure their screen images and it was true. The producers, instead of merely raising Bush’s screen image to Kerry’s level, actually achieved the effect by enlarging Bush’s image.

Bush’s head, for example, was almost one-fourth larger than Kerry’s and his shoulders were also one-fourth broader. Bush now had the visual advantage, looking larger and stronger than Kerry. One has to wonder if this was just circumstantial or whether it was another contrived move from the Bush campaign camp. It was subtle, but it may have been somewhat successful. At least the Bush camp can’t complain that he was the one at a visual disadvantage.

The Reality:

Bush will have some time to focus on the next debate, which will be in a different format, that of a town meeting. Perhaps he should consult with his father, who was somewhat successful debating in this style with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, although Clinton won the election.

Bush needs to come up with some new material. Continuing to argue that he is strong and presidential because he never changes his mind is not a valuable premise. Intelligent people and strong leaders will change their minds when confronted with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. If he only promises results and merely points to his “plan” without offering details he will lose again. And again in November.

Bush also needs to be honest with the American public, something that the administration has continuously failed to do since they took over the White House. It’s probably too late to start now. We have no valid reason to believe he will do what he’s saying --- if Bush had kept his 2000 campaign promises he wouldn’t be in this position. Kerry is essentially in the same position --- he can only promise to do better.

Basically, the voters must recognize that the difference here is that Bush has had his four years to do what he is saying and has failed on all accounts. He has had his opportunity --- it’s time to give someone else a chance.  It would be extremely difficult to do a worse job in the White House than George Bush.

The reality is --- Bush has got to go.

We Need a Regime Change --- in Washington