For me, watching the first Bush/Kerry debate was more painful, more stressful, and more spiritually draining than watching even the most gruesome hostage decapitation video. Performing cranial self-trepanation with a hand-crank drill would have been soothing in comparison.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that Kerry did poorly. If the polls are anything to go by, he took a few giant steps towards the White House. And as an added bonus, Preznit Dubya graced us with a spectacularly fumbling flame-out wreck of a performance. He failed to live up to even the lowest of low expectations. Seventy million people watched the Preznit drown in his own soft bigotry, and for many of them, it was the first time they'd thought what most thinking people have been thinking for years: "THIS is the President of the United States of America?!" So no, the negative impulses that throbbed through every cell of my being had nothing to do with the debate results.
Here's what bugged me:
First, the sheer, transparent fraud of the exercise. Every aspect of this debate, from the snap-together format to the pointedly vague questions to the anal retentive rulebook, seemed designed to slap a thick coat of whitewash over some basic, ugly truths. It was pure political kabuki, and knowing what we know about the conservative movement -- its hidden agendas, its evolution, its thinkers, its sneering deceit, its absolutist Will to Power dogma, its unbridled lust for power, its contempt for the inconvenience of democracy, and the myriad, sinister ways in which it has inoculated itself against that particular threat -- kabuki seems ill-suited to the problems of our time.
I know, I know... it's not as though Kerry had a choice. Part of the Bush Cabal's evil, idiot genius is that they've been so ambitious in their criminality, and screwed things up so completely, that if Kerry were to address the full extent of their negligence and malfeasance, he would be mocked as a hysterical, alarmist nut-job. In our increasingly controlled corporate media, as in the government under Dubya, the only thing the truth will set you free from is your job... or your life.
But these are topics for a different message. Or thirty different messages. Or a series of books few people will buy and nobody will read. Let's get back to the issue at hand, and what was, for me, the debate's second most bothersome element: the inevitable backlash. Messianic personality cults never take kindly to seeing their guru publicly humiliated, no matter how big a phoney that guru might be. Watching Dubya die on stage, you had to know that revenge was a certainty; from the spin-doctors, from the corporate and conservative media, from the vast and well-funded conservative movement apparat. They did not disappoint.
It began immediately after the debate, when the Team Bush retreated to lick their wounds, hoping the networks and cable news outlets would do their work for them. Hilariously, the initial corporate media consensus was that the debate had been "a draw." Simultaneously, they tried to lessen the impact of Dubya's cretinous performance by backing off their pre-debate contention that this was "one of the most important debates in recent history." In the aftermath, they adopted a more lukewarm tone: "feh⦠it's no big deal (http://publish.nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/125456/%3C?php%20echo), really."
It would take subsequent polls, showing that two thirds of the American people thought Kerry walked away with it, to put a clamp on all the Brokaws and Jenningses and Aaron Brownses' wagging tongues. That they even tried to get away with this flagrant level of denial at all tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of our society's most powerful informational middle-men.
With Team Dubya "unavailable for comment" and Big Media hobbled by unspinnable reality, the task of undoing the damage done was left to the front ranks of the conservative movement: talk radio, right-wing bloggers, and undeniably partisan media like Fox News and the Drudge Report, where objectivity is neither enforced nor expected.
Fox kicked things off in style with a disinformation double-shot. First, they ran a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1319075,00.html) attributing to Kerry such ridiculous quotes as "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? Women should like me! I do manicures." and "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy." Within hours, they would run another story, this time featuring quotes from an organization called Communists for Kerry (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134268,00.html).
The first story was a complete fabrication, and has been retracted. The second story neglected to mention that Communists for Kerry is, in fact, a Republican activist group. The omission was corrected, but not before the story made a minor splash on the right-wing Under-web.
And yet Dan Rather remains journalism's Enemy Number One, a target of relentless official opprobrium, for being duped into telling true lies.
It was on the Under-web, too, that one could find the " target="sd">lunatic (<A HREF=) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12967_A_Better_View_of_Jacketgate ( <A HREF=)" target="sd">frenzy</a> generated by Kerry's devious, rule-breaking treachery in the form of a mysterious object ( [URL=http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html]http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html</A>) -- a cheat sheet, perhaps?! -- that he seemed to smuggle into the debate, against the agreed-upon rules.
Never mind that anybody able to review the actual footage (as opposed to grainy jpegs clipped from a realmedia file) could clearly see that the mystery object was a pen. Never mind that even the partisan Fox News and the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31273.htm) agree with this verdict. Never mind that the video clip being used by right-wingers to attack Kerry actually shows Dubya taking some sort of pamphlet (http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/fwd/20041001/capt.fwd101b20041001jpg.jpg) from his jacket, unfolding it, and placing it on his lectern. Never mind that there is both video and audio evidence that advisors were feeding the Preznit lines through an ear-piece (http://publish.nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/125456/%3C?php%20echo). None of this matters to "the base."
Time and time again, conservative eyes see things that aren't there, and are blind to the obvious. Even those few Bush fanatics who could bring themselves to accept the reality of "the pen scenario" still felt it presented them with a valid distraction from their candidate's shockingly bad performance. "This changes nothing! Kerry broke the rules! Kerry cheated! Kerry brought a PEN!" They are the living embodiment of the "sore loser" concept.
But perhaps I'm is being too harsh. If I had watched my candidate being eviscerated before millions on live TV -- causing an overnight evaporation (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MEFOHATDWJOW0CRBAEZSF EY?type=topNews&storyID=6396440) of a substantial pre-debate lead in the polls -- perhaps I, too, would be suffering from sympathetic brain damage.
Combing through the entire ninety minute transcript for errors, lies, and bullpoo would take too long, and be no fun to read. Nevertheless, I've has put together some general notes and observations on select moments from the debate. You can view the video at C-span.org (http://www.c-span.org/), or read the transcript at Truthout.com (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204Y.shtml).
<blockquote><LI>This first debate was slated to concentrate on foreign policy, the Preznit's alleged "strong point". Kerry lost the coin toss, allowing Bush to choose who answered the first question. He chose Kerry. Big mistake. Kerry kicked things off with a withering attack on Bush's record, putting Bush on the defensive from the get-go. He was stuck in Nixon mode for the entirety of the debate.
<LI>During his rebuttal to Kerry's opening answer, after thanking the University of Florida for providing the venue and mumbling a prayer for Florida's hurricane victims, the first words out of Dubya's mouth were: "September the 11th changed how America must look at the world." It was one of a number of stock phrases that first made their appearance in his opening comments. Others include such gems as "seventy-five percent of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice," and "we're spreading freedom around the world," and "the Taliban are no longer in power," and "ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan," and (my own personal favorite) "America and the world are safer" because of his illegal, businessman's war-of-first-resort in Iraq. All in his first rebuttal. All manifestly false.
<LI>In response to his first question, about whether he felt Kerry being elected would increase the chance of a terrorist attack on American soil, Bush replied: "No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead." Bush would frequently return to this insistence on his ability to lead, despite no other nation in the world being willing to follow him.
<LI>Dubya again: "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard." He would return to this theme eleven (coun't em!) times throughout the debate, in increasingly petulant tones. Hey, if he can't handle the workload, why the hell did he apply for the job?!
<LI>On the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, Kerry managed to sneak a domestic policy issue into the foreign policy debate: "Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too."
<LI>It was at this early point in the debate that the Preznit's hopelessly coke-frazzled synapses began to misfire, causing his face to dissolve into a wincing, twitching, outward manifestation of the pharmaceutically-suppressed chaos taking place inside his skull.
<LI>Bush making pathetic, irrelevant, child-like excuses for invading Iraq: "My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat." This in-depth (really in-depth) article (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041003/ZNYT03/410030427) on how the Bush cabal embraced questionable intelligence, ignored solid information and peddled outright lies to the world puts the lie to that ridiculous notion.
<LI>Bush: "You cannot lead if you send mexed missages (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.shtml)⦠mixed messages." Freeping ing perfect.
<LI>Early in the debate, Bush begins to experience extended blackouts during which he can no longer speak. He then begins snapping at people who aren't there (http://publish.nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/125456/%3C?php%20echo).
<LI>Bush: "There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory." Gee, nice plan there guy. I think you need to have a chat with your CIA (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643836.shtml) before trying to implement it, though. "And when Iraq is free, America will be more secure." But I thought you said we were already more secure! Is that a flip-flop? What gives?!
<LI>In response to Kerry's accusation that Bush had done nothing to improve the state of homeland security, listing all the Preznit's unkept promises re: border, infrastructure, commercial and industrial transport, Bush hilariously retorted: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate." Two things: First, they were Bush's promises, which he failed to keep. Second, he basically admitted that fighting class-war through tax-cuts to the mega-rich was more important to him than securing the homeland! Damn priceless.
<LI>Dubya's stirring message to the troops: "Thank you for what you're doing. We're standing with you strong. We'll give you all the equipment you need. And we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission."
<LI>Killer Kerry line: "You know, 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. There's a sense of American occupation." Using his own father's words against him? Cold-blooded!
<LI>Another Killer Kerry line, immediately following the one above: "The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders." Bush had no answer.
<LI>On Kerry declaring Bush had failed to put together a coalition to go into Iraq: "My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? ⦠Well, actually, he forgot Poland." Fact: Over ninety percent of the casualties, and nearly all of the cost, are beings shouldered by Americans. And what's this? Uh-oh! Poland just backed off (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=1&u=/afp/20041004/ts_afp/iraq_poland_troops_041004153415) on the coalition-of-the-dwindling! Is it possible Kerry was tipped off in advance?
<LI>Unfortunate Abu Ghraib-related Dubya tongue-slip No.1: "Because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in."
<LI>Bush on "hard work" and the closest he ever gets to it: "And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic."
<LI>Bush on knowing it's okay to sacrifice American lives for his businessman's war-of-first-resort, because Missy the Medium told him her dead husband said it was okay: "You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy. Because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find al Qaeda wherever they hide. ⦠Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood."
<LI>Kerry's devastating comeback: "I understand what the president is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before."
<LI>Bush on whether the Iraq experience would make him more or less likely to launch another preemptive war: "I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running - when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim." The truth is that the plan to invade Iraq was set in motion well before 9/11 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004Jan10?language=printer)⦠not that they knew 9/11 was coming, of course. That's just crazy talk. And alsoâ¦
<LI>Kerry's devastating response: "Jim, 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. Al Qaeda attacked us. ... That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits."
<LI>Bush's response to Kerry's response: "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." And the corporate media tried to tell you there weren't any zingers in this debate!
<LI>Unfortunate Abu Ghraib-related Dubya tongue-slip No.2, when he said of his daughters: "I'm trying to put a leash on 'em." Yikes.
<LI>Let's wrap things up with a final comment from President Kerry: "We can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, Here, let me show you the photos. And DeGaulle waved them off and said, No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me. How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?" I guess it depends on how big the check is, John, but I know what you're saying.</blockquote>
Oh! One last thing: With all the brouhaha over Kerry's multifarious vocabulary and his penchant for public intellectualism, I decided to dig up the biggest words used by either participant during the debate.
The longest word spoken by Kerry was "authoritatively" (16 letters). The longest word spoken by Bush was "systematically" (14 letters).
Bush gets an extra point, however, for using the most pretentious word of the debate: "vociferously" (12 letters). He pronounced it just right, too!