A THREE-POINT PLAN FOR THE DEBATES
Gentle reader, we now find ourselves on the cusp of what is bound to be one of the defining moments of the ‘04 election. Your reporter has a plan for complete debate coverage, for which you need not go elsewhere. It is a three-point plan over the next 24 hours.
TODAY: I was going to reflect the predictable mind-set of the mainstream media, as informed by Bush spinners, by drafting a sample review of the debate before it ever happened. However, Ed Helms did the same thing hilariously on the Daily Show last night, as he read from his "notes" and said the media pack had already written their reviews of the debate, too. Besides, I ran out of time this morning.
TONIGHT: After watching the debates, I will shut off the TV and write my own review of the debate, stepping back from the strident perspective usually seen on this site and writing an "objective" review of what happened, unburdened and unfettered by the instant commentators on the networks and cable squawk-fests. I have always thought that, since it’s a television event anyway, you don’t have to be there to report on it. In fact, watching it with the pack – as I did with a Dem debate in Milwaukee in February – can be and usually is a distorting experience, as the room harumphs and sneers in unison at the (sometimes) sincere political riffs. And then there are the spinners (31 for Bush; 34 for Kerry). Sitting here, I don’t have to do and I’m not affected by any of that. Objectivity! Thank you!
TOMORROW: After writing my review untouched by the unclean hands of the commentariat, I will review the instant analysis I will tape while it happens – probably Hardball.
Throughout it all, please keep the following in mind:
- John Kerry could wipe the floor with Junior, but still not "win" the debate in the sainted view of the commentariat. Although the oppressive Conventional Wisdom of the press pack has already predicted his failure at what he has to do ("redefine" himself, present a face people want to see in their living rooms for the next 4 years, explain his alleged waffling, etc.), even if he does all of that, they will still call it a draw and give the win to Bush by default.
- Stunning moments reflecting Bush’s idiocy will be glossed over or celebrated ad nauseam as evidence of his flinty Clint Eastwood manliness. After all, that’s why people "like" him, isn’t it? Sort of like a rodeo clown.
- Kerry’s moments of brilliance will be dismissed as expected or overly windy and his minor glitches (in recent days: was the "voted for before voting against" comment made at night or during the day? Why has his skin turned orange in the last couple of days, an amazing bit of Drudge, via PhotoShop, invention that actually found its way into the National Discourse?) will be exaggerated into evidence of stunning incompetence and/or candidate meltdown.
- The panels put together by the broadcasters will always have a representative wingnut – whether it’s old-school pigs like George Will on ABC and Safire on NBC; neo-con Bill Kristol, the certifiable Anne Coulter, Florida vote-count-stopper Joe Scarburro on MSNBC, Wall Street Journal Editorial nut Paul Gigot on PBS, etc, and everyone at Fox News.
- There will be no such representative of anything to the left of David Broder. No Michael Moore, certainly; no Al Franken either. None of the fine progressive voices emanating from the internet, such as the Salon writers; no Paul Krugman or even Michael Kinsley, fer cryin’ out loud. The "left" perspective is held down by such Great Thinkers as Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan), beat writers from the New York Times or the Washington Post (you know, the "liberal" media). Then there are the house "liberals" at Fox News: Juan Williams and the repulsive Allan Colmes. Could it really be that the most progressive and independent voice interpreting the debate tonight will be: Ron Reagan?
- The effect is that every panel will have someone (and probably more than one) who will push the Rove message-of-the-night, blindly and unwavering. The other side of the panels (really, the middle), will give Bush his "due", even if he looks like an idiot and will equivocate about Kerry’s successes, even if he puts a big can of Whoop Ass on Junior.
- Even if Kerry survives the initial screening by the instant commentariat, the Bushies and wingnut radio/cable will find something to grab onto and ram into people’s heads for weeks (like Gore’s sighs in ‘00) to unercut Kerry's success. Whether it’s a personal tick, a sideways glance or a slightly blown fact, Kerry will be smeared with something and Bush will have to answer for nothing.
This doesn’t mean Bush wins in the end. This is the first time most Americans have a chance to take a long look at Kerry and, if he is as articulate and attractive as he can be, he will make a positive impression on those people who want Bush out, but have held off while Bush tarred and feathered Kerry. If Kerry can get to the base instinct of most Americans – that Bush is a dangerous radical who has driven the country to the edge of international and economic ruin – and show that he can (anyone can) do better, look for a Kerry bump in the polls, especially on November 2nd.
6:18:32 PM 
|
|
