John Kerry's Comeback
Commentary by Michael
Hammerschlag October 7, 2004
John Kerry leaped back into the race
with a bravura performance against the President, but failed to
deliver a fatal blow with his greatest weapon: Bush's pathological
dishonesty. Bush has been so successful in defining Kerry as weak,
waffling, cowardly, and untrustworthy that his entire 10 point rise
since the Repub. Convention was based on it. These were intimate,
vicious, dishonest attacks on Kerry's character; and required a
powerful personal response- a roundhouse that would knock Bush out
of the ring.
And Jim Lehrer, bless his heart, gave
him the fat softball, right down the middle of the plate. But Kerry
stepped out of the box.
LEHRER: "You have repeatedly accused
President Bush of ...lying ... about Iraq. Give us some examples of
... his not telling the truth." KERRY: "Well, I've never used the
harshest word. ..he told Congress about nuclear materials that
don't exist.. he said he would exhaust the remedies of the UN.. he
misled ...when he said we'd plan carefully ..(and) go to war as a
last resort."
That was it. Nothing about the WMD's
that didn't exist, the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud, the humble
foreign policy, the balanced budget, the uniter not a divider, the
dozens of monstrous blatant screaming lies. JFK was solid, macho,
scholarly, concise, Presidential, polite; but what the public needed
and wanted was toughness. Bush needed to be punished for his
cheapjack slanders. He should have interrupted Bush when he lied
about Saddam-Osama links: "I know Osama attacked us! I know that."
"Then why did you lie about their
connections again and again. Why did you invade another country and
kill 40,000 people based on baloney? How can we believe
anything you say?
Kerry has to focus on a single theme
(like Bush did with inconsistency)- that Bush
lies-
every Administration statement can be
successfully mined for evidence of this. It also would inoculate
Kerry from the outrageous slanders that Bush concocts (including the
Swift Boat Bushies). Chuckle them off: "See, there he goes
again.", rather than whine about unfair attacks. Once one overcame
the media barrier to that word, the press would finally start to
analyze Bush's serial lies- they would be in play. Why did Kerry
vote for the resolution against Iraq? Because he lied to us! No
candidate has ever had a fatter target than the dishonesty and
corruption of the Bush Administration, but Kerry
initially handcuffed himself with the high-road positive-image
strictures that I think did in Al Gore, who could have dissected
Bush like a biology class frog in the debates. Exposing Bush's lies
also undercuts (the inexplicable) public confidence in his
leadership and supposed strength. It isn't mean- after the
blizzard of Administration lies... it's necessary.
The second theme should be corruption -
the $7 bil Veep/Halliburton contracts and sleazy overcharging
(running empty trucks through the desert), the great Cal. energy
robbery and Enron enrichment, the payoffs to drug, insurance, credit
card companies. This flip-flop thing can be turned right around on
Bush, from his wildly varying claims about Osama/Saddam connections,
to his sudden acceptance of global warming, to his
rejection and courting of the UN.
The one big lesson of my
political experience is that you have to respond to an unfair attack
within 5 days. I watched Hart be disemboweled by the idiot "Where's
the Beef" ads in 2 weeks. One third of people will believe any
negative attack unless it's immediately refuted, but Kerry ignored the flip-flop charges for
many weeks.
It was agonizing to see the missteps
the campaign was making. Kerry just got a black woman
national security advisor spokesperson named Rice- another bizarre
imitation of Bush, like speaking at hostile venues right after Bush.
John Kerry has been tied in knots over Iraq and his shifting
positions towards it, especially when he said he would have
supported the war even knowing there were no WMD's. To an extent
that's inevitable: criticizing an unwise war does undermine it, and
open the candidate to charges of encouraging the resistance, which
Bush is furiously pushing. When Bush admitted the War on Terror
would never end, Kerry should have jumped all over it: "Yes, because
you invaded Iraq and turned 50 thousand potential terrorists into
50 million." Instead he did a nyeah nyeah gotcha, "Oh you can't say that- I will WIN the war on terrorism." But the phrase was chosen for its limitless possibilities, like the War on Drugs, terror will never end and never be defeated. Had we concentrated everything we had, we may well have crushed al Qaeda within the next 2 years. With his reckless Oedipal invasion into the heart of the Muslim world, Bush may have created a generational religious war that will see hundreds of thousands of Americans die.
Kerry was masterful against a vapid
repetitive distracted Bush, who didn't seem to realize he was on
camera. But much of electorate are now uninformed due to the Bush
propaganda, and Kerry may not have stomped Bush enough to convince
them. Michael
Hammerschlag’s commentary and articles have appeared in Seattle Times, Providence. Journal, Columbia
Journalism Review, Hawaii Advertiser, Capital Times,
MediaChannel; and Moscow News, Tribune, Times, and Guardian. He’s been a TV reporter,
foreign correspondent, and produced documentaries. He reported on
the media savaging of Howard Dean, and the first big scoop on all
the media mistakes on Election Night 2000.
Write the
Author: Simply enter your
e-mail address and name below along with your comments and they will
be forwarded directly to the author. Also, don't worry, your e-mail
address will be used only for replies from the recipient and will
not be entered into any list.
Top
of Page
|