Click
here for info on the Print Journal
(and to purchase your copy)!
Just 53 Weeks to Go: A Debate Among the Dems
By Mark Grueter
---------------------------------------
*Starting next week, Grueter's column will appear on Thursdays.
On Sunday night in Detroit, Al Sharpton - the Alan Keyes of the Democratic Party - "won" another Democratic presidential debate. I compare the Reverend to Ambassador Keyes because they both win every debate they participate in, are usually equipped with the best one-liners, and are irrelevant to the actual electoral process. Blow-hardism goes a long way in these seriously flawed debate forums and those two big, blubbering Baptist preachers have taken full advantage of the fact.
While the other “serious” candidates bob, hedge and weave their way through the Q and A, careful not to say anything that will be considered a “gaffe,” The Reverend plows forward with discussion of “Bush Roulette” and attacks Jewish Senator Joseph Liebermann for refusing to meet with war criminal Yassir Arafat. Then, as if to impugn America’s growing atheistic community, Sharpton insists that we replace the "Christian Right with the right Christians." To his credit, the man is for the most part candid, real and uncondescending.
The problem with most of the others during these debates is that they talk to the television audience as if we were unfamiliar with mediocre campaign speeches and dumb platitudes, forgetting that only the media and other political junkies, who aren’t fooled by posturing, watch these goddamned events. The unsavvy mob won’t pay any attention, if ever, until right before they vote. Here’s the problem: hack advisers stuff their candidates’ heads with an assortment of canned, stereotypically banal lines. Then, because of nerves and time constraints, these lines tend to jump out whenever Candidate X cannot think of anything intelligent to say. It makes for a very jumbled and repetitive spectacle. Even their attempts to sound like human beings feel contrived.
My man Wes Clark would serve himself well to answer questions more directly. He should just pretend that he’s on a television talk show as an analyst. In fact, much of his initial support originated from his redoubtable performances in that role over the past two years. During the debate Clark was asked point blank if he was forced to resign as Supreme Commander of NATO’s allied forces, but of course he didn’t give an answer.
John Kerry is sagacious and experienced, but he has an elitist sounding accent that will make it impossible for him to win a national campaign in the media age. If he can’t even convince the Northeast liberal establishment that he’s the best candidate, he certainly won’t be able to persuade anyone in the South or Midwest. Plus, he’s a classic grandstander with a bad haircut and a grotesquely long, narrow face.
Dennis Kucinich is a sloppy little chap. He was positively sobbing over the alleged deaths of 300 people in Detroit during September. Then, when the local moderator corrected him by telling him that only 35 had died in the relevant stat, Dennis apologized and said that he “meant to say 35.” In a New Hampshire television ad, Howard Dean criticizes his "opponents" for voting for the Congressional resolution last fall that gave Bush authority to invade Iraq. Kucinich, at less than 1 percent in the polls (compared to Dean’s 40 percent), demanded that Dean remove the ad because, he says, it is categorically false. Earth to Dennis: Dean doesn’t consider you an opponent (nor should he). He’s obviously only referring to candidates who might actually compete with him; like Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Liebermann. Poor, desperate Dennis even filed a lawsuit to have the ad removed.
Despite the grandiosity, there was actually a bit of substance involved in this debate. It opened with an interesting discussion on the $87 billion Bush just requested for the Iraqi campaign. Senators Edwards and Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush authority to go into Iraq, but then voted against his request for more funding last week (the $87 billion). Liebermann was interested to know how they could conceivably not fund a war that they themselves voted for. And how, at any stage, could they “not support the troops?” Good questions, but Edwards gave an even better answer. When he voted for the war he was told and was (however naively) hoping that the Bush team would make post-war reconstruction an international effort. And while he still thinks it was a sound idea to remove Saddam he no longer trusts the Bush people to use money appropriately, especially in the form of a “blank check” which is what Bush is requesting. Refusing to fund Bush will force him, if he wants to stay in Iraq, to work with the United Nations. All the candidates, save Liebermann and Gephardt, opposed Bush’s request on the grounds that supporting it is tantamount to supporting an illegitimate president and war that no longer has a strategy.
Click here for last weeks column.
---------------------------------------
Mark Grueter lives in New York City, where he is pursuing his master's in Liberal Studies at the New School University's Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. He can be contacted at [email protected].
©
2003 Me Three