First-Round Knockout

Kerry brings Bush to his knees with ease

by Alan Bisbort

Source: Hartford Advocate, October 7, 2004.

About a third of the way through his first debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 presidential election. Yes, another month of campaigning and feces-flinging remained before Election Day, but the election was lost the moment Mr. Bush glanced at his wristwatch while Mr. Perot was speaking and Mr. Clinton was intently listening. Framed perfectly by the television camera between these two other participants, Mr. Bush continued to distractedly check his watch for the remainder of the debate. The message conveyed by this seemingly minor gesture was that he had somewhere else he needed to be, somewhere more important.

The now-familiar abhorrence to the democratic process that runs through the Bush family bloodlines was so evident in that one gesture. It seemed to tell the American people, "Your little election charade is beneath me and my kind."

Mark your calendars, then, for Thursday, September 30, 2004. That was the date that George W. Bush lost his presidential election. The telling moment was, again, about a third of the way through the first presidential debate. Thanks to a decision by Fox News the American people got to see something quite revealing about the man who has been misleading us for the past three and a half years.

That decision was, of course, to use a split-screen format, contrary to the original ground rules. Because of this revealing camera technique, the American people got to see the real George W. Bush. Prior to this, he'd been so stage-managed, press-coddled and insulated that such authenticity was impossible to witness. But, when Mr. Kerry was speaking, the real GWB was seen: smirking, grimacing, pursing his lips, bristling with rage, barely in control of himself in public. Contrarily, when Mr. Bush spoke -- often, as the New York Times so cautiously put it, "his voice dripped with exasperation" -- Mr. Kerry stood at attention and listened impassively, cool as a cucumber under fire. He looked, in a word, presidential while Mr. Bush looked like a petulant frat boy about to be demoted by the honor court from his vaunted post as Beer Keg chairman.

The overall message conveyed by this contrast was that Mr. Bush can dish it out but he can't take it. He, like his father, has a deep-seated distaste for the democratic process. Unlike his father, however, his behavior indicates that he may not be completely stable.

This latter observation, a belief that I've held for the past two years, was provided by my 84-year-old mother, with whom I watched the debate. She is a self-described "moderate" who votes more often Republican than Democrat and up until this debate she had, like many of her friends at her church, been wary of John Kerry. However, after seeing the disrespectful, nearly demented way Mr. Bush behaved at the podium, she voiced doubts about his fitness for office.

The next night, she and I watched ABC's 20/20 and, to my amazement, this show, hosted by the oily right-winger John Stossel, broadcast one of the hardest-hitting exposes since Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 on the Bush family.

Specifically, the segment was on Neil Bush, the other disreputable son, whose financial dealings make Ken Lay seem like Fred Rogers, but it really was about the Bush family and their undemocratic exploitation of privilege and power to further their financial aims. This larger message, probably not intended by ABC, was conveyed by Kevin Phillips, author of the best-selling American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. He made the convincing argument that Neil Bush's behavior brings shame upon America's values and should do the same upon his family's name. "But the real shame," said Phillips, "is that Neil Bush's behavior does not shame the Bushes."

At that point, my mother conceded that she could not vote for a Bush in this election.

The consensus of the media punditry was that John Kerry "won" this debate, though they insisted that Bush held his own. But that is not true. Kerry didn't just win the debate; it was a knockout in the first round. All anyone, Democrat or Republican, will remember is the smirking, grimacing, barely controlled rage at the podium -- the raw and unfiltered George W. Bush.

© 1995-2004 New Mass Media
reprinted from The Hartford Advocate