Wanna Buy Some Wood?

Last night I had the pleasure of watching the 2nd Presidential debate with a group of local strangers I met via johnkerry.com. When my partner and I got to their house, however, we were instantly no longer strangers. That’s the interesting thing I’ve noticed in the last couple of months. No matter where I go, once people identify each other as fellow political progressives, mutually committed to helping take back this country, we bond instantly. It is the recognition of “Ah, you’re one of us, you’re a member of the club.” It feels like a secret society, the Rebel Alliance banding together to overthrow the Empire (Star Wars geek!!).

So this is how I felt as I met several folks from this North Suburban Illinois community which is primarily Republican (although Illinois is, of course, solidly blue). It is amazing, for instance, how many people waste money, paper, and yard space promoting Alan (snicker, snicker) Keyes. This group I met represented an interesting cross-section of the other side of the community. An older gay couple. A straight couple or two. A woman in her 60’s who had worked for Ross Perot in '92. It was interesting to hear her tales of how the Democratic and Republican campaigns made deals with each other behind the scenes and managed to edge Perot out of the polls before the election to prevent the public perception that there was even a possibility he could win (her assertion was that Perot made it to 25% at one point, although the media cut him off at 12%). While unsure of the accuracy of her claims, and certainly no Perot supporter myself, it was definitely chilling to hear her case that there aren’t really two parties in this country.

Regardless, there was no question of the allegiance of this group. This was a Kerry crowd through and through. The level of contempt for Bush was palpable, and as the night progressed, the vast difference between the two candidates became the primary topic at hand. One man in the group had come to the US from Canada over a decade ago with the belief that things were freer here, more open, more opportunity for everyone – gays and minorities alike. To his dismay, as the stranglehold of the Christian Right has gotten tighter and tighter over the years, intertwining its roots with American politics, and (s)electing its “divine appointee” George W., Canada has gone in the opposite direction, legalizing gay marriage, distancing itself from religious influence, and balking at the US’s foreign policy. One of his main observations has been how polarized the country has become in the last four years – and how much worse it can get if Bush is re-elected. To him, the possibility of returning to Canada if Bush is re-electing has become more and more of a probability.

During last night’s debate, one would expect a primarily biased reaction from such a biased group. True, there were guffaws, screams of anger, and uproarious laughter at key points. The most jaw-dropping moments: When Bush “lost his shit” and jumped up, interrupting Charles Gibson, frothing at the mouth, and angrily retorting – violating his own debate rules. What happened to strictly enforcing the rules, Gibson, you pussy?? Gwen Ifil had no problem getting tough with Cheney. Or how about that draft rumor on the “internets”? There’s more than one? Hm, Al Gore must have invented another one. Just like Bush himself revealed last night that he “proposed the hydrogen car.” Amazing. Why have the pundits not cherry-picked this slip of the tongue from the context from whence it came and pounced on Bush in the same manner they turned Gore into an exaggerating liar in 2000 (when in actuality he was simply commenting on his involvement in promoting the internet in the 80's)? Or what about Bush’s outright lie and bizarre joke about his involvement in a wood business. Even though he flatly denied Kerry’s claim that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 income tax report of $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise, the facts state otherwise (see Cheney’s favorite website factcheck.org).

Despite these and other obvious low points for Bush, the night was surprisingly not a total lovefest for Kerry. A few members of the group were a bit dismayed that Kerry has still not provided a detailed enough policy for Iraq. Others argued that the two-minute format did not allow enough time for detail, and that going into too much detail could backfire, turning off some undecided voters. Another criticism of both candidates was that neither answered the questions directly enough (see Kerry’s answer on the abortion question or – as we will discuss – the hilarity of Bush’s “three mistakes” question). The “debates,” which many people accurately claim are not debates, but dueling stump speeches, consist mainly of repeated soundbites.

Witness one of the final moments. An audience member presented the excellent question to Bush of what he felt were his three biggest mistakes of the last four years. Echoes of a press conference a few months ago when a reporter asked Bush a similar question and Bush stammered, complaining that he hadn’t had time to prepare in advance. So the moment of truth came. The question was asked. I was filled with hope because I knew Bush wouldn’t answer it and that would lay the groundwork for Kerry to knock it out of the park and end with a bang. Bush, predictably, not only didn’t answer the question, but proceeded to repeat the lie about how great we were doing in Iraq, blah, blah, blah. He quipped about regretting some appointments he had made but not wanting to embarrass the people on TV (wha-? Huh? Are these unnamed people responsible for all your follies and your failed foreign policy? Are these the people -- ahem… Bremer… Powell…Rumsfeld… ahem -- who have publicly humiliated you with their conflicting reports about Iraq?). So now, here was Kerry’s chance to blow us all away. Turn Bush’s statements back on him. Point out the fact that he didn’t answer the question because he could not admit his mistakes. Point out the fact that everything Bush listed as an accomplishment was actually a failure. But Kerry simply repeated his assertions about the Iraq war. His answer sounded more like a soundbite and less like the fine-tuned, honed in, sharp attack that was needed at that point. In fact, as the night dwindled down, this brought up a few points among the crowd about other missed opportunities for Kerry. One big one: during the discussion of the economy/jobs/corporations, why did Kerry not throw it in Bush’s face that before becoming governor of Texas, Bush drove three companies into the ground? Or the fact that Bush came into the Oval Office with only a few years of political experience, while Kerry, during his 20 year Senate career, has done extensive work in foreign relations with many of the world leaders the GOP now claims he will not be able to rally in a coalition?

Despite these missteps, I do not see how anyone can claim today that there was anything close to a tie. Kerry still had the confidence, the upper hand, the command of the facts, and the solid consistency that Bush merely dreams of (every night before he wakes up every day thinking of how he came keep us safe from “terra”!). Simply saying that because Bush didn’t engage in the same lengthy pauses, facial convulsions, and pants-wetting that he did last time does not equal a victory or even a tie. Let’s get real and give it to the true winner, once again – John Kerry. Most importantly, however, let’s hope that America continues to watch and draw its own conclusions – as unbiased as possible, like the group I met – instead of falling prey to the post-debate spin monsters.