Kerry Defies GOP's "Worst Caricatures" -- October 1, 2004 -- TimesWatch.org

About

Contact Us

Articles

Topic Index

Reports

Quotes

On the Web

Links

TW Tracker

Support

Times Watch for October 1, 2004

Kerry Defies GOP's "Worst Caricatures"

In his post-debate analysis, Todd Purdum argues that Kerry "established himself" and made a better impression than the "worst caricatures" put out by the Republicans: "By the time the debate ended, Mr. Kerry appeared to have accomplished his primary goal for the evening: establishing himself as a plausible commander in chief. Mr. Bush, who seemed defensive and less sure of himself at the outset, quickly gained his footing, counterpunching effectively by repeatedly charging that Mr. Kerry was inconsistent and lacked the resolve to defend the nation against terrorism….As the challenger, Mr. Kerry had the greater burden, and his performance was more disciplined and controlled than usual. He may well have struck undecided voters as not much like the Republicans' worst caricatures. He spoke plainly, politely, but did not shrink from direct and pointed criticism of Mr. Bush's policies….The more immediate question is whether voters will continue to follow a president who insists the war was right, in the face of polls suggesting widespread doubt about whether it was worth the cost. Mr. Bush is banking almost everything on his belief that they will, as long as they believe he is clear and resolute."

For the rest of Purdum's debate analysis, click here.

Still Misquoting Cheney

Adam Nagourney sticks mostly to a fact-based, "he said, he said" script in his lead rundown of the first presidential debate, but does work in this misleading anecdote: "Early in the debate, Mr. Lehrer, the host of the 'Newshour' on PBS, asked Mr. Bush if he agreed that the election of Mr. Kerry would increase the chances of a terrorist attack on American soil, an assertion that a number of Republicans -- including Vice President Dick Cheney -- have made. Mr. Bush did not directly respond to the question, and Mr. Lehrer did not return to it."

Nagourney got a full fretful article out of the media-botched Cheney quote, worrying in early September, "is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?"

Reporter Katharine Seelye made the same point in her online live "blog" of the debate: "Bush skirts the question about whether terrorists would be more likely to attack the US if Kerry were elected, even though his vice president and others have made that assertion."

For the record (again) here's what Vice President Cheney actually said on September 7: "Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake."

As Times Watch has stated before, Cheney was not arguing a Kerry win would lead to a terror attack -- but that if one occurred under his watch, Kerry's response could represent a "fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set" of treating terror attacks as merely criminal acts, not acts of war.

For Nagourney's full take on the debate back and forth, click here.

For Seelye's blog-type rundown, click here.

Bush "Unnerved" by Kerry's Vietnam Reference

Alessandra Stanley's take on the first presidential debate hews to today's standard media line, suggesting Kerry won and put Bush on the defensive: "When the networks (flouting the debate rules) cut to Mr. Bush while Senator John Kerry was speaking, the president had the hunched shoulders and the peevish, defensive look of an incumbent under heavy attack….The cameras demonstrated that Mr. Bush cannot hear criticism without frowning, blinking and squirming (he even sighed once). They showed that Mr. Kerry can control his anger and stay cool but that he cannot suppress his inner overeager A student, flashing a bleach-white smile and nodding hungrily at each question….If Mr. Bush looked too testy when his opponent spoke, Mr. Kerry looked a little too engaged. He kept picking up his pen and scribbling notes and smiling to himself, like an overly confident prosecutor in court….Mr. Bush, who seemed to grow tired as the night wore on, repeatedly used the phrase 'hard work' to describe the war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry repeatedly referred to his first-hand experience sending men into battle in Vietnam, and that seemed to unnerve Mr. Bush."

For the rest of Stanley on the debate, click here.

• George W. Bush | Campaign 2004 | Debates | Alessandra Stanley

Swift Boat Vets Anti-Kerry "Calumnies"

A.O. Scott reviews the pro-Kerry biopic, "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry," based on Douglas Brinkley's hagiographic Kerry biography "Tour of Duty."

While admitting that the movie is 'a kind of cinematic friend-of-the-court brief' for Kerry, he enjoys it and gets in a hostile crack at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "The first section, about his actions in combat, presents a belated rebuttal to the calumnies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (whose leader, John O'Neill, turns up in some old clips from 'The Dick Cavett Show')."

For the rest of Scott on "Going Upriver," click here.

Must-See TV: "Everybody Hates Women"?

Does TV critic Alessandra Stanley pine for political correctness? Her Friday story, "Old-Time Sexism Suffuses New Season" sees today's TV as infected with sexism and racism: "Political correctness has left the building. And like schoolchildren who throw spitballs as soon as the teacher's back is turned, television executives have giddily reverted to the sexism and racism that brought the humor police down on the networks in the first place."

It's even spread to the presidential debates, in Stanley's unusual view: "Even the presidential debates are such a throwback to the Eisenhower era that the networks might as well broadcast them in black and white. The PBS anchor Jim Lehrer was not chosen to moderate all three presidential contests, as he has been in the past. He was assigned only the first debate in Florida. The next two will be presided over by other aging, white males: Charles Gibson of ABC and Bob Schieffer of CBS, the only two network news anchors who make Mr. Lehrer seem kooky. (Gwen Ifill, who is female and black, will moderate the less important vice presidential debate.)"

The MRC is also displeased with the debate moderators and complains about the lack of diversity -- political diversity -- among the four liberal news anchors.

Later Stanley laments the new hostility toward women: "Mary Tyler Moore and 'All in The Family' not withstanding, the backlash against the women's movement has lasted far longer than feminism did. Why it has resurfaced so sharply this season is hard to fathom; it surely cannot be just political correctness fatigue or the fallout from Hillary Rodham Clinton's ascendancy and Martha Stewart's disgrace. Most trends on television can be traced to the marketplace. Sitcoms seemed to be at death's door until CBS discovered 'Everybody Loves Raymond,' an old-fashioned comedy about a goofy husband, his stern, long-suffering wife and his annoying parents. It eclipsed woman-led comedies like 'Less Than Perfect' and inspired many brawny imitations ('King of Queens,' 'Still Standing,' 'Life According to Jim,' to name but a few). With 'Center of the Universe,' CBS has created a near-clone, putting Mr. Goodman in the Raymond role. Female empowerment is passé. And while it may be true that viewers get the television they deserve, some of the blame goes to Ray Romano for leading the way. It's not just that Everybody Loves Raymond. Now Everybody Hates Women."

For the rest of Stanley on racist and sexist TV, click here.

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org