Will You Watch the Debate?

Twelve year olds are precocious aren't they?

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Falling Scales

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 5, 2004







Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.

Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics.

Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance.

Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story."

But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises."

Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't.

It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.

The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war.

Now it's Dick Cheney's turn.

Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.

Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.

In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.

After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses.

No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.

So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.

I am 41

Kerry did use the words "global test" in the same context concerning retaliation to an attack. Now he is backing off from his WORDS by accusing the president of lying. Kerry's core of principles are obviously collusion and shifting the blame.

Also... Kerry is the one losing the election. He has been behind for weeks and just because he thinks he won the debate (though I think he lost it) he is putting ads out using the word loser. Who is behind in the polls and has been for weeks, Kerry. So who is the loser?

You just fail to understand what 'global test' means, much like your leaders.

A 'global test' doesn't refer to whether or not we will have the ability to go to war. At all. It merely refers to whether or not we will be respected for doing so internationally afterwards.

International respect is important for the US, despite what some think. Kerry understands this, those who run Bush do not.

Cycloptichorn

I'm 41 also. But that seems to be where the similarities end.

What is it about some people who honestly believe that America will just do this all on her own? After revelation upon revelation from intelligence sources and the military stating that we're over-stretched and cannot commit troops to another arena of war, which becomes a clear indication to both North Korea and Iran to just go ahead with their nuclear proliferation plans? Or how securing weapons in the former Balkan states? Or how about our defenses right here at home?

This is just stupid. We truly exist in a global economy now, and RexReed insists on going it alone.

Bush runs the country not others... Also I know what "global test" means Kerry should look it up... but I don't know what anything Kerry says means. He has not DONE a single thing in 20 years but wind surfing and flip flopping and stroking his own back based on a traitorous military career. Kerry is an illusive do nothing make promises and NOT follow through presidential wanna be. He will wreck the economy and our military might. I trust Bush, and his advisors, I know what to expect I don't expect anything from Kerry but backsliding and sell outs. The French love him because they know he will make us suffer and bring us to ruin. The terrorist love him too.

Also... Edwards is nothing but a rip off opportunist who gouges money from the poor and extorts exorbitant settlements from large corporations. The middle class will show Edwards what they think of his bloodletting. We are without medical doctors because of the fears of money grubbing trial lawyers like Edwards. Edwards is the epitome of this type of unethical practice and the republicans are onto him and will be stepping on the hose soon.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry

Let's see that wealth of biographical background on George W. Bush and his accomplishment, woiyo. At least John Kerry's are mostly on public record.

Ya gotta put up or shut up.

And when Bush debates Kerry next, he'll wish he had Cheney's knee to sit on again, like he did at the 9/11 commission hearings.

Scroll

Cycloptichorn

Oops. I meant Rex.

Oh, and while were at, why don' t you show us Edwards record on how he "ripped off" and "gouged" money from the poor, while "extorting" exorbitant settlemtnts from large corporations. What I remember, it was the middle class and poor who reaped the benefits of some of those class action suits.

Stepping on the hose? That's a new one.

I wouldn't call this ripping off or gouging....I'm from Raleigh...the little girl in question literally had her bowels sucked out of her rectum...she is f**ked for life....how besides money can she be compensated? And this pool manufacturer had been previously cited for this slack practice....

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

It was the middle class who SHOULD HAVE reaped but Edwards took his half and never even got hurt but made a few phone calls and made millions for them.

that is simplistic senseless nonsense in my opinion. A few phone calls indeed...

Ann Coulter's new book...

"How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)"

She calls Edwards a puppy and says he is always flopping around after John Kerry. She says we are at war and the democrats nominate a Beatle for vice president.

Hehe... got to get the book myself.

yes you and Ann sound like a match made in heaven....

41 going on?

don't know... maybe rex is right.

why don't we just get rid of all the "trawl lawyurrsz". then we wouldn't have to worry about the pesky justice system anymore.

in fact we could just abandon the whole "nation of law" concept altogether.

"if it feels good, do it !!!!". yeh, that's it !!

naw. that dog won't hunt. what would happen when ol' "kenny boy" when his trawl a'starts up?

C-SPAN2 is the place to watch the VP debate... They are on now!

Unfortunately, I really gotta go to bed ... 3 AM here, and hafta work tomorrow. Will see it on repeat I guess. Have fun spinning the results in two hours time, y'all! ;-)

OK, now I've logged in to c-span after all, looking at the debate.

Cheney is pretty good.

The exchange where Cheney rattles through a whole list of detailed fact-checking on the numbers Edwards was using (90% of the casualties, 90% of the costs e.a.), and Edwards in response went through 90 seconds of mere abstract rhetorics, was pretty devastating.

Edwards has the annoying habit of rushing through a list of arguments / allegations. Cheney then focuses on responding to one of them, but does so in-depth, ending up looking like he's effectively rebutted the allegation, even though he only addressed one. In response, Edwards, instead of rebutting the rebuttal, then rushes on to another series of items. Doesnt work.