Election 2000 Truth Monitor:
Bursting Republicans’ Stupidity Balloon du Jour
Keeping It Real: Daily Antidotes to Corporate/Media/Republicans’ Ongoing Efforts to “Dumb Down” the American Voter with Misinformation, Diversions, False Issues, and Cynical Distortions
Friday, September 15th, 2000
The media today, eager to create controversy and to confuse the electorate, passes along a Bush Campaign complaint that Gore is engaging in "negative advertising." The ad in question states that George W. Bush has put himself forward as a compassionate conservative, yet his state is ranked 49th in its funding for children's health care.
Media Distortion/ False Issue -- Double Standard on Negative AdsThis comes only a few days after Bush's campaign had been caught in an attempt at "subliminable" advertising in inserting the word "RATS" into an ad against Gore. [See "Subliminable" "RATS" below]
Daily Antidote:
Fact: A negative ad is, quite simply, one that involves a personal attack on a candidate; personal meaning having something to do with a person's private life or character -- in the fashion of "name-calling." The "RATS" ad mentioned above would more than qualify, for not only is it negative, it is despicable in its attempt to do this without the viewer even knowing they are being manipulated.Fact: Bush has been calling Gore a "hypocrite" (unsubstantiated, the opposite is true, see "Hollywood Hypocrite?" below) and insinuating that Gore is not a man of character, integrity, or morality (like he claims himself to be) from the beginning of his campaign. At the same time, Bush has been claiming that he would not run negative ads or a negative campaign.
Fact: If a campaign is not about pointing out the differences between what a person says he will do and what a person has done (his record), then what is it? This is called informing the public, not negative advertising. It allows candidates, like Bush, to be called to task when they lie about their record or claim to be something they are not, e.g., "compassionate."
Conclusion: Bush, with the media's help is engaging in another attempt to "dumb down" the American people. There are many things about Bush's record that he and his campaign do not want the American people to know about. See, for example, Julienne's post on "Dubbya Bush on Guns, and His Record in Texas" in which she points out that
The State of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George W. Bush, is ranked:
50th in spending for teachers' salaries,
49th in spending on the environment,
48th in per-capita funding for public health,
47th in delivery of social services,
42nd in child-support collections,
41st in per-capita spending on public education and . . .5th in percentage of population living in poverty,
1st in air and water pollution,
1st in percentage of poor, working parents without insurance,
1st in percentage of children without health insurance,
1st in executions (average 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years as governor).Therefore, when Gore's campaign points out Bush's record they are engaging in informative advertising, not negative advertising. The negativity, of which the media and Bush's campaign speak is actually the negativity of Bush's record. And when Bush accuses Gore of engaging in negative advertising he is really seeing only himself, his own actions. This kind of projection on one's opponent of one's own actions or character is typical of the highly repressed conservative personality type that Bush represents.
But the media going along with Bush in this confusion of issues can only be explained by the fact that they are owned by the wealthy elite, who would benefit from Bush's election and are therefore desperate to do whatever they can, no matter how devious, to get Bush elected. [See "Pundits Versus People: Or, The Real Sources for Voter Apathy and Cynicism"]
Thursday, September 14th, 2000
George W. Bush announces today that he has agreed to the three debates proposed by the bipartisan commission on debates. He says, "I can't wait to debate." And adds about Gore, “I know he is a great debater. But what the American people want is a great leader.”
Bush Campaign Cynical Distortion -- The Brave and "Willing" DebaterThis "bold" announcement comes after months of ducking debates with Gore, and after the recent brouhaha over debates described below under "The Debate About Debates" -- in which Bush showed himself to be cowardly.
Daily Antidote:
Fact: Bush has been unwilling to debate Gore from the get-go, for the reasons detailed below.Fact: Bush is now trailing in all polls and every day finds him further behind Gore. It is clear that the debates are now only acceptable to him because he is becoming desperate and sees the debates as the only major factor that could turn around his slide into failure.
Conclusion: Rather than being a brave pronouncement, as Bush tried to make it seem, his agreement to debate is a reluctant last-ditch effort to turn the election around. He would have continued his cowardly position if the race had been even or if he had been ahead. Furthermore, he is already manipulating public opinion in saying what a great debater Gore is. In positioning himself as the brave underdog, he is already conceding that he will likely get beat by Gore in the debates. But he is beginning the process of creating such low expectations on his performance, that even his not screwing up too badly may be seen as a positive. And if this isn't good enough, he is already undermining the importance of the debates, playing to people's antipathy to intelligent people, by saying that debating is not important and has nothing to do with being a leader.
Therefore, another deliberate attempt to play to the lowest common denominator in people -- this time to people's prejudice against people who are competent or intelligent. And another attempt to cover up Bush's cowardice with a play of bravado. Finally, an attempt to come across as a bold and willing, unafraid candidate, when only his position in the polls has forced him to step up to the plate; again covering up his cowardice.
Tuesday, September 12th, 2000
George W. Bush and his campaign were caught with their pants down when it was discovered today that they had run a particular campaign ad against Gore, which, for a fraction of a second, displayed the word "RATS" -- in capital letters. They had run the ad more than 4400 times in over 33 markets.
Bush Campaign Cynical Distortion -- "Subliminable" "RATS"When questioned about it, Bush said that one frame out of nine hundred does not make for "some vast conspiracy" and also talked about how "conspiracy theories abound." His campaign aide's response was that this was all an attempt to take media attention away from the issues and to focus on the most ridiculous thing she had ever heard of. The adman who produced the ad at first said that it was some kind of glitch or mistake . . . was "inadvertent." Then later said he that it WAS intentional, but was supposed to be the end of the word "bureaucrats" and was intended to provide a "drumbeat" for the ad, not to be subliminal advertising.
Finally, Bush, in his usual articulate way [sarcasm intended], said that he doesn't believe in that "subliminable" advertising nonsense.
Daily Antidote:
Fact: Bush has been claiming from the beginning that he would not run negative ads or a negative campaign, that he unlike his opposition is a man of high moral character and integrity who sticks always to the "high road.".Fact: Bush's claiming that "conspiracy theories abound" or that it is does not indicate some form of "vast conspiracy" is highly diversionary from the point. The point is, Is Bush and his campaign attempting to use devious and underhanded ways to manipulate public opinion? It does not have to be part of a "vast conspiracy" to be devious, manipulative, and -- way beyond negative -- to be sneakily mean and abhorrent. It also doesn't have to be part of a "vast conspiracy" for it to indicate what kind of a person Bush is and what kind of a campaign he is willing to stoop to in order to win, not to mention what kind of a president he would make. The fact that conspiracy theories abound, in reaction to his placing this kind of ad. is about as relevant as saying that "Communist China is not noted for its human rights record" in response to it.
Fact: Bush's claim that he doesn't believe in "subliminable" advertising is also diversionary. It doesn't even matter if that's the truth. The fact that he would stoop to something this devious, even while thinking it doesn't work anyway, only makes it more despicable in showing a man who will desperately resort to just about anything -- effective or not.
Fact: The Bush aide's claim that it is a diversion from issues is laughable. Bush's campaign from the beginning has been less about issues than about making innuendoes about Clinton's character, and then stretching it to insinuate that has something to do with Gore's character. This is especially cynical in light of Bush's refusal to engage Gore in debates on the issues. Furthermore, the fact that it is the most ridiculous thing she has ever heard of says more about the kinds of things that Bush and his campaign are willing to do (more ridiculous than ANY of us have ever heard of) than anything about the media.
Fact: The adman's claim that it was, first, mysteriously put in there, and, second, that it was supposed to provide a drumbeat or something shows him to be, first, a liar, and, second, desperate in his attempt at sophistry. In plain words, his response was bullshit, sounding like a bandit caught with diamonds in his hands saying, "I just happened to break in here at night because I was attracted by the glitter of these jewels and just wanted to handle them is all!"
Conclusion: Bush has shown his true colors once again. After claiming to be moral and a man of character, he has shown himself to be devious, unethical and, like Republicans before him -- Nixon comes to mind, who would engage in "dirty tricks" against his opponents and ordered a break in and robbery of the Democratic National Committee headquarters ("Watergate") -- willing to do anything, no matter how illegal or devious, to affect public opinion and to get elected.
Monday, September 11, 2000
George W. Bush and his media lackeys had a field day on this day's evening newscast and commentary programs. It started with a report announcing that marketers of violent video games and movies were getting around society's present system to give parents a say in what their children view. The point was that these video-game and movie producers were finding ways to market directly to children, behind their parents' backs.
Bush Campaign Distortion -- "Hollywood Hypocrisy" Charge:Al Gore -- who along with Tipper -- is no newcomer (to say the least) to the issue of keeping gross violence, murder, and killing out of the view of the young came down hard, on the campaign trail, on this marketing policy. He proclaimed that when he was in office he would give these perpetrators of violent images to our children six months to clean up their act, or they would face legislative action against their marketing stratagems.
The Dubbya came out claiming that Al Gore was "hypocritical" to turn his back on the Hollywood types who had contributed to his campaign.
Once again, the nighttime talk shows and newscasts were rife with controversy on this supposed issue: Is Gore "hypocritical"? Pundits and politicians were once again brought in on seemingly all networks to weigh in on this important topic.
Daily Antidote:
Fact: Not too long ago, there was lots of talk about campaign finance reform. The idea behind it was that democracy in America was at risk because those who spent heavily to support candidates could be expected to have those candidates do their bidding; those candidates would be "in their pockets," so to speak.Fact: Despite the fact that Tipper Gore was one of the first to come out against violent lyrics in songs being sold to our children, Hollywood and the entertainment industry still heavily funded the Gore campaign.
Fact: Bush has claimed to be a person of high principle and moral character, and has on other occasions insinuated that the fact that he is heavily funded by the big oil, big insurance, and the pharmaceutical companies, would not in any way affect his decisions if he were President -- for he would be President of all the people. Likewise, he has accused Gore of being the pawn of the "special interests" (yea, like I'm really going to be threatened by the pressure that a coupla Buddhists, Barbara Streisand, the hard-working public school teachers, Blacks, firemen, factory workers, and so on -- i.e., ordinary folks like you and me -- are going to bring to bear on him . . . to do what - ?? I can see his arm being twisted to make this a country that benefits ordinary working folks and day-to-day heroes over against corporate polluters, defense contractors, and a wealthy 2 percent minority. Color me really scared on that one.)
Fact: George the Dubbya is now clucking, gleefully -- like a losing linebacker pouncing on a dropped pass which, in his mental confusion, he mistakes for a fumble -- saying that you are a hypocrite if you don't do the bidding of the people who have given you money!
Conclusion: Bush has really done it this time in telling us what he would do if he were elected president. The implication of his attack on Gore is that if you don't do what your contributors want you to do you are disloyal -- a "hypocrite." So he has let us know that he can't fathom it otherwise than to think that elections are all about helping out the wealthy contributors who paid for your campaign. The idea that the welfare of all Americans, the greatest public good, or high principles, morality, or justice should be what guides a President's decisions is apparently totally foreign to him. They are, it seems, just empty words to be thrown out to the people, like table scraps are to hungry hogs -- indicating the way it appears these wealthy elite secretly view ordinary Americans. But, then again, growing up in a family with his father as a Republican President, one can understand why it has never crossed his mind that a President's purpose should be other than serving the ones who paid to put you there.
In fact, his attack on Gore reveals something even more damaging about him. For the term hypocrite implies actually SAYING something and then DOING another. One can only conclude that he has unconsciously let us know that he has made actual VERBAL promises to his wealthy corporate contributors in exchange for their money.
Weekend of September 9th through 10th, 2000
George W. Bush claims that Gore is not a man of his word and can't be trusted because Gore doesn't go along with Bush's plan on debates. He says of Gore, How can you believe anything he says?, as Bush plays over and over a videotape of Gore saying that he will debate Bush anytime, anywhere, even on the "Larry King" show. Bush's plan on debates is to engage in one prime-time Commission-sponsored debate, and then to show up for another one on CNN's "Larry King" show and another on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Bush Campaign Cynical Distortion -- the "Debate About Debates":Daily Antidote:
Bush is "chicken," a coward; and he is trying to avoid people noticing that by turning the issue into an attack on Gore.Fact: Gore said, early in the campaign, that he would agree to forego any and all campaign money and debate Bush nightly if Bush wanted it, until the election, if Bush would agree to the same. Bush, of course, ignored this idea of foregoing the avalanches of money that were pouring into his coffers from huge multinational corporations and the wealthy.
Fact: In recent history, there has been a tradition of having three nationally televised debates in prime-time between the presidential candidates from the two major parties, which are carried on all major networks. Isn't that the least that the networks and the candidates should be willing to do to help we, the people, make the most important political decision we will make in four years -- one that each four years has been shown to have a life-or-death importance to it for at least some citizens (sometimes a great many citizens, and often people in other countries) in the ensuing four years?! Also, Vice-Presidential debates have become a political tradition in recent decades as well.
Fact: The debates have become so much a part of our political tradition, every four years, that a BIPARTISAN commission is set up well ahead of the election to decide on the debates. This year, this bipartisan commission came up with a schedule of three prime-time debates, as usual, which would be broadcast on all major networks, as usual, live, as usual, which is in keeping with the tradition of recent political history of the last few decades, as mentioned.
Fact: Bush had refused to commit himself to any debate AT ALL until only this time -- mid-September.
Fact: If Gore accepts Bush's plan, two of the debates will not be in prime time and will not be covered on the other major networks. The other networks have stated that they will not broadcast the "Larry King" or "Meet the Press" debates. Indeed, since CNN is a cable channel, only those with cable will even be able to see the "Larry King" show debate.
Fact: Bush is refusing to participate in the setup for debates that was worked out jointly with members of his own party and of the Democratic Party as long ago as back in February.
Fact: Gore's camp has made it clear that they would welcome additional debates beyond the three set up by the commission -- including even meeting with Bush on the "Larry King" show and "Meet the Press" -- as long as Bush agrees to at least show up for the three major debates agreed to by the two major parties in February.
Conclusion: This "debate about the debates" -- as it has been called -- is simply Bush showing himself to be the coward that he is. He knows that in a real debate he will be shown up to be the "empty suit" and "empty mind" (bragging that he was a "C" student in college) that he is. His only hope is to make it somehow through one debate without making too much of a fool of himself (and then letting his corporate/wealthy/media contingency come in to cover up and obfuscate what happened there), along with two other debates in settings where he will be "protected" by another person from directly having to face Gore. He also, it has been said, hopes that his "folksy charm" might help him in a "talk show" format -- which means that he can, like Reagan did in his time, get away with vague generalities, jokes, and humorous anecdotes -- like you would have in a conversation with someone, while avoiding any detailed discussion of issues and policies -- where he knows that he only knows what his handlers and backers have told him that he knows.
Finally, even if he screws up on these two "folksy" talk-show "debates," well, since they will not be seen by most Americans, again his wealthy friends and their media establishment can "fix" anything he's done that would otherwise harm him, in their usual way: by paying for a huge advertising assault on TV to drown out the truth.
Bush is running scared and is a coward. Gore is willing to debate "anytime, anywhere "but not if it means he doesn't get to debate in the main events! Bush's position is like that of an NFL team saying they can beat the Super Bowl Champs. Then the Super Bowl champs say, "fine, anytime, anywhere, let's have it out on national TV!" And then the challenger saying "No, you said 'anytime, anywhere' so you're chicken because you won't play us on a practice field with no one watching."
Week of September 4th through 8th, 2000
Lieberman's pronouncements of his faith in a Higher Power and an ultimate allegiance to morality beyond this-worldly concerns is compared to George W. Bush's proclaiming of his faith in Jesus and his declaring a public "Jesus Day" in Texas. The political talk shows ask if the media is being fair to Bush in criticizing him (questionable to begin with that he was ever criticized) and being silent about Lieberman. The talk shows are gaa-gaa in pumping up this false issue -- with pundits on seemingly all networks brought to weigh in on this important topic.
False Issue Drummed Up By Media -- Preferential Treatment for Lieberman's Public Piousness Over Bush's Public Pandering for the "Christ" Voters?Daily Antidote:
Anyone, like Lieberman, can believe in a Higher Power and be for morality and not harm the religious beliefs or nonbeliefs of a single other person. Whereas Bush's espousal of a particular religious figure and/or religion, not to mention using governmental power to promote that religion or religious figure over all others, offends ALL people who have different beliefs. And this sort of promotion of one religion over another -- which Bush, to get votes I guess, is easy to do -- has been the main source of atrocities perpetrated by humans against each other throughout history -- Kosovo being the latest example.Taken to its extreme, this false issue, this pumped-up drama by the media is like comparing someone who says "I believe that people should be good people" with someone who says "The only way to be saved is through Christ, and everyone else is inferior or is going to hell to be burned for eternity."
Conclusion: False issue promulgated by the media in an attempt to smear Lieberman, especially on the issue of his faith, where polls had shown that even non-Jews had respected his faith and morality. Therefore, a most definite corporate/media/Republican attempt to "dumb down" the American people.
We could use your help! With the power of the media, particularly TV, to influence public opinion, and with this media being controlled by a wealthy elite, virtually any lie -- sounded loud and long enough -- can become and has become accepted as public fact. As the Republicans and the wealthy are getting more desperate as their support erodes, the lies and distortions will have no bounds. Note
Please submit your media or Republican distortion, misinformation, diversion, or false issue -- or outright lie! -- and its antidote to mickel@primalspirit.com
Let me know if I may use your full name, first name, or you want to remain anonymous, and if you want me to include your e-mail address.
The election is getting ever closer and the candidates are neck and neck. We can do our small part here to cut through the bullshit that passes for commentary and expert opinion in this country. Do your part to keep our media from becoming a reflection of the former Soviet Union's. You'll feel good about it.
Related MusePaper: Go to "Pundits Versus People: Or, The Real Sources of Voter Apathy and Cynicism" by Michael Derzak Adzema
Related MusePaper: "It's the Attack on Privacy, Stupid! What Republicans and Pundits Don't Get About Clinton's Support"
Related MusePaper: "Move Over World War Two Generation, the Sixties Generation Has Arrived! An Essay Review of the Movie, 'Pleasantville'"
Related MusePaper: "Drugs, Consciousnesses, and Generational Cultures"
Related MusePaper: "What's So Bad About Doing Good? An Essay Review of 'The Rainmaker'"
Comments? E-mail me by clicking on: mickel@primalspirit.com Michael Derzak Adzema
Return to Election 2000 Alert
Go to Election 2000 Forum
Return to What's New
Return to Primal Spirit Home Page
