Frank Rich (NYT): Why Did James Baker Turn Bush Into Nixon?

[Dudley_DUright]

WE'VE never seen anything like this, even the old Kennedy-Nixon classic great debate," said a breathless Chris Matthews on the "Today" show as he touted a poll showing that John Kerry had won presidential debate No. 1 by as much as a 4-to-1 margin. But actually we have seen something like this - and at that first Kennedy-Nixon debate. The polls may have gyrated more violently this time around, but the scenario is identical: a campaign's seemingly mundane decision about television theatrics has potentially changed the dynamic of a presidential election.

Only Election Day will reveal if Sept. 30, 2004, set off a political chain reaction to match that of Sept. 26, 1960; then as now the candidates soon settled down into a post-debate statistical dead heat in the horse race (Kennedy 49, Nixon 46, according to Gallup). But at the very least the first Bush-Kerry debate marked the moment that the savvy Bush-Cheney machine lost its once-invincible grip on the all-important TV game and, just like Nixon before it, did so because of its own blunders, not any sorcery by the opposing J. F. K.

As Mr. Matthews recounts the historical antecedent in his 1996 book, "Kennedy and Nixon," the debate director, Don Hewitt, offered the haggard Nixon makeup to help bridge the video gap with his tan and fit opponent, the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Not only did Nixon decline but this decision was seconded by his campaign media adviser, Ted Rogers. The world remembers the rest. The only cosmetic aid that Nixon used - an over-the-counter product called Lazy Shave to mask his stubble - melted in sweat, casting an incumbent vice president in a lesser light than his lesser known challenger.

In the 2004 replay the Ted Rogers of the story is, of all people, James A. Baker III, the Bush family consigliere who so cannily gamed the 2000 count in Florida, outsmarting the Gore forces at every turn. This may be the year he lost his fast ball, unless you take the Freudian view that he has an unconscious wish to prevent 43 from bettering the re-election record of his original patron, 41. Either way, the thoroughness with which Mr. Baker's offstage maneuvers set his guy up for disaster on Sept. 30 may tell us more about the state of play in the campaign than the much-dissected style and substance of the debaters' onstage performance.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/arts/10rich.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=print&position=

[teryang]

1. Devastating must read piece

Thanks for this link!

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Frank Rich and MoDo should trade jobs

He belongs (again) on the Op-Ed page as a political columnist, and she would be much better relegated to firing her snarky barbs at Hollywood celebrities in "The Arts" section of the NYT.

[teryang]

3. I don't read the Times anymore

...although I was raised on it, because of their disinformation and policy operatives pushing government tricks.

But when I see something like this, I appreciate the DUers who bring it to my attention. I don't have the time nor patience to mine through NYT and WP garbage to find the good stuff.

Does Rich do a job on the media liars or what?

[glitch]

7. They only have a few columnists left worth reading

Rich, Krugman. A few others. Definitely not worth buying the paper and reading it thoroughly. Very sad.

[NNadir]

4. Man, have you got that right! n/t

[realFedUp]

5. A great piece

should have been in op-eds.

[bloom]

6. thanks for posting

"I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience" is how Dick Cheney put it earlier this year."

Or that is what he wants other to think. Accurate in getting the propaganda right - that must be it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Maybe James III is

becoming very picky. After all, as we learnt during the 2000 election, he *is* a motability specialist, a purveyor of high class, internal-combustion conveyances, albeit guaranteed to the gate. Not your garden variety of autos, used or new.

[CheshireCat]

9. Have they pulled the article?

When I click on the link, I get the following message:

The page cannot be displayed

The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.


Went to the NY Times page and did a search for "James Baker". A link to the article came up, but when I clicked on that link, I got the same error message.

I have registered at the NY Times and I am logged in.

If anyone can still get to it, please post the new link or PM me with the article. I really want to read this one.

[Raster]

12. link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/arts/10rich.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=print&position=

[CheshireCat]

14. Thanks for the link!

[Cha]

10. THanks, Dud!

This is marvelous by Frank Rich!

And this is Rich, too..

"If anything, the first Bush-Kerry confrontation has given split-screen television a new vogue. Having defied the efforts of both campaigns to squelch its use on Sept. 30, emboldened TV news organizations can run with it at will. So we saw on the Sunday after that debate, when Condoleezza Rice appeared on ABC's "This Week."

There she was quizzed about the report in that morning's Times saying that in 2002 she had hyped aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear threat a year after her staff was told that government experts had serious doubts. Ms. Rice kept trying to talk over the soft-voiced George Stephanopoulos's questions, but he zapped her with a picture: a September 2002 CNN interview in which she had not, shall we say, told the whole truth and nothing but. As the old video played, ABC used a split screen so we could watch Ms. Rice, "This Is Your Life" style, as she watched the replay of her incriminating appearance of two years earlier. Maybe, like Mr. Bush at the first debate, she knew her reaction was being caught on camera. But even if she did, the unchecked rage in her face, like that of her boss three days earlier, revealed that her image and her story, like the war itself, had spun completely out of her control."

I had forgotten that it was james baker who was calling all these shots..how ironic that he blew it so badly on the first "debate" when 65 million of us were watching!

[pinkpops]

13. I'm gonna go looking for a screen capture of condi with GS

[Tatiana]

11. Rich's columns have gotten vastly better since he's been of the op-ed page

Maybe he has more freedom, I don't know. But this piece is spot on. One of my fave lines:

This is a "free press" in the same spirit as that championed by such Bush pals as Silvio Berlusconi, Crown Prince Abdullah, Pervez Musharraf, Ayad Allawi and, of course, dear old "Vladimir."

The man sure knows how to use sarcasm to great effect.