George W. Bush: Faith in the White House

Arts > Frank Rich: Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html?ex=1097566389&ei=1&en=f7573cf9c6f5abbf”>The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush

More than any other campaign artifact, “George W. Bush: Faith in the White House” [a new DVD] clarifies the hard-knuckles rationale of the president’s vote-for-me-or-face-Armageddon re-election message. It transforms the president that the Democrats deride as a “fortunate son” of privilege into a prodigal son with the “moral clarity of an old-fashioned biblical prophet.” Its Bush is not merely a sincere man of faith but God’s essential and irreplaceable warrior on Earth. The stations of his cross are burnished into cinematic fable: the misspent youth, the hard drinking (a thirst that came from “a throat full of Texas dust”), the fateful 40th-birthday hangover in Colorado Springs, the walk on the beach with Billy Graham. A towheaded child actor bathed in the golden light of an off-camera halo re-enacts the young George comforting his mom after the death of his sister; it’s a parable anticipating the future president’s miraculous ability to comfort us all after 9/11. An older Bush impersonator is seen rebuffing a sexual come-on from a fellow Bush-Quayle campaign worker hovering by a Xerox machine in 1988; it’s an effort to imbue our born-again savior with retroactive chastity. As for the actual president, he is shown with a flag for a backdrop in a split-screen tableau with Jesus. The message isn’t subtle: they were separated at birth.

“Faith in the White House” purports to be the product of “independent research,” uncoordinated with the Bush-Cheney campaign. But many of its talking heads are official or unofficial administration associates or sycophants. …

“Will George W. Bush be allowed to finish the battle against the forces of evil that threaten our very existence?” … “I think we went into Iraq not so much because there were weapons of mass destruction,” Mr. [Stephen] Mansfield [the author of one of the movie’s source texts, “The Faith of George W. Bush”] has explained elsewhere, “but because Bush had concluded that Saddam Hussein was an evildoer” in the battle “between good and evil.” …

The majority of Christian Americans may not agree with this apocalyptic worldview, but there’s a big market for it. A Newsweek poll shows that 17 percent of Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime. To Karl Rove and company, that 17 percent is otherwise known as “the base.” …

The general in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden, William G. Boykin, has earned cheers in some quarters for giving speeches at churches proclaiming that Mr. Bush is “in the White House because God put him there” to lead the “army of God” against “a guy named Satan.” But all that preaching didn’t get his day job done; he hasn’t snared the guy named Osama he was supposed to bring back “dead or alive.”

“George W. Bush: Faith in the White House” must be seen because it shows how someone like General Boykin can stay in his job even in failure and why Mr. Bush feels divinely entitled to keep his job even as we stand on the cusp of an abyss in Iraq. In this pious but not humble worldview, faith, or at least a certain brand of it, counts more than competence, and a biblical mission, or at least a simplistic, blunderbuss facsimile of one, counts more than the secular goal of waging an effective, focused battle against an enemy as elusive and cunning as terrorists. That no one in this documentary, including its hero, acknowledges any constitutional boundaries between church and state is hardly a surprise. To them, America is a “Christian nation,” period, with no need even for the fig-leaf prefix of “Judeo-.”

Far more startling is the inability of a president or his acolytes to acknowledge any boundary that might separate Mr. Bush’s flawed actions battling “against the forces of evil” from the righteous dictates of God. What that level of hubris might bring in a second term is left to the imagination, and “Faith in the White House” gives the imagination room to run riot about what a 21st-century crusade might look like in the flesh. A documentary conceived as a rebuke to “Fahrenheit 9/11” is nothing if not its unintentional and considerably more nightmarish sequel.

[Thanks, Jas.]

About the Debates

NPR : Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don’t Want You to Know About the Debates

(10.) They aren’t debates!
(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.
(8.) The “independent and non-partisan” Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.
(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.
(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.
(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as “soft” supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.
(4.) These “soft” audience members must “observe in silence.”
(3.) The “extended discussion” portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.
(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.
(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD’s co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

After the Debate

document.write(”);
View totals

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: I watched the first debate

The format was better than I expected after reading about the 30+ page agreement between the candidates that made it sound like we wouldn’t know they were in the same city. Instead, they did interact and we did get to see them reacting to each other. Camera angles of Kerry reacting to Bush showed him attentive and alert, sometimes smiling, even conceding a point to Bush. Reaction shots of Bush showed him grimacing or smarmy and fed-up.

New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan: Kerry Wins Unanimous Verdict

John Kerry won an unanimous decision from our All-Star Debate Team last night, not a knockout by any means, but enough of a score to keep this thing going to the late innings. …

“I don’t think Bush brought his best game to the debate. A telling point was that he wanted to react more in those 30 second extensions than Kerry did. It’s never a good sign when you are on the defensive. It was a clear sign that Kerry was getting under his skin. We are on the trajectory for a repeat of 2000, a very tight race,” concluded [Republican ex-ABQ city councilor Greg] Payne. …

ABQ Tribune political writer Shea Andersen scored it for Kerry because “he was smooth and brought information to every answer. Compared to the President, Kerry looked as though he was having a good time. Bush looked angry and frustrated and seemed to run out of things to say.” … Shea’s final point was on the spin. “Will the Republicans cut a bunch of TV ads about the debate to squash the spin that Kerry has won?” mused the scribe as he returned to the action.

dangerousmeta! ? People will see what they want to see.

Another woeful performance by our President, a reasonable and optimistic performance by Mr Kerry. In any historical political environment, everyone would agree Mr Kerry clearly won the debate.

Mr Bush, on the defensive, hunkered over the podium. Thinly veiled petulance. Reacted strongly to Mr Kerry’s remarks; I assume he thought off-camera, as per debate agreement. Awkward pauses to gather thoughts, subsequently very poorly expressed. A couple of times he’d hit on something he’d rehearsed, and go to town. But very rarely.

Be sure to post your own views on the Web and read the immediate reactions, before the Republican Media Monster rewrites it all. mjh

FactCheck.org Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate

Summary

In the first of three scheduled debates between Bush and Kerry both candidates sometimes departed from the facts.

Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is “spending money” and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by “outsourcing” fighting to Afghans.

Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion.

I watched the first debate

document.write(”);View totals

Along with perhaps 60 million others, I watched the first presidential debate of 2004. It was great to hear both candidates forced to express themselves a little differently than they do in speeches and commercials.

The format was better than I expected after reading about the 30+ page agreement between the candidates that made it sound like we wouldn’t know they were in the same city. Instead, they did interact and we did get to see them reacting to each other. Camera angles of Kerry reacting to Bush showed him attentive and alert, sometimes smiling, even conceding a point to Bush. Reaction shots of Bush showed him grimacing or smarmy and fed-up.

Each candidate challenged the other on certain matters. Bush seemed a bit more desperate to make his point. Bush repeated himself quite a bit with “mixed messages,” “harm’s way” and “it’s hard work” said over and over again.

Kerry: “Certainty can get you in trouble.”
Bush: “We’ve climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below.”

I thought Jim Lehrer did a great job of posing challenging questions and seeming completely without his own agenda. Bravo.

I went to bed dreading what the Republican Media Monster would do during the night to distort this event. mjh

Footnote: at one point, I turned the radio on and was shocked to discover the TV was a few words behind radio — there was a distinct, constant delay between the two. Why?