Michael Allen
A wake up call for Democrats came this week in the form of a media analysis conducted by The Center for Media and Public Affairs. In their analysis, "Study: Dean Trails in Race for Positive Press", the nonpartisan group found that "A majority of nightly network newscast evaluations of Democratic Presidential frontrunner Howard Dean were negative during the 2003 'preseason,' while three-quarters of the coverage given to the other eight candidates was favorable".
Unless you're pro-Dean, why does this matter? It matters if you have concerns about outside manipulation during the process of nominating the Democratic Presidential candidate. It matters if you are aware of the right-wing bias in the media and of how that bias buried Al Gore while burying the truth about George W. Bush (a partial list: The Florida recount; Bush's ties to Enron; the 9/11 investigation; WMD lies; the Plame case; the RICO suit). It matters if you have concerns about what this means for the general election campaign, the results in November, and our future beyond that. For a few moments, please set aside any emotional reactions you might have about the candidates and think about this objectively.
Why would the media be interested in burying the front-running Democratic candidate? By looking at the evidence, it hardly takes a stretch of the imagination to see the markings of right-wing involvement. For months, right-wing pundits have been concerned about the prospect of the Democrats nominating Howard Dean. Since Karl Rove has stated that Dean is the candidate he would most like to run against, why would these pundits be concerned enough to go so far as offering advice on how to prevent us from making the "mistake" of nominating Dean? If Rove really thinks that Dean will be his easiest target, you would think they would be content to sit back and give Bush a free ride. What does their "concern" tell you about who Rove does and does not want to run against?
We well know that to the Bush White House everything is about politics and that a tight reign is held on the media which, in combination with right-wing media ownership, has created an "echo chamber" for right-wing issues. We also well know that our Democratic candidates do not have access to this echo chamber, yet certain themes regarding Dean have been effectively echoed in the media. It would be a safe bet that the source of this echo could be traced back to Karl Rove.
If this is the case, do you honestly think that Karl Rove would be using the echo chamber to prop up the candidates that he doesn't want to run against while targeting the man that he says he does want to run against?
No. It is more likely that he's using everything he has against Dean right now while he is at his weakest defending himself against 7 other people who also want to see him defeated. When Dean is no longer viable, then the next front-runner will be targeted. Then, when someone locks up the nomination, the right-wing's real slaughter will begin.
Let's be honest with ourselves, this has nothing to do with any of the individual candidates, it is all about money and Howard Dean's organization represents Karl Rove's worst nightmare in that regard. Why would the Bush campaign opt out of public financing to run a primary campaign against no opponents, then set out to raise an unprecedented 200 million dollars to wage that campaign? Because strategically, Rove and the RNC intends to bury the Democratic nominee in a 200 million dollar avalanche before the general election campaign ever begins. Another story this week points to how dire this situation will become.
All of the candidates but John Kerry and Howard Dean have bought into public financing. At this point, John Kerry doesn't represent a financial threat since he has had to mortgage his house to obtain the funding to continue his campaign. Dean has been targeted because he has put together an organization that represents the Democrats' greatest chance to counter the 200 million dollar avalanche. The remaining candidates will be limited to 45 million dollars between now and the convention. The majority of that money will be spent on waging a hard-fought primary campaign. That means, if Dean can be knocked out, the nominee will have little money to spend between the end of the primary season and the convention, potentially a period of three or four months. Rove will have that long to plaster the airwaves with 200 million dollars worth of targeted candidate-defining sleaze, along with supporting media buzz from the echo chamber. He will make what happened to Max Cleland look like a love fest. The election will be over before the Democrats even officially nominate their candidate and Bush will be handed his landslide.
Let's test this by running a few candidates through a practice scenario. The situation is this: each candidate has endured a long and bloody primary campaign where 7 other opponents have stubbornly refused to yield. The media has enabled this by going negative on whichever candidate rises to front-runner status so that no clear front-runner emerges, all the while burying negative stories about the person in the White House. Each candidate has accepted public financing meaning they have a maximum of $45 million to spend through the primaries and up to the convention. Because of the length and intensity of the primary season, the winning candidate only has $5 million remaining when they finally lock up the nomination.
MoveOn and George Soros can spend a zillion dollars on issue ads, but because of campaign finance laws they can't spend a dime on an ad that directly promotes or defends a particular candidate. The candidates are running against George W. Bush who has $200 million dollars to spend any way he wants until his convention in August. The candidates who must match their $5 million against Bush's $200 million are: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. What happens to each? Franklin Delano Roosevelt - The atacks begin on May 1 with ads defining Roosevelt as the elitist son of a wealthy family who is out of touch with the values of the average American. In early June, the media, with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, begins questioning why Roosevelt refuses to release his medical records. Late in June, an "insider" confirms that Roosevelt is hiding a severe medical problem. A couple of weeks later, a photo of Roosevelt in a wheelchair is leaked. Coincidentally, the Bush campaign begins running "positive" ads showing Bush jogging and tossing a football with a major NFL quarterback. The media continues to question how we can trust a man who won't fully disclose his medical records. Final election result: Bush 65% Roosevelt 35%.
Harry Truman - Picking up on an issue created during the primaries regarding Truman's "well-known" temper problem, the Bush campaign begins running ads questioning Truman's stability and his ability to make decisions in a crisis. The media comments on how this is reflected in his blunt "off the cuff" speaking style and intensly scrutinizes every "gaffe", particularly seizing on a moment in which Truman "blasted" one of his own supporters with a stinging rebuke about giving the Republicans "hell". Final election result: Bush 53%, Truman 47%.
John F. Kennedy - Very similar to the campaign against Roosevelt in regard to the elitist background and questions about his medical condition. In June, someone leaks that Kennedy uses an exceptionally large amount of prescription medications. The media begins questioning if these were obtained legally. Late in July, a series of bombshell announcements begin from women who claim to have recently had sex with Kennedy. This is seized by Christian conservatives as an indictment on Kennedy's morals. Final election result: Bush 68%, Kennedy 32%
That just scratches the surface of what the Bush machine would be able to do to those candidates, and with only $5 million to spend and no cooperation from the media, there would be little they would be able to do to launch a defense. Before the general election began, their image would be wrapped up in a tidy little right-wing bundle. You can also imagine what the machine could do to Johnson, Carter and Clinton. The point I'm trying to make is this - this election is like no other election in our history. We can not assume that the good guy will come out on top in the end. If the good guy has no money to defend his image and reputation against Bush, he will lose.
Some might cling to hope that there will be a mass awakening to what Bush has done and that this awakening will carry our candidate to victory. This is a thin hope since there is no evidence to indicate that any sort of awakening might happen. The echo chamber will see to that. Despite the abuses Ronald Reagan's administration inflicted, his legend has practically approached sainthood. There was never anything approaching a mass awakening to what he really did. In fact, he's defended now by Democrats. People are living with the very real present day consequences of what George W. Bush has done to us, yet he is still flying high in the polls thanks largely to the media. Setting aside emotion, there is no rational or logical reason to think that we will see anything different happen.
We can hope that one of Bush's scandals will break open and cause an awakening. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to bet the future on that. If an awakening does happen, and we are running a financially strong candidate, we can breathe even easier that that candidate will win.
If it doesn't, and we allow a candidate to be slaughtered by Rove's machine, we're stuck with another 4 years of Bush. Dick Cheney thought he had tax cuts for the rich, a war, and huge deficits due him after winning the midterms. What will he expect this time?
How many more children will die before he feels that his due has been met? Those of us on the progressive side tend to be idealists and see politics as the chase for a grand ideal. This is good in that we continually challenge the country to reach for a brighter tomorrow in a way that only dreamers can do. Sadly, and ironically, at this point in our nation's history in order to ever again have an opportunity to drive the country toward a dream, we must quickly suppress the dreamer in favor of the pragmatist.
There is a lesson that we have failed to learn from the 60's forward. In order to defeat the "establishment" or the "VRWC" or whatever label we choose to put on the right-wing machine, we first must learn to fight on their playing field. Those who call themselves centrists think that they have learned this lesson, and choose to fight on the field of ideals. Some victory came from this, but the result now, as evidenced by the 2002 midterms, has been to so dilute our ideals that we are indistinguishable from the Republicans. If voters are given little choice between ideals, and can only choose from the "real deal" or pretenders, we well know that they will choose the "real deal". No, in order to win we must not be afraid to hold firm to our ideals, giving voters a real choice, while learning to play by the rules of the game. In other words, we have to adjust our tactics, not our beliefs. Unfortunately, that tactical adjustment, of necessity, will involve playing the money and media game.
I don't want to be proven right about this - I would love for ideals and principle to triumph and for the warm and fuzzy guy to come out on top. I don't want it to be proven that this election is more about money than anything. I don't want to be proven right when I say that the candidates without money can't possibly win this election. Deep in the practical part of my soul though, I know I'm right. That convinces me that the only choice we have between candidates who have a realistic chance of defeating Bush are those who bypassed matching funds for the primary season: Howard Dean and John Kerry.
Bill Clinton once said that the primaries are about falling in love with a candidate. For this primary season, Tina Turner made the more appropriate statement when she sang "What's Love Got To Do With It". If we love our country, we had better learn how to fall in love with one of the two candidates who have the best chance to stand against the coming avalanche.
Given John Kerry's demonstrated lack of prowess in fundraising, our choice is clear.
Michael Allen - DemsOnline http://www.demsonline.net
Originally published on DemsOnline http://www.demsonline.net ). Despite the similarity in names, this author is not connected to another author who writes for a major Washington newspaper. Permission is granted for reprint as long as this explanatory paragraph is attached.
