Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Going up against big name candidates such as Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and John Edwards, the first a veteran House member and the other two well-known senators, such a tightening could be easily anticipated.

If the mainstream media had been fair in its basic analysis it should have balanced any overall assessment with recognition of the fact that Dean's number one status in polls had been attributable in some measure to his early campaign launching and lack of competition during that phase as well as one other factor.  

The Iowa Caucuses are known for their volatility and have produced stumbling blocs that many successful candidates later overcame.

Ronald Reagan was embarrassed in Iowa and lost frontrunner status to George Bush the Elder with a stinging loss in 1980, the same year the former California Governor won both the nomination and the November election over President Jimmy Carter.  

Four years later it was Carter's vice president, Walter Mondale, who was upset by "New Democrat" Gary Hart, but the veteran Minnesota politician rallied to win the nomination and face Reagan in the November election.  

In 1988 Reagan's heir apparent, Vice President Bush, suffered a rebuke so stinging in Iowa that many premature analysts wrote off his candidacy altogether.  His victory over Robert Dole in a bitterly contested New Hampshire primary secured important momentum and enabled him to win the Republican nomination, from which he went on to win the November election over Michael Dukakis.

Experience has taught seasoned presidential analysts to label the pitfall-laden primary season as a marathon rather than the sprint that the media was seemingly erecting with Dean.  The bar was placed at such a high level so that anything other than a clear-cut victory by the Vermont Governor could be spun as a calamitous loss.

Another factor also entered the media equation at that critical point.  Media analysts sought to equate what they reported as Dean support erosion with negative campaigning.  When Dean finished third on caucus night and Gephardt occupied the fourth spot the result was ascertained as attributable to alleged mud wrestling engaged in by Dean and Gephardt in competing for caucus votes.

An analysis of the allegedly mutually demeaning media mud match engaged in by Dean and Gephardt resurrects a saying attributed to Gertrude Stein, "There's no there there."  A Google search turns up little in the way of information.

The sole hideous ad that was highlighted in a December 17, 2003 report from CNN that was swiftly condemned by the Dean camp as over the line was a television spot that used an image of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to attack the former Vermont Governor's national security credentials.  

A group calling itself "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values" aired the ad in the early Democratic battlegrounds of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  "Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy," an announcer revealed in a voice over while a magazine cover was shown depicting bin Laden.  "It's time for Democrats to think about that, and think about it now."

Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, called the ad "the kind of fearmongering attack we've come to expect from Republicans," asserting that it "panders to the worst in voters."  Trippi called on Dean's rivals to condemn the ad and demanded that it be pulled from the airwaves while asserting, "Ads like this are the reason that less than half of the voting population in America bothers to go to the polls."

The leadership of the group, a nonprofit committee known as a "527" named after the section of the tax code that limits its requirement to disclose the source of its funding, included two individuals with ties to Dean's Democratic rivals, David Jones, a former aide to Gephardt, and Robert Gibbs, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry's campaign.

The ad came and went swiftly.  Another television ad that generated controversy and drew criticism from veteran syndicated columnist Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe featured a female voice stating ominously: "October 2002.  Dick Gephardt agrees to coauthor the Iraq war resolution giving George Bush the authority to go to war."  

Dean then is seen on a small town street as he retorts, "I opposed the war in Iraq."  

This ad noted that Gephardt voted for the recently passed $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction costs, after which Dean responded, "And I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

A critical Oliphant responded, "Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate."  Oliphant then explained that, in his view, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean and that, after Bush had proposed a simple blank check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002, negotiations ensued and a resolution was ultimately passed, which Gephardt supported, that authorized unilateral action if, in Oliphant's explanatory words, "UN diplomacy was exhausted it (the resolution) authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat."  

Oliphant's criticism of Dean relates to what the columnist regarded as inconsistency with the former Vermont Governor's statement to Iowa reporters that, "We can't cut and run from Iraq."  His contention that Dean was attempting to have the argument both ways contained plausibility, but further analysis begs a fundamental question.  

Had members of Congress refused to support any war authority resolution at that point and waited to analyze developments on the UN diplomatic front, particularly the completion of the ultimately uncompleted weapons inspection of Iraq by Hans Blix and his team, Bush would have had not had congressional authorization for invading Iraq.  

Careful analysis would have concluded that $87 million could be used for different purposes than that earmarked in the resolution, particularly given Bush's propensity for deception and unilateral action.  

Senator John Edwards later voted to deny Bush authorization money in a comparable request, stating that had specific funds been earmarked for activity specifically connected to the Iraq War he would vote in favor of that kind of funding.

Given the foregoing, Oliphant's stern conclusion of "I have a suspicion that Iowans who have a record of disliking this kind of campaigning will take Dean up on this point" appears overly harsh but on point regarding mainstream media treatment of a candidate uncomfortably perceived as an outsider.

All negative ads were ultimately pulled before the Iowa primary.  Any analysis of the situation leads to the conclusion that there was more discussion about negative ads than presentations of the television spots themselves.  

The major question is why so much emphasis was placed on what, on the surface, appeared to be a mudslinging battle to the death by Dean and Gephardt, if one were influenced by media accounts while George W. Bush slipped away basically unscathed following one of the most unconscionably negative campaigns in recent memory in the 2000 South Carolina primary.  

To the credit of the weekend television pundits, an effort was made to hold Bush accountable as he was asked pointedly about ads being run against Senator John McCain that were throwbacks to the worst of the McCarthy-Nixon era in the fifties.  Bush flashed a look of schoolboy innocence and responded that people had a right to say what they wanted and that he had no control over such expressions.  

The then Texas Governor was told that this position was flat out wrong and that a candidate repudiates ads he or she finds personally repugnant and outside the bounds of conscionable decency.  There is a good deal to be found in any Internet search pertaining to the Bush 2004 South Carolina mudslinging.  

The hideous specter of racism reared its ugly head in a manner reminiscent of Mississippi's Senator Theodore Bilbo, the wearer of a red tie that spawned the name "redneck" as a southern epithet.  McCain was excoriated for having a "black child" when he had an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.  

To appeal to the lowest common denominator in a southern state, Bush made a pretext of support from infamous Bob Jones University and appeared there.  Bob Jones has been associated with outlawing interracial dating, as a beacon of anti-Catholicism, and supportive of the confederate flag.  

Bush-Rove operatives questioned the sanity of former Vietnam prisoner of war McCain.  He was also alternatively and inconsistently attacked for sexual promiscuity as a heterosexual and a homosexual.  McCain's wife had suffered from breast cancer and he was unjustly attacked by the relentless Bush-Rove machine for voting against funding in that important research area.  

In reality, McCain voted against a bill because he opposed other items in the spending measure, realizing that it would surely pass.  The breast cancer element was totally unrelated to the point being registered by McCain.  The Bush team surely knew this.

In reality, McCain voted against a bill because he opposed other items in the spending measure, realizing that it would surely pass.  The breast cancer element was totally unrelated to the point being registered by McCain.  The Bush team surely knew this.

Bush also made consistent reference to his determination to change the political climate in Washington, making it less partisan, speaking disdainfully of the "business as usual" prevailing atmosphere.  In addition to stressing integrity, Bush also emphasized his bedrock Christian beliefs.  

Should a more vigilant media have pointed out the appalling inconsistencies concerning Bush in theory and practice?  Did his experiences in the oil business reveal a concern for moral and fiscal probity?

Another point can also be raised.  If Dean and Gephardt were the twin ogres represented by the media in what was termed a negative mud wrestling style of campaigning, then why did they not represent mutual distaste for each other in their nationally televised debate appearances with the other candidates?

The Dean-Gephardt confrontations can be sharply contrasted with debate appearances involving Bush and McCain in the heat of the South Carolina primary season.  During one debate on Larry King Live smear victim McCain looked angry enough to strike the then Texas Governor.  During a break, when Bush sought to be conciliatory and touched McCain, the Arizona solon snapped, "Don't you touch me!"

A comparative study revealed the kind of over emphasis with anything that could conceivably be perceived as negative activity on Dean's part and the corresponding under emphasis concerning Bush comparable to Bush's campaign against Al Gore in 2000.  The deck was over stacked in one direction and woefully under stacked in the other.

As caucus night loomed closer in Iowa the media relished harping on apparent Dean slippage.  What was not mentioned was that Dean's lead in the pre-primary season was explainable in large measure by the fact that he had announced early.  Senator John Kerry was well financed, with his wife, wealthy heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, dipping into her heavy assets to assist.  

As a seasoned Washingtonian Kerry had an entrenched senate organization.  Kerry operatives heavily deluged Iowa in the closing stages.  A big assist was forthcoming by the steady campaigning on Kerry's behalf by arguably the best known senator in Washington, Ted Kennedy, the senior solon from Massachusetts and Kerry's loyal colleague.

Another formidable challenge was forthcoming by the James Stewartesque Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.  With his boyish good looks and appealing as well as positive stump manner, coupled with help from his articulate lawyer wife, Edwards was also a compelling force with which to be reckoned.

When on caucus night Dean finished third behind Kerry and Edwards respectively, the media launched a feeding frenzy, making the "Dean flop" the centerpiece of the story.  It had ostensibly resulted from negative campaign, for which Iowans had marked disdain, according to a media that had exploited this theme beyond any fair or reasonable context.

The big media surge, however, occurred following Dean's speech to his grassroots faithful in Des Moines.  From that point forward until the end of his campaign the candidate would be known as "Howard Dean the Screamer."  

It was not until long after the 2004 campaign had ended that the real story emerged for most Americans concerning a false and malicious misrepresentation of Dean.  

As Dean gave his speech exhorting his troops, naming the battleground states to which he would be taking his populist message, all that could be heard was the candidate delivering his message in what outwardly appeared to be a strident, over the top manner.

It was not until long after the 2004 campaign had ended that the real story emerged for most Americans concerning a false and malicious misrepresentation of Dean.  

As Dean gave his speech exhorting his troops, naming the battleground states to which he would be taking his populist message, all that could be heard was the candidate delivering his message in what outwardly appeared to be a strident, over the top manner.  

Dean's speech would be repeatedly cited as confirmation of earlier media messages that Howard Dean was erratic and unstable.

In a special CNN documentary about Dean and his movement the camera, rather than registering solely on the candidate as it had that evening in Des Moines, panned to the large and boisterous group of supporters that erupted in loud cheers.  Dean, as he explained later, had been compelled to shout to be heard amid the loud and excited throng.

Another factor was also finally revealed.  Not only had the camera frozen on Dean when he delivered his message to his supporters that evening in Des Moines; the candidate had been given a directional microphone.  As a result the ambient raucous noise coming from enthused supporters, seeking also to diminish the hurt they felt over the candidate's failure to triumph in Iowa, was not heard.  

A conscientious media seeking to get the whole story across to the nation would have included at least a few thorough reporters outside the Robert Novak-George Will ambit to explain that the account witnessed by millions of Americans of an apparently overly exuberant Howard Dean was technologically misleading.

The Dean organization became rattled by the huge media assault in the wake of his Des Moines speech.  It would have been tactically advisable to demonstrate technologically that, given the full story, it was grossly unfair to suggest that Dean had been out of control.  

Instead the candidate went into urgent damage control mode.  He sought to use humor to deflect the instability charge.  Dean appeared on the David Letterman Show and engaged in self-deprecating humor, referring to his Iowa speech as a "crazy, red-faced rant," which factual analysis reveals it was not.        

In a move reminiscent of Bill Clinton in 1992, when his early primary campaign was plagued with stories of an extra-marital affair with Gennifer Flowers, the candidate sought to present himself in a human light as he appeared jointly with his wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean.  The appearance was overwhelmingly outnumbered by seemingly endless repetitions of the so-called "Dean Scream" incident.

It is instructive to note that, despite non-stop negative coverage, Dean managed to finish second in the New Hampshire primary to Kerry.  Had some of the media sought to examine the story fully a case could be made that Dean made a satisfactory recovery under highly inauspicious circumstances by finishing second.

In 1992, when Clinton finished second in New Hampshire, he was hailed in media accounts as "the comeback kid."  It could also have been noted that the New Hampshire primary was contested in what could be termed John Kerry's home field in the neighboring state to Massachusetts.  

Many New Hampshire residents work in and around Boston.  With such close contacts many could easily consider themselves to be quasi-residents of Massachusetts.  In addition to having an excellent campaign fund chest, Kerry's finely tuned Boston organization was less than an hour removed from New Hampshire.  Also, Ted Kennedy remained a dominant fixture in the campaign.    

The story that continued to be spun by the media remained Dean's perceived unelectability, which was repetitiously drummed into the public consciousness with the same determined ferocity as the replaying of his Des Moines speech.  After he finished a distant third in Wisconsin on February 17, 2004, Dean ended his candidacy.

One of the most significant lessons to be learned in evaluating the Dean candidacy is the mainstream media's preoccupation with pinning the label of unelectable on grassroots, populist-oriented, perceived outsiders such as the Vermonter and Dennis Kucinich.  The field was then clear for the triumph of a familiar establishment candidate, John Kerry.

In November 2004 the media would then move into the next phase of a propaganda two-step.  While Kerry was admittedly an establishment member and veteran Washington politician, any failure on his part stemmed from straying too far from the centrist reservation arbitrarily drawn up by the mainstream media.  

This begs a vital question: Is the Cheney-Bush government centrist?  This is a question the mainstream media has no apparent enthusiasm to confront.