US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Environment
Fair Expectations
02 Oct 2004
George W. has always o­nly had to "exceed expectations", which are always set low to begin with. He has never actually had to "win" a debate; he wins by not losing, or in some cases, even by not losing badly.

Bush: Fair Expectations
Posted by: outsidethebox on Oct 02, 2004 - 03:38 PM

Fair Expectations

By Steve Cobble, AlterNet. Posted September 30, 2004.

George W. is right – it's time to end "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

I'm talking about the presidential debates. It's long past time to quit treating George W. like some precious little elementary school kid from the boondocks. He's supposed to be the president. He needs to be held to the same debate standards to which other first-term presidents were held, the standards that helped derail his father and Jimmy Carter.

Standards like truth. Coherence. His actual record in office. An ability to go beyond scripted sound bites. Some connection between the dreamscapes that his PR people paint for him, and the cruel reality o­n the ground that his policies have helped to create.

(As for Dick Cheney – some tenuous connection with the truth would be a good start . . .) The media have never held George W. Bush to the same standards as his debate opponents. Despite being the incumbent governor, the eloquent Ann Richards could o­nly win by slaughtering Bush in their debates, a wildly unfair set of expectations. Al Gore actually won two out of the three debates, according to the viewing audience – but he lost ground during their debate series, as much as 10 points in the polls, because he was unable to "knock Bush out" (and because of intense post-debate right-wing spin).

Why? Because in the past, Bush's reputation for mangling phrases, for making up words, for not knowing what he was talking about, was an asset when the media judged the debates. He "won", not because he did better than his opponents, but because he did "better than expected," according to the pundit class.

George W. has always o­nly had to "exceed expectations", which are always set low to begin with. He has never actually had to "win" a debate; he wins by not losing, or in some cases, even by not losing badly.

This media frame is long outdated. Bush is the president now (whether he really won or not). When he says something, it should be judged by real, factual benchmarks, not artificially enhanced by "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

For instance, can the man who would be Churchill tell the truth? Can he explain how an attack o­n a nation with no WMDs that was not involved in the 9/11 attacks somehow boosted the war o­n terror? Can he tell us how we're going to get out of his quagmire in Iraq? Should he be allowed to get away with reciting some truism about "turning the corner" rather than confronting our net loss of a million jobs, stagnant wages, and growing trade deficit?

Will his promises o­n the budget deficit be measured against his record in squandering the Clinton surplus? Will his tough-guy talk about terrorists be matched up against his failure to follow through o­n bin Laden? Will the media ask him if he believes that Armageddon will happen soon, and is that belief influencing his Middle East policy?

Will they ask him how it is that his Administration could be warned in early August that al Qaeda was going to attack inside the United States, and yet more than a month later, still not be able to defend the Pentagon? What could explain such a massive display of incompetence?

And what does it mean that he can find the time to drop in o­n soldiers and National Guard reserves being sent off to Iraq, but he has never been able to find the time to show respect for our fallen, to show respect for their families, by attending even o­ne funeral of o­ne soldier killed in Iraq? Not o­ne, out of more than o­ne thousand killed.

Everyone seems to agree that this is the most important election in our lifetimes. (Granted, people say that every four years, but this time both sides are also acting as if they mean it.) Is it too much to ask that the next leader of the most powerful nation o­n earth have to earn it, by actually winning the debates, rather than winning by "social promotion" due to "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?

So this time, can we make George W. actually win these debates o­n his merits – or more likely, allow him to lose them o­n his demerits?

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Bush Is A Punk. He Deserves To Lose. And Go To Jail!
04 Oct 2004
The writer mentions Bush not getting credit for being an idiot, liar and pre-school speaker. Then, asking us if Bush will win again.
I'll say this. If Bush wins again? I'll leave this sorry ass country to the idiots. If the United States voters are that stupid? They deserve everything coming to them. I mean everything! Burn the constitution. Don't burn the flag! Burn the Bill of Rights. Don't remove the 10 commandments from that court house!
If that's what the voters want? Fuckem'!
(This writer is born American. Been following politics for over 30 years.)