Why Did James Baker Turn Bush Into Nixon?

[bemildred]

More interesting than the usual babble.

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.

NY Times

[Demeter]

1. Bush isn't Fit to Wipe Nixon's Shoe

Bush set the world aflame and destroyed the economy.

[bemildred]

2. I dunno if you remember Nixon, but

he was an evil bastard. Shrub has done more damage to the USA
in various ways, but Nixon is still way ahead in the most dead
and injured category. Nixon and Kissinger between them gave
Genghis Khan a good run for his money killing people in SE Asia.

[Demeter]

3. Nixon Did More Good Than all theFollowing GOPs together

before he went completely off the rails. And when he went off the rails, we had the rest of the GOP act responsibly and tell him to vacate. A flawed man, a nasty man, but he did not destroy the world the way Bush has.

[bemildred]

4. Opinions will vary.

Bush may have destroyed the Republican right wing as a
political power; whereas Nixon initiated the "Southern
Strategy"; it's an ill wind and all that. Arguing
about which is the bigger asshole, murderer, and political
hack doesn't seem like the most productive use of time,
so you may have the last word if you like.

[Wind Dancer]

5. Nixon was a dangerous and influential

politician and caused enormous harm to this country. One glaring difference is that he had a true appreciation for environmental issues which * doesn't have.

Nixon was and * is dangerous. Unfortunately, we have all of the same players with more power and knowledge, a lethal combination.