Joseph Planta's Commentary - thecommentary.ca

Sunday, 17 October 2004

Bush according to elitists

By Joseph Planta

VANCOUVER - I've always said, were I American, knowing what I know from my consumption of American media, and whatever knowledge I have about its politics, in 2000 I would have for George W. Bush over Al Gore. Because I consume an inordinate amount of cable news everyday, and I read all the appropriate op-ed columnists, and I listen to Imus, I'm probably inclined to say that were I voting on the 2nd of November, I'd probably vote for Bush over John Kerry.

Saying that understandably raises the ire of many. Sure, the Bush economic record is hardly anything to write home about and obviously, Bush had it right when he said Iraq was a "catastrophic success." However, my selection of Bush, from a faraway distance is much like those undecided Americans now, who will doubtless elect the next president. It is surprising to see so many undecided, especially when Bush and Kerry are so starkly different from one another. The perception that most have of these candidates has stuck: Bush is resolute, strong and determined, if not stubborn; while Kerry is unable to define himself thanks to the perception of being a flip-flopper and regulated by the swoon of voter fashion. Mainstream Americans-and by that, I mean regular folk, not Bruce Springsteen or John Fogerty or Barbra Streisand-sadly aren't worried about litmus tests for possible Supreme Court nominees, or foreign policy direction post-Iraq war. No, they're concerned about bread and butter issues like the price of gas, the price of beer, and the price of a gallon of milk. Sure, Bush is imperfect, he's the first to admit his faults (though he can't come up with at least one instance when he made a mistake), but I suspect people, in red states in particular, are more comfortable with Bush, rather than the bicycle short-wearing John Kerry, who people tend to regard as a phoney or a gigolo, not to mention a Massachusetts liberal. Both Bush and Kerry are lacklustre compared to the others in their respective parties who'd make finer candidates-Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Joe Biden for three. I suspect undecided voters will vote for the candidate their comfortable with. There isn't much of a difference between the two, even though there is. It all comes down to what candidate you're comfortable with.

Surprisingly enough, when I went to go see The World According to Bush, the documentary by the French filmmaker William Karel, my opinion of President Bush didn't change. The film, which had its international premiere at the recent Vancouver International Film Festival, has as its thesis that Bush is an intellectual boob and that despite it, he and his cronies are behind the greatest ruse, not only in stealing the 2000 election, but the waist deep corruption had with Bush's connection with the bin Ladens through the Carlyle Group, as well as Haliburton.

Despite its précis, which sounds like a Michael Moore polemic, it isn't. It was startlingly fair and was not as offensive as the audience that this movie would be attractive to. The film, based on a book by Eric Laurent, exposes the Bush dynasty and is well researched and far less grating than anything from Moore or MoveOn.org.

The film features interviews from intellectual elitists and malcontents like Norman Mailer, who think Bush should be disqualified from public office (perhaps from wearing clothes) because he's not as smart as he, to the other side, which makes the film more thoughtful, like Richard Perle, Colin Powell, and Frank Carlucci. The sagacious Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times is interviewed, as are Hans Blix, David Kay, and Joe Wilson, the former ambassador whose wife was outed by the administration, when he came out to dispute the Iraq war. The part where Joe Wilson's story is dealt with was for me the most chilling. This is perhaps the strongest prima facie indictment against this administration. It is possible that this administration wilfully and maliciously blew Wilson's wife's cover as a CIA agent, just because Wilson was running his mouth off about the administration and its desire for war in Iraq. It's treasonous, and expectedly, as questions are being raised, this administration has stonewalled.

The film was damning and frank, yet what I couldn't get over, and where this film lost its potency on me, was when the filmmaker, who attended the screening and spoke after it, said that his agenda was that so Americans could see his film before the election, so that they could supposedly become exposed to the sins of their president, and hopefully vote him out. I'd be offended were that the case, because I suspect Americans have an idea that Bush isn't so great, what with his connections to Enron and that lot, yet they still vote for him, because he isn't as phoney as Kerry. Americans, at least those that vote for Bush, seem to abhor phonies, as well as those presumptuous to think that they're smarter than the average American. Americans are smarter than that, and I don't think Karel's film is being shut out of the United States because the Bushies are trying to muzzle it. Rather no one wants to touch it because of it's a partisan political film, and as Michael Moore is facing, outlets are loath to show it as they'd be compelled to feature films from the opposite point of view, thanks to equal time restrictions.

Still, this is a well-made film, and fair. One doesn't suspect, as the filmmaker so obviously would like, that viewers see it and by virtue of his craftsmanship and/or scholarship be compelled to change their political views about President Bush, or the United States of America.

***

If you missed it at the Film Festival, CBC Newsworld will be airing the documentary Sunday, 17 October 2004, and Friday, 22 October 2004.

-30-

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca

An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .

Blog Search Engine -Search Engine and Directory of blogs. Looking for blogs? Find them on BlogSearchEngine.com