Ralph Reed’s assault on The Daily Show

2004.10.04 — Entertainment | Politics | Television | by BB Rodriguez

In the wake of the unspeakable horror that was the first presidential debate of 2004, it's wise to remind ourselves that there was a genuine debate over the issues of the day. It was on a fake news comedy show.

Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart has become a force to be reckoned with in the game of politics. What started out as a snarky take on current events and entertainment a la Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" and hosted by Craig Kilborn has become a comedy powerhouse and political trial-by-fire.

Ralph Reed is the former chairman of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, then lobbyist for Microsoft, and now chairman of the southeast region for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Despite what you might think about the Christian Coalition (or Microsoft), Reed seems to be a decent guy (unlike Robertson), and he's a whole lot better at articulating the party line than any of the Bush administration's top dogs.

That the Bush-Cheney campaign would send Reed to The Daily Show (and just before the first debate) to shore up support among wide-eyed, well-educated young people who watch it is telling. It means that they know that Stewart's little show is both popular and influential.

Stewart may have an obvious ax to grind, but he grinds it methodically—using the target's own video clips and quotes to lethal effect, which ought to put Tim Russert to shame. And altho it's not as thoro or inciteful as Now with Bill Moyers, The Daily Show also won't bore you to stupefaction.

Reed came out to a round of friendly banter about his position of chairman of the president's campaign region that includes Florida. Then, at Stewart's invitation, he leaped into hyperbolic claims about Kerry's debate skills. Being a champion debater in school doesn't make Kerry any more of a debater today than Bush's National Guard service as a jet pilot makes him qualified to take the yoke of a 747.

And, despite what Reed claims, the Senate is not really a debate forum; it's barely a forum for discussion. Nobody changes his vote based on the arguments presented on the Senate floor.

But then Stewart puts the screws to Reed with the obvious question: we've seen where George W Bush has taken us after four years; won't the next four be more of the same? Stewart used the elliptical phrase "it scares me...."

Reed admitted that a strategy to win the war in Iraq was central to Bush's campaign, but then tried to change the subject to job creation. This was something of a mistake, since it allowed (heck, practically required) Stewart to immediately question his job creation figures with the facts. The Bush economy has been slowly growing jobs lately, but that still is likely to leave the country with an overall deficit of about a million jobs, a first for a presidential administration since Hoover... which even impartial fact checkers admit.

Stewart let Reed claim that Bush inherited a recession. The government's own figures say that the recession started three months after Bush took office, and after his initial policies had been passed by an eager-beaver Republican Congress. Reed went on to claim that the economy has "turned around," a claim that only makes sense if Bush had had something to do with it.

Stewart turned the discussion back to Iraq, calling it "such a diversion." But Reed hit this one out of the park. Saddam, said Reed:

• Invaded Iran and Kuwait and fired SCUDs at Israel and Saudi Arabia.
  ("But after 91," Stewart interjects sharply.)
• Brought Abu Nidal to Baghdad.
  (...and apparently executed him. Oops. Saddam was a terrorism fighter?)
• Provided harbor and sanctuary to Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
  (...which is a bit like saying the US provided harbor and sanctuary to Jeffery Dahmer.)
• Sent intelligence officers to Afghanistan to invite Osama bin Laden to come to Baghdad, which he says is on page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report.
  (hold on... yes, it's there, but anonymously attributed as a "report" and followed by other things that say that both sides were wary and nothing came of the chats. Stewart turns the tables and points out that Iran and Pakistan have more ties to al-Qaeda... and nuclear weapons programs.)
• He had weapons of mass destruction programs.
  (or WMD-related program activities. Stewart doesn't even bother to counter that one.)
• He was "the bloodiest and most dangerous man in the bloodiest and most dangerous part of the world."
  (Stewart cleverly pretends to think he means Kim Jong-Il.)

Of course, none of this really helps prove that we should actually have invaded Iraq. It just proves that Saddam was a bad guy, which no one doubted. But the Bush administration makes no fine distinctions between evil-doers and targets. If the Iraq War had gone more smoothly, the president probably would have invaded Iran or North Korea. Seriously.

Stewart did a terrific job of countering nearly every point with a sharp poke in the eye, but the lasting effect was Ralph Reed's calm, passionate presentation, not Stewart's quick-witted interjections, as spot-on as they were. Stewart even gave Reed a graceful out by ending the interview with a compliment about Reed's youthful good looks. Reed attributes them to white tea, but a contract with the devil is more likely.

If Stewart had pressed him, Reed's litany against Saddam would have fallen apart, but he's not that kind of guy. Points go to both teams, but the victor in this debate was the president's proxy.

f e e d b a c k

Jason Botwick writes:

That episode was on repeat last night. I couldn't watch it either time. The site of Reed smiling gives me the willies. The real ones. I mean, it seriously creeps me out. I would rather watch the slow-motion car crash that is the Red Sox losing to the Yankees. Being a Red Sox fan sucks.

BB Rodriguez writes:

Post World Series update: Your faith has been rewarded, my child. Go in peace and sin no more.

BB Rodriguez writes:

Post-election update: Maybe you meant to say "Democrat" instead of "Red Sox."

Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.

s i d e b a r