	Bob Hostetler > Writing

The Scandals of Election 2004

by Bob Hostetler

History will remember the 2000 presidential election in the United States as the contested election, decided only after a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's nothing. It will pale in comparison to Election 2004.

However it turns out (this column was intentionally written before election day), I think the presidential election of 2004 will be remembered for its scandals.

Foremost among these: it is scandalous that the nominee of a major party whose Vietnam-era service was touted as a qualification will have made it to election day without having signed a Form 180, authorizing the government to make his military records public… without a hue and cry being raised by fair-minded journalists. Hue and cry? How about raising the issue at all? Of course, if you've paid attention during the campaign, you know that nominee was John F. Kerry. President Bush signed a Form 180; Kerry did not, all the while claiming that "all" his records had been made public. Don't get me wrong. Kerry did not have to sign the form. But the fact that it never became a campaign issue is an indictment of the Fourth Estate.

Add to that the so-called "news" media's over-the-top emphasis this campaign season on polls. I find it scandalous that newspapers and networks that were once the watchdogs of democracy have this year completed the transition from investigative journalism…to mere transcription and comparison. There was once a day when journalists actually got out from behind their desks and investigated stuff…instead of simply parroting polls and news releases. But those days seem to be over now.

Also over are the days of the once-dominant now-partisan media. Beginning with Newsweek's Evan Thomas's televised admission that the media "wants Kerry to win," through Rathergate (CBS's tainted hit-piece on Bush's guard service) and NYTrogate (the New York Times's uninvestigated attempt at an October surprise about "missing" explosives at al QaQaa), the traditional news media have been scandalously obvious in their bias, committing sins of commission (unfavorable stories they've pursued with fanatical fervor against Bush) and omission (stories they've ignored about Kerry). It is for that reason, primarily, that syndicated columnist Cal Thomas opined, "Regardless of who wins next Tuesday's election (and no matter how long it takes to get the results following expected lawsuits and ballots cast by ineligible voters), this may well be the last election cycle in which the Big Media are taken seriously or regarded as influential."

Another scandal of this election year is jobs. Not how many jobs have been lost. Not how many jobs have been "created." But the fact that it has been an election-year issue at all (other than as grounds to reelect the incumbent). Unemployment has been holding fairly steady during the campaign at around 5.5%. That "lost jobs" could be reported as a major issue in a campaign with those kind of numbers is a scandal.…and another indictment of the news media's willingness to sing from the Kerry campaign's sheet music.

Another scandal is the apparent attempt by Muhammed al-Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to influence the presidential election with a letter (conveniently leaked to the press) alleging the disappearance of explosives from the al QaQaa storage facility in Iraq. This obvious attempt by a U.N. official to influence the American election (and complicity by many in the American press, The New York Times first among them) is outrageous.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I believe this election will also be remembered for the scandalous discarding of the concept of a loyal opposition. James Geraghty of National Review points out that Americans of every major party have long held to the conviction that politics stops at the water's edge. Though there have been bitterly fought contests in our nation's past, candidates have been careful not to provide fodder for our enemies, or even for allies who have different interests than we do. Not anymore. "Over the last three years or so," Geraghty says, "we have seen that concept obliterated. We've seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that went well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I'm sure I've left out plenty."

Geraghty goes on: "This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And-to my knowledge-not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, 'Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He's our president, leave the criticism of him to us.'"

He's right. The release of a new video from Osama Bin Laden last week showed just how true Geraghty's words are. Bin Laden seemed to echo the claims and criticisms of Mssrs. John Kerry and Michael Moore, as though he had seen Moore's movie and read Kerry's press releases. It was spooky to hear. Disgusting. And scandalous.

This article appeared in the November 5, 2004 edition of the Hamilton Journal-News.

More articles by Bob Hostetler...