Saturday, September 25, 2004

The AP tests the water, but still shivers

Hoffmania points out a smackdown of Bush by the AP. But see if you can spot the editorial concession to media conventional wisdom:

In new attacks on Kerry, Bush twists his rival's words

WACO, Texas - President George W. Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words.

The article then goes on to give several examples in which Bush has twisted Kerry's words. All of which is good. Except that no where in the article does it give an example of something that is "not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words."

I strongly suspect that the original copy did not include that line. It just doesn't fit into the natural flow of the article. It was probably added by an editor who still follows the conventional rule that an "objective" news article must be "balanced". Since the entire article was nothing but a series of take downs of Bush, it was necessary to add an opinion line that Kerry and his people have been doing the same thing to Bush.

The fact that they couldn't cite an example of this was besides the point.

I suppose we should be happy that at least they are finally pointing out the obvious. But that little concession is a warning to us that the establishment media has a long way to go.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Rapid Response II

I think it's safe to say that the "War Room" is back:

Washington, DC – Continuing to point out that George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq does not match reality, the Kerry-Edwards campaign will take to the airwaves with the new ad – “Right Track.” The ad uses footage of the president’s right track/wrong track comments in the Rose Garden yesterday.

Click here to see the ad and the transcript.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Rapid Response

John Kerry comes out with a commercial ridiculing the latest Bush commercial even before that commercial gets a chance to run.

George W. Bush, Energizing America's Youth

(link)

Play it smart John

I'm going to side with Atrios and Jeffrey Dubner against Digby on how the Kerry campaign should respond to the latest Swift Boat Liar ad (but not really, since I don't think they are really in that much disagreement).

The question is not whether the Kerry campaign should make some noise. Their lack of response to the first round of these ads proves the failure of that strategy. But they need to be a little more clever about it. Simply calling on Bush to repudiate the ad is pointless since everyone knows that he won't. Kerry should just respond as if Bush supports them (which he does, but he won't admit it). He should make Bush sweat for not repudiating these ads by running with the assumption that Bush likes them (which he does, but he admit it).

Kerry shouldn't react with outrage or indignation. He should express sadness that Bush continues to drag the campaign into the gutter. The unspoken accusation in such a statement is that the ads are the work of the Bush campaign (which they are, but they won't admit it). If Bush or one of his surrogates hits back by saying that it is outrageous for Kerry to suggest that Bush is responsible for them then Kerry should just shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, it's hard to know where the President stands since he won't repudiate them."

Kerry should stop asking for Bush to "play nice" and just talk as if it is already proven that Bush wants to play dirty (which he does, but he won't admit it).

Question

Dan Rather has apologized to the American people for misleading them based on faulty information.

When will Bush?

Update:

Kos has a better take on this

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Make THEM deny it

I don't know if the DNC actually has the goods to back this up, but its smart politics regardless. It may create a "Republicans deny involvement in CBS report on Bush" to counter the "Democrats deny involvement in CBS report on Bush" stories.

The Republicans have taught us well: even if the allegation is flimsy, go with it anyway just to force the other side to deny it.

Dean vs. Bush

Matthew Yglesias, in response to Jim Henley(*), engages in a bit of speculation about whether Howard Dean would be doing any better than John Kerry. He doesn't think he would. In fact, I suspect Matt thinks Dean would be doing far worse.

First of all, it is way to early to be wasting time on what-iffing. If the worst happens then we can come back here on Nov. 3rd and we can (and will) spend a lot of time speculating about what might have been. However, since Matt brings it up, my quick opinion on this is that he is wrong that Dean would have a tough time making the case against Bush even considering that he would have an easier time holding Bush accountable for Iraq. Again, we can talk about why I feel that way later, if necessary.

Second, Matt says,

The nominee you want is John Kerry after receiving a tongue transplant from Edwards. Or a Wesley Clark who started earlier and learned from his mistakes before the going got tough. In the real world, though, you can't get the perfect, so you get Kerry-Edwards, the closest approximation to the ideal given the material that was available.

All through the primary season I heard this kind of wishing for a Frankenstein candidate. But, as Matt points out, that isn't what you get in the real world. In the real world, when you go into battle, you don't waste time wishing for a better weapon. Instead, you find ways to win using the weapons you have available to you. The good warrior doesn't need a perfect weapon. It is their skills that make the weapon better.

It's time to be good warriors.

 

(* - I agree with Jim Henley that a Bush vs. Dean race would be a lot more interesting.)

Monday, September 20, 2004

Framing Kerry vs. Bush

Kerry isn't a flip-flopper. He simply adjusts his approach to a changing situation as it develops.

Bush isn't decisive. He just stubbornly puts forward the same one-size-fits-all solution to every problem that comes his way.

It's easy enough for a clever talker to paint flexibility as spinelessness and inflexibility as determination. But clever talkers have been selling us empty promises since man first learned to talk. 

Clever talk has never solved anything.

The world is changing every day.

Stubbornness is a liability we simply can't afford.

Vote Kerry/Edwards 2004