Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

McGentrix wrote:

Neither candidate is running a clean campaign so we are down to talking about who is dirtier?

Absolutely. What's wrong with trying to distinguish between greater and smaller evil?

Just to give you an example you'll be able to identify with: American soldiers tortured Iraqi prisoners, Saddam tortured Iraqi prisoners. "What do you mean there's an essential difference? We're down to talking about who is dirtier now?"

Well yeh, because to distinguish in scope, seriousness and systematicness is important.

Too many times has the "well, they all do it, anyway" line of argument blurred our capacity to distinguish at all - let alone to signal a significant deterioration. We would never make that mistake if it was about deaths rather than lies. If a war goes from one American casualty a day to ten, we'll notice. But if election campaigns, in four-year leaps of budget multiplication, go from beaming out one lie a day to ten, the "well, they all do it anyway" argument cloaks the change.

Problem is, the media actually exacerbate this line of argument by a coupla annoying modern journalistic habits. Noam Scheiber nails it (scroll down to "millbank-ification, ct'd"), in the exact context of this article.

First he notes "the standard journalistic practice of treating both sides' claims as equally valid, even when one side is telling an objective truth and the other an outight lie". All within the dogma of "balanced reporting". Time constraints and a degree of political caution has made journalists largely give up on fact-checking and research of their own, jotting down standard items instead that quote one side's claim, the other side's response, end of story. Its turned out a great "smear" tool for governments and pressure groups, in fact. You just throw out some scandalous claim, no matter how spurious, and it'll be reported, alongside your opponent's reaction - and you'll have your opponent doing exactly that, reacting to "your" story, for a week.

Scheiber then points out "another annoying journalistic practice to ruthlessly exploit: reporters' habit of concluding that both sides are equally untrustworthy when one side engages in minor embellishments while the other tells fantastic lies". He quotes James Carville's 1992 complaint about it (but I'm sure Republicans have felt the same frustration): "we say one plus one equals three, and the Bush folks say one plus one equals three thousand, and you write, 'both campaigns wrong."

Ultimately, this has fatal moral consequences. You only need to think of the Yugoslav wars and how quickly, once the attacks by Serb militias and the federal army elicited counterattacks and new war crimes and the whole region sank away into mindless rage, lazy onlookers in the West concluded that, you know, they're all beasts over there in the Balkan. "Mountain warrior peoples" consumed by "ancient ethnic hatreds". As if it wasn't necessary anymore to distinguish between those who had secretly agreed beforehand on massive ethnic cleansing (Milosevic and Tudjman) and those who became its hapless victims. To distinguish between those who had all the old federal army's tanks and munitions to fight with, and those who at first had to fight back with a handful of old guns. The moral bankruptcy of the blanket "all guilty" perspective is symbolized by the official arms trade ban by the EU, which de facto froze the Bosnian Muslims into hopeless odds until they finally, desperately found new friends in Iran ...

On the journalistic practice Carville so bitterly complained about, Scheiber cheers that "today's Milbank/VandeHei tag-team effort breaks even that habit". Hear, hear.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I would like to see candidates run on what they can do, but i would also consider it an injustice if past performance and failures were also not detailed for each candidate.

Yes, it would be. And then there is making up "past performances and failures".

Kerry said that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Well, he didn't, actually, but never mind. Kerry wanted to "gut the intelligence services". Well, he wanted to cut them by 1%, and Republicans wanted to cut them by more, but never mind. Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes". Well, most of those supposed 350 times, actually, he proposed lower taxes - just not as much lower as you did. But never mind. Lies, lies, outright lies - nothing to do with scrutinizing "past performance" - but never mind.

McGentrix wrote:

I think the left is just bitter that they couldn't afford a better candidate...

Well, hell, yeh ... its still a mindfuck how "we" ended up with this guy running for President for the Democrats.

0 Replies

Our good candidate, Dean, was politically assisinated in the lowest way. The media hung him out to dry big time.

And they scream about the 'liberal media'....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, Nimh, it is up to the candidate to get the "truth" out there about themselves.

0 Replies

Yes, but I think a change in journalistic practice (a change back to old standards of journalism, in fact) is also called for -- more than ever, now that politicians have ever more mindboggling resources to put out their lies, insinuations and gossips.

Its time for a return to investigative journalism. You shouldn't be afraid anymore that just because you check on what this or that politician claimed and report your findings to the reader right along with the claims in question, you'll be dismissed as partisan, warned about alienating the readers or advertisers - or worse, punished by the government by never again being granted a question opp or interview.

Sound idealistic? Probly because where I live, press conferences are not yet carefully orchestrated affairs where the politician gets to designate which journalist gets to ask a question. And the rivalry between six or seven parties, rather than two unforgiving opposing blocs, means that criticism of one party leader is not immediately taken as a declaration of hostilities by the "other" half of the population.

0 Replies

Well that's grand. Here in America it works the way it does.

0 Replies

Thats not a stable given. McG. It doesnt just "work the way it does" - the system is changing all the time. Over there too.

Journalism has changed from the heyday of investigative journalism, just like that heyday was a change from the more submissive respect for authority before that. And politics has changed. The amount of money pumped into this election is a multiple of anything ever spent before - and I think the same went for the 2000 ones.

They are changing "the way it works in America", McG - and its up to you to be vigilant about that. All I can do is give a shout out from the sidelines, comparing stuff to how it works here. If you wanna take that as an affront to your patriotic sensibilities, thats your choice, but it seems a bit hypersensitive to me. 'Part from being besides the point.

0 Replies

It will always work the way it does here. Even if it changes, it will still work the way it does.

Journalism changes with the times. You don't think that any famous "ace" reporter from the 20's wouldn't have loved to have acces to the internet? Or 24 hour news? please. Modern times require modern journalists.

They may change how it works now, but it will always work. I think you are missing my point. As far as you offending my patriotic sensibilities... Don't worry about it. I won't give how things work there a second thought.

0 Replies

I think 24 hour news mostly forces journalists to work faster, turn in their stories faster, all the time. Good for us (at first sight), bad luck to them ...

(Read this funny report about those who follow candidates on the campaign trail, comparing their fate with the journalists of old ... their work never stops, churning out a dozen variations of the same story for successive print and broadcast news editions throughout the night + day. Hey, no more hanging out about town being Mr. Interesting Reporter after turning in the 6 PM story, like the old guys! <grins>)

Actually, on second thought its bad news for us, too. The Internet and satellite connections are a boon, of course, in picking up scoops and being the first. But take the regular day-to-day news. If you are now expected to write ten versions of the same story that evening - and everybody wants it just that minute earlier than the competitor - do you really think that encourages some intelligent proactive additional research and critical probing?

Anglosaxon news is awfully formatted - you can pretty much dream the structure of any single mainstream news story. There's little incentive to go beyond that - the heightened competition makes owners and editors very antsy about taking risks, taking extra time, and possibly alienating readers, advertisers or politicians you're going to need again tomorrow. The result: a stream of bland blather, that hesitates to scrutinize the tit-for-tat claims they faithfully report and scares away from a big story when it does float in (remember how the Abu G. story sunk the first time round). That reality overall has sped up is a fact of life -- but as things move one way, so one starts needing a counterreaction to restore the balance.

Thing is, those counterreactions dont just appear out of nowhere. Things will always work, because people make them work. And those people include the critical observers who sound the alarm in time or start pushing the other way if stuff starts leaning one way too much. Its not natural science, where "the way things go" is like some biologically ordained flow - its people pushing one way and another who decide where it all goes. If we all lean back and say, ah well, whatcha talking about, what difference does it all make, things just go the way they go, anyway --- then stuff just turns to ****. If everybody thought like that, the sixties wouldnt have happened - and, hey, the Reaganite eighties neither.

<breaks into Deanish "you've - got - the - power! you've - got - the - power!" routine>

<gives up>

McGentrix wrote:

Don't worry about it. I won't give how things work there a second thought.

Pity - you coulda possibly learned something, some time, about something ... 's not exactly like your own country is the Central Store of All Relevant Knowledge and Experience or something.

(I can say that cause Lord knows I "give how things work there" enough thought ...)

But hey, you play your role of the American Stereotype with verve.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

(remember how the Abu G. story sunk the first time round).

And what did take for it to sink in were two long-term investigative reports outside of usual print journalism -- 60 Minutes and The New Yorker.

0 Replies

We don't need any more volunteers into our military.
***************
NGTON (Reuters) -- Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers designated to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan will be barred from leaving the military when their volunteer service commitment ends, the U.S. Army said on Wednesday.

The latest "stop loss" and "stop movement" orders, broader than others issued previously, were a further sign of increasing stress on the Army as
the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts.

Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, told reporters it would be wrong to see the orders as a symptom of desperation but
acknowledged that the Army was "stretched."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5327122

0 Replies

The army's personnel chief is so afraid of this administration, he's toeing the line.

0 Replies

Here is some more information about Kerry from "The Almanac Of American Politics"--2002

quote:

"Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation as a strong LIBERAL"

quote

"He spoke out stronglyin favor of the bombing of Bosnia in April 1999. One of the lessons of Vietnam is, If you are going to send American forces into harm's way, you don't do it in a limited way. You don't do it tying your hands behind your back ahead of time."

It would appear that consistency is not Kerry's strong suit. He voted against the 87 Million dollar funding for our troops. That seems to go against his philosophy as quoted above.

It would also appear that, in the past, Kerry has had some interesting ideas on how to improve Education. No mere " No child left behind for Senator Kerry"--no sir.

According to the Almanac listed above, Kerry came out for:

"ending teacher tenure"

"changing certification requirements to end the Education school monopoly" and to "allow direct lateral entry into teaching"

I have not seen any proposals from the Kerry camp that mirror the above proposals Kerry has made in the past.

I do not think that Kerry will make those proposals again since he is not a principled person who has solid beliefs that do not change considerably but rather a politician who will say anything ( or omit what he has said in the past) to get votes.

It is highly interesting that Kerry has worked to
"Allow direct grants to charities including faith-based organizations"

I wonder if the Bush campaign knows of this?

I have seen no Kerry proposals regarding "faith-based" organizations.

Kerry will sink under the weight of his own contradictions. He has been in the Senate so long that he has probably( like all good politicians) contridicted himself on almost every issue.

How can you evalute a man like that????

0 Replies

Looks like McCain has picked his candidate.

McCain stumping for Bush.

Very sweet rhetoric for Bush--Wonder if McCain will swing some states for Bush?

0 Replies

Teresa's tax returns

It is safe to say that if John Kerry had lost his Senate re-election bid to Republican Gov. William Weld in 1996, Mr. Kerry would not be the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee today. Mr. Weld, who won re-election as governor in 1994 with 71 percent of the vote, was a formidable opponent. In a novel arrangement, both candidates pledged to limit the use of their families' personal wealth to $500,000 for the general election.

Mr. Kerry, whose campaign outspent Mr. Weld's $12.6 million vs. $8 million, won the race with 52 percent of the vote. Post-election finance reports revealed that he received a last-minute $1.7 million infusion from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited the Heinz ketchup fortune from her first husband. Ever the master of nuance, Mr. Kerry claimed not to have violated the $500,000 agreement because the $1.7 million was a loan, not a contribution.

Having rescued her husband's political career with a well-timed loan eight years ago, Mrs. Kerry, who files her tax returns separately from her husband, now refuses to release those documents, claiming a right to privacy. "As she is not a candidate for any office," her chief of staff, Jeff Lewis, told the Boston Herald last week, "she will not be making any additional disclosures" beyond the information that is contained in the far less informative financial documents Mr. Kerry files with the Senate. However, by funneling nearly $2 million into her husband's 1996 campaign, Mrs. Kerry effectively relinquished any practical, if not legal, right to privacy.
Recent declarations, moreover, confirm that the fortune of Mrs. Kerry continues to weigh heavily in her husband's political life. While she contributed the legal individual maximum donation of $2,000 to her husband's presidential primary campaign, she and Mr. Kerry have, according to the April 24 issue of the National Journal, "refused to rule out the possibility of her making an independent campaign expenditure on his behalf." She has threatened to launch an "independent" issue-ad campaign if she feels "the family is attacked," an aide told The Washington Post.
Mr. Kerry has suggested that inquiring minds review his Senate financial disclosures, which he claims to be "very, very, very intrusive." Noting Mr. Kerry's campaign against "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who export jobs, Business Week took a look and found that Mr. Kerry owns as much as $650,000 of stock in several U.S. multinational corporations that outsource work, including General Electric, Procter & Gamble and Verizon. But those forms exclude details relating to possibly controversial charitable contributions and the use of questionable tax shelters, which would be available from tax returns.
As the principal financier of her husband's 1996 senatorial campaign, Mrs. Kerry long ago forfeited her claim of privacy. She should release her tax returns.
--------
Oh, he received a loan from his wife... Surely that was within the integrity bounds of his agreement with Weld...

Looking forward to seeing those tax returns...

0 Replies

Latest support for Bush, straight from the Fuhrer-Bunker!!

Quote:

With various regulatory bodies forcing political campaigns to play nicer in traditional media, the Internet is becoming the home for attack ads and, now, odd allusions to Adolph Hitler. The George W. Bush re-election campaign put together a video montage of the more shrill attacks made by its opponents, including a briefly-online :30 ad that compares Bush to Hitler, submitted as part of a liberal group's contest for homemade anti-Bush commercials. The effect is to intersperse well-known Democrats, shrill statements and the elected leader of Germany who went on to become the most hated man in history.

Source

Didn't hurt Preston Bush to ally himself with the Nazis, so there's one apple that didn't fall too far from the tree!!

0 Replies

Kerry Veep speculations: will it be Vilsack, for all the wrong reasons? Just a blogger's guess ...

Quote:

My prediction for John Kerry's VP selection:
Tom Vilsack.

Jim Geraghty on The Kerry Spot [National Review] writes:

Quote:
Why is Edwards getting mentioned? Because he did pretty well in the primaries and many Democrats, and particularly Southern ones, like him.

Why is Gephardt getting mentioned? Because unions like him.

Bob Graham? Florida. Sam Nunn? Defense experience, gravitas. Hillary? Immense popularity with Democrats.

Every other name that has been mentioned has a clear, easily identifiable reason to be on the short list. Except Vilsack...

Without any outside forces pushing for Vilsack, inside sources must have gotten him on the short list. In short, he's in the final three because John Kerry wants him there.

While there is a lot of pressure being put on Kerry to choose Edwards (and a moderate amount of union pressure to choose Gephardt), there are reasons to think that Kerry may be immune to these influences. One of the original temptations for choosing Edwards was the sizeable warchest he has on-hand, as well as his fundraising capabilities with wealthy trial lawyers. But Kerry's campaign has been very successful in raising funds, so Kerry may have decided that he does not need Edwards' cash. And according to ABC's The Note, some high-level Kerry staffers are extremely confident about the election-- and if so Kerry may feel emboldened to choose who he wants, rather than who the press wants.

However, [..] I think it is more likely that the Kerry campaign agrees with Celinda Lake that turnout is going to be the key. And perhaps, this gets to what Vilsack brings to the table.

In an election where each side is counting on turnout of their base, the strategy would be to fire up your base while encouraging the other side's base to have doubts. Kerry's and the Democrats' open dance with the Michael Moore segment of the left takes care of the former. But how about the latter? One area where President Bush is vulnerable with his base is on immigration.

Jim Boulet, Jr. [also National Review] is noting on The Corner that Kerry may be trying to get to the right of Bush on immigration. Vilsack would help Kerry in this regard:

Quote:
Vilsack signed an official English bill two years ago after getting a $1.4 million increase in spending for English as a Second Language programs. Vilsack may have been a reluctant signer, but his signature is on the legislation.

If this is Kerry's strategy, it may explain why Bill Richardson, after meeting with Kerry, lost interest in being considered for the VP nod.

Question - targeting Republicans anxious about immigration sounds a bit of a long shot for Kerry, now, especially if the downside is losing all those undecided Hispanics, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Looks like McCain has picked his candidate.

McCain stumping for Bush.

Very sweet rhetoric for Bush--Wonder if McCain will swing some states for Bush?

Could be, but just because he decided to do some campaigning for Mr. Bush, that doesn't mean Mr. McCain will stop speaking his mind. And any anti-Bush soundbites he may generate are much more likely to get widespread media coverage than his pro-Bush soundbites. Speaking as a Clinton Democrat who might have been a Goldwater Republican if I was old enough, I'd say that John McCain is definitely capable of swinging my vote in principle. But it is far from predictable which way he would end up swinging it in practice.

0 Replies

Hastert takes the Republican attack on Edwards down to straight-out lies ... MSNBC sets the record straight:

Quote:

Although Hastert said Edwards "didn't even carry his own state against Kerry," Edwards won both his native South Carolina during the competitive phase of the primary race and then North Carolina, which gave Edwards a victory even after he had dropped from the race.

0 Replies

Has Edwards Risen Too Quickly?

Here is your great reasoning behind the Edwards pick... Sickening, but in this pop culture, a factor.

After winning (barely) his first campaign, he is knighted The Democrats' Golden Boy by Time Magazine---and possibly more important to the electorate-- America's Sexiest Politician, by that hard-hitting political handbook--People Magazine.

0 Replies

Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know