Reply With QuoteYou don't see a disconnect between posting this and the thing that claims Bush is literally suffering from dementia?
Basically, the media sucks, so they fall for these absurd character-based storylines, especially for anyone who's a moderate.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=5jxX...%2BG4mPx%3D%3D
There are two possible interpretations of this history. The first is that the Democratic Party, characterologically speaking, has had an astonishing run of bad luck. For four straight presidential elections, it has put forth nominees of such dismal personal integrity that they have been identified in the public mind largely by their prevarication and flip-floppery. This is the interpretation you'd reach if you believed the Sunday morning talking heads, the Republicans and their allied pundits, and the late-night comics.
That would make for quite a coincidence. So let us consider a second interpretation: There is nothing particularly dodgy about Kerry or the previous two Democratic nominees. Their inevitable portrayal as flip-floppers instead reflects larger structural forces in our political system that would result in almost any Democratic nominee acquiring a similar reputation. And the way we understand "character" in presidential elections tells us very little about the true character of the people who would be president.n their elevation of character over policy, Republicans have found a powerful, though unwitting, ally in the mainstream news media. One of the curiosities of political journalism is that reporters tend to be assiduously even-handed about matters of policy (which can revolve around disputes over objective fact) but ruthlessly judgmental on questions of character (which are inherently subjective). In fact, most reporters don't know or care much about policy. They see politics primarily through the lens of the candidates' personal traits. Journalism fixture Jack Germond gives voice to this ethos when he writes, in Fat Man Fed Up, "[T]he only hope for better politics lies in the possibility of better people who can command the public's attention and win on the force of their personalities and the quality of their service."
Political reporters--outside of partisan outlets like the Murdoch media--do not intend any partisan bias in their character judgments. Historically, the process has been brutally unfair but essentially random, and therefore nonpartisan. Reporters and pundits seize upon isolated and generally meaningless incidents. In 1972, Democratic hopeful Ed Muskie appeared to shed a tear as he defended his wife. In 1992, Dan Quayle read the word "potatoe" from a misspelled cue card. In a 1992 debate, George H.W. Bush checked his watch for his response time. These incidents became proof that Muskie was too weak, Quayle too stupid, and Bush too aloof to be president. The character traits "revealed" by these anecdotes, once rendered and self-fulfillingly repeated, proved impossible to dislodge.
In recent years, however, Republicans have figured out that this process doesn't have to be random. You don't have to wait for the news media to seize upon some incident as emblematic of your opponent's character flaw. You can prime the pump yourself. The model for this kind of campaign began when Republicans set out to discredit presumptive Democratic nominee Al Gore. "After years of battling with President Clinton, House Republicans are shifting their sights to Vice President Al Gore and using ridicule as their weapon of choice," reported The New York Times in May 1999. This entailed a "clearinghouse of anti-Gore press releases and activity, with [Texas Representative Dick] Armey mocking Mr. Gore over his pronouncements on air travel, the Internet and traffic congestion.... In essence, they are trying to do to him what Democrats tried to do to former Vice President Dan Quayle: make him the foil for comedians on late-night television."
You don't see a disconnect between posting this and the thing that claims Bush is literally suffering from dementia?
I'm not seeing regular reporting about Bush talking about his dementia, whereas Kerry is repeatedly described as a flip-flopper.Originally Posted by Ben
When Peter Jennings, or Wolf Blitzer, or Tom Brokaw, or Brit Hume (hah) say, "President Bush, who some says is suffering from dementia, today said he'd like to kill everyone in the country," then it may be gaining some traction. Right now, it's just fringe stuff.
steve- I don't see how any of that is relevant. If something is bad for the mass media to do, it should be bad for the fringe to do as well. Just because the "Bush is mentally ill" thing hasn't gotten the exposure of "Bush is stupid" and "Kerry is a flip-flopper" doesn't make it any less exactly the sort of character attack that McCullough seems to be decrying.
I can just imagine the question being directed at Bush during a town hall presidential debate: "President Bush, after talking with several co-workers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for you, "Why?" They said that you were suffering from dementia. Do you have a reply for them?" Oh man, I would have paid to see that!
Erm, except that Bush sure actually like he's got some sort of mental troubles, when Kerry doesn't. By contrast, Kerry & Bush both flip flop the same amount - or Bush even more - and all you see is "Kerry kerry kerry."
And what on earth are the two supposed to have in common?
Posting Permissions