Posted on 05/25/2004 3:58:36 AM PDT by VanZant
My Big Theory
So many pros thought that Howard Dean was going to be the guy. How could they have been so off?
What if they weren't off? Howard would have been the guy had the media not given him an avalanche of nasty coverage on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses.
Here's my big theory: Dean was the victim of that high-tech hit in Iowa because the media had learned of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Once they learned about the existence of the pictures, they actively took Dean down and puffed up Kerry. John Forbes Kerry, an unthinkable national candidate, was given the nomination because the media understood that his antiwar (often anti-soldier) activism during the Vietnam Era would be downgraded in importance due to the prison scandal.
The Right was scoring points saying that Kerry had slandered his fellow soldiers. Now with the torture photos, that charge is less potent. Kerry's implicit argument is, "Given Abu Ghraib, was I lying about all that stuff when I spoke in front of the Fulbright Committee?" The Abu Ghraib stuff is totally aberrant, but the Left has decided to tar all American soldiers with it. Kerry benefits immeasurably from that. The media's concentration on Abu Ghraib and their extraordinary and inflammatory decision to run the photos has sucked all the oxygen out of the air.
The media understood shortly after the end of "major combat" that the WMD wasn't likely to be found. They also understood that Bush could weather that because the American people were reassured that Saddam was a bad guy and that we had done a good thing in liberating Iraq and shutting down the torture chambers.
The ascendancy of Howard Dean was because the Left was less concerned with winning (mostly because they believed they couldn't) and more concerned with making a point. Once the media discovered the Abu Ghraib pictures, they knew the antiwar case could be strengthened and public opinion toward Dubya and the War would be much more negative.
It's interesting that Bush had weathered all that the media had thrown at him-- O’NEILL, Wilson, the 9-11 Commission, Clarke and televised chaos in Iraq. The media-- especially old hands like Rather and Hewitt-- knew that Bush was hanging in there because of the reflective glow of the troops. Since 9-11, Americans (save a few nutsy far leftists) have been uniformly in awe of the bravery and decency of our troops. They were the FDNY now and they were in places God had forgotten putting their lives on the line for us. Rather et al understood that their negatives had to be driven up so that Bush's poll ratings would go down--Abu Ghraib was absolute deliverance for the Left in this Country.
The media has replaced Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch with Charles Graner and Lynndie England.
Kerry's laughably Vietcentric campaign has been a joyride for the Left. It's as if Nixon's enemies list has reconstituted itself for one last destructive hurrah. Who was surprised when Sy "Mai Lai" Hersh was tasked to be the guy in the print media to run with Abu Ghraib? No one.
The same people are back -- Woodward, Bernstein, John Dean, Kerry, Hersh. What if America can't afford the contributions of these vessels of 180 proof narcissism in an age of global terror?
The people who always wring their hands about blowback seem fantastically naive about Iraq.
The Vietcong never wanted to come to America, the jihadists do and can. The notion that we can lose in Iraq and not feel it at home is total fiction.
Another myth that the Left likes to peddle --that they care about the safety of the troops more than anyone-- is dead and all Americans should recognize it. How could they care and simultaneously make Abu Ghraib into what they have? The truth is, and some like Gary Kamiya and Michael Moore have admitted it, that every death that has happened in Iraq (especially those that occurred after May 1, 2003 when the President landed on the aircraft carrier) have been welcome and useful to them.
Can America win when a nontrivial number of Americans, with disproportionate political and social power, want more than anything for America to lose in Iraq so they can unseat Bush?
Bush should not just go after the Baathist holdouts, he should go on the offensive against the Leftist holdouts. If he doesn’t, America will leave Iraq in disgrace and he will return to Texas a haunted failure.
Hmm, I still think the reason is simpler...
The media scuttled Dean because they knew he couldn't win. They made the election into a question of who could. And Kerry won out against very weak competition.
Do you think this theory hold's water?
Interesting and worth a bump. BTW, it's My Lai, not Mai Lai.
You have to remember, the revelation of Abu Ghraib happened right before the Iowa Caucus vote. They systematically destroyed Dean in Iowa-- we all said he was treated like a Republican.
I think the media found out about Abu Ghraib and decided to nuke Dean in Iowa.
Thanks.
Dean was right about the Iowa caucus system, it's the most corrupt so called primary in the country.
One theory I heard months ago was that when Gore and others endorsed Dean the Clinton machine got nervous. They helped take him out because they didn't have an FBI file on him and they did on Kerry. I go on the premise that the Clintons, especially Hillary, will do almost anything to keep another dem out of the White House until 08.
That's the Clintons-- what about the media? They ran with it. Remember Kimmit announced the prison abuse scandal right before the Iowa caucuses took place. The media has tons of sources inside the Pentagon that would have allowed them to know about it days before Kimmit even mentioned it.
You have to admit lots of us wondered why they suddenly destroyed Dean and elevated Kerry.
By the way, the media (even in Bubba loving places like Vanity Fair) don't want the Clinton's goal of a Bush second term to be realized. At this point, it really looks like the media want Bush to lose badly.
I'll go into broken record mode-- Kimmit announced it days before Iowa voted. That was an earthquake. Imagine for a minute that you are a hardcore antiwar Leftist in the media resigned to a Dean loss in November and you get wind of photographic and video evidence of GIs abusing Iraqi detainees. That coupled with body bags coming home and no WMD found could be a potent weapon against your nemesis George Bush and "his war."
What if you had seen or knew that those pictures existed in January--wouldn't you're thinking on the race had changed?
You would probably have thought," Damn, the Left is going to politicize this in the General election and milk it for all its worth."
It's satire...right?
The "media" are not independent thinkers or decision makers.
they do what they think is fashionable, or what they are told.
Your theory has two things going for it: It's simpler than the one in the article, and it brings in the Hillary factor. Since the media would like nothing more than to see the Clintons back in their 'rightful place,' they decided to promote the weaker candidate and scuttle Dean.
That's too simplistic. The Clintons --since they have third part groups that make the party apparatus meaningless--if their goal is a Bush loss, would have been thrilled if Dean got the nomination.
It's the media that wants to win. Remember they could have destroyed Kerry at any time. They didn't even elevate Edwards. They gave Kerry uncritical coverage. They clearly knew that events on the ground i.e. the Abu Ghraib revelations would redound to his benefit.
You guys have to remember that the liberal media existed before the Clintons. All the Clintons are are creations of the liberal media.
You actually have several theories in this piece... I buy that the media took out Dean, but not necessarily over Abu Ghraib. They just realized he was too scary to win.
Your last sentence, however, makes what I consider a huge unfounded leap. I think the odds of that scenario occuring (disgrace) are less than 5 percent.
All I am saying is-- think about it.
Let's say, we had known about Monica before Iowa in 96, would we have run a sure loser like Dole?? If we had known and could have sabotogued him and put in a guy who had a chance, we would of.
I think the media is a lot more sophisticated than we are giving them credit for. I think they found out about Abu Ghraib before the Iowa vote and nuked Dean in Iowa.
I think Iraq is going pretty well, but the perception is all that matters.
If Bush loses--he will go back to Texas a haunted failure. If Kerry becomes the President, he will have no will (political or moral) to do right by our mission there and we will leave in utter disgrace, but that faiilure will be laid at Bush's feet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.