Posted on 08/27/2004 5:36:46 AM PDT by crushkerry
Everyone should read today's New York Times interview with President Bush. In it you can see both the inherent bias of the Times, as well as the masterful way President Bush refuses to fall into their traps, especially on the Swift Boat issue.
First, we'll deal with how the President refuses to get sucked into the quicksand with John Kerry on the issue of the Swift Boat Vets. Of course the Times big headline is that Bush doesn't think Kerry is lying about his war record, but won't condemn the Swifties ad.
This is, in our opinion, brilliant. Why? It keeps the President above the fray at a time when this issue is a lead balloon around John Kerry's neck. The polls show the issue is realy hurting him, and you don't get in the way of your opponent causing self-inflicted wounds (pun intended).
John Kerry's response to the Swifties has been atrocious. Rather than dealing with thier questions head on (likely because he'll actually prove he's a liar) he's tried to link these guys with Bush, and trying to smear them with "Brown Books". So what does the President do? Nothing. He praises Kerry's service, and gives him the benefit of the doubt, which makes Kerry's Don Quixote like fantasies hysteria about the Bush-Swiftie connection seem even more idiotic.
President Bush has a reputation of being a great poker player. He's proving it here by looking several steps ahead. He knows this fight is between the Swifties and Kerry, and that in reality he's just a bit player. As much as Kerry wants to take him into the mud to make him look just as dirty, the President is killing Kerry with kindness. He knows when to not pick a fight. He knows that Kerry wants people to link him to the ads, which would be much easier if Bush wasn't of downplaying it by saying exactly the things Kerry has asked him to say.
Another beauty move is that Bush is really just giving an opinion. He said he doesn't think Senator Kerry is lying (which drives Kerry nuts). Left unsaid is that, as Kerry likes to say, he wasn't there. Ah, but the Swifties were there, and that's all that's needed here as they could care less what Bush thinks. And it really doesn't matter what the President thinks, it matters what the American people think. So long as Kerry whines instead of answers questions, the American people will demand answers, so why should President Bush push the issue? He doesn't have to.
Many will latch onto the fact that Bush doesn't condemn the specific ad, but rather talks in general about how 527 ads should stop. Good move politically. Why? Because it forces the press, through gritting teeth to make everyone realize Bush has been on the receiving end of $100 million worth of this crap.
His response also shows something else. By condemning all 527's he latently shows the American people the difference in he and Kerry's reaction to being verbally attacked. While Kerry swats at windmills over a mere $150k ad, Bush has let the ultra lefty $100 million attacks go by without whining. People will see the difference.
Now, as to the NYT bias, it's no longer subtle. Take this line: "...Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose unproven attacks on Mr. Kerry have dominated the political debate for more than two weeks."
Hmm. Guess they didn't hear about Kerry's own supporters retreating from that claim. They also must have seen the report that the Kerry camp is backing off the claim that the Swifities are lying about the first Purple Heart. But then again, when has the NYT ever looked to include something that doesn't fit into their liberal template.
Further the Times claimed that Bush "...portrayed himself as a victim of 527's." Perhaps they also conveniently ignored the fact that 21 of the top 22 donors to 527's gave them to left wing causes.
What's also amusing is that the NYT claims Bush "deflected" the issue of what he could have done better in Iraq because he did not choose to second, third and four hundred thousand-guess his decision to go into Iraq.
And they thought they pulled a "Gotcha" when the President seemed to contradict administration policy on the issue (myth) of global warming.
And when the President failed to take Senator Kerry and the NYT's red herring position on North Korea (you know, where the lefties say we should have went (i.e. pander) before Iraq), the Times made sure to let us know that he "he opened his palms and shrugged"
It really is interesting to deconstruct these things and see the real bias in "news" stories. However, what Kerry and the NYT don't realize is that they are the real buffoons here.
Ping
Misunderestimated
The original article, considering the length of the interview, is very short, and only contains information the Times can slant.
Very thoughtful analysis. Here is where your disappointment may happen. Your analysis reminds me of my analysis of the bible. I pay close attention and read it all the time and think about it all the time, as you are doing with the campaign. The problem is that you are dealing with a world that is not paying that close of attention and is making up their minds based on very shallow and silly things. Again, the same thing I see with the bible. So we may be dead on balls accurate at seeing what is going on, we may be more alone than we realize.
Silly me, I keep thinking Christians out there read the bible a bunch.
Not to be picky, but the headline references chess and the story references poker. Bush is more of a poker player.
Your analysis rocks!
So what I meant was, and it could have been clearer, was that the Times was trying to trap Bush in this interview w/ the questions, but Kerry is trying to suck him into the Swifie controversy, and Bush, looking ahead like a good poker player (and chess too) isn't biting.
Ah, hell, after reading this you're right. Oh well, it was written at 1 am after a long day, but I think the rest of the article is pretty damn good. But I'm biased, I wrote it.
More quotes from Bush yesterday:
On other points, Bush said:
_He stands by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld despite two reports criticizing the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s management of Iraqi prisons.
_The campaign for the White House "really doesn't seem that ugly to me" despite the furor over political ads by outside groups attacking Kerry's war record.
_The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington.
Your last link goes to this page.
In reality, I don't think your average Kerry supporter is actually smart enough to to get it. Yesterday Hannity sent Flipper down for a Man on the Street interview. First, NOT ONE person could give a single specific policy that Kerry had championed nor what policy of Kerry's they most agreed with. Second, one guy who said he was voting for the DemocRat nominee, Jim Kerney. Of the 6 or so Hannity interviewed only ONE knew that the Rat VP nominee was not Mr. Stu Ped (stupid).
This is the correct link.
"Many will latch onto the fact that Bush doesn't condemn the specific ad, but rather talks in general about how 527 ads should stop. Good move politically. Why? Because it forces the press, through gritting teeth to make everyone realize Bush has been on the receiving end of $100 million worth of this crap.
His response also shows something else. By condemning all 527's he latently shows the American people the difference in he and Kerry's reaction to being verbally attacked. While Kerry swats at windmills over a mere $150k ad, Bush has let the ultra lefty $100 million attacks go by without whining. People will see the difference."
This nails it. The media is in fact being "forced" to report the hundreds of millions spent smearing the President for the last year or more.
And the end result is Dick Morris's observation that "Kerry has a political glass jaw" is being demonstrated. One book, two commercials, and less than a half million spent by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and Kerry has been shrieking like a little girl?
What a wimp. That won't be overlooked by voters when the time comes.
sKerry's whining and refusal to release his military records ought to do it! He's toast.
The article is really good, I just do tremendous amounts of proofreading at work, so it kind of glared out at me...probably like you are now : ) Keep up the good work, but get some rest as well.
Also, I consider how dumb the democratic leadership and media facilitators would have to be to make Kerry their choice.
Anybody but Bush. Bush's strength is his success at fighting terrorism. In trying to use that against him the democrat's and mainstream media used spin/deception in attempt to discredit him. That didn't work and they didn't learn from their mistake. Thus they went and got the party a fake war hero in the primary and nominated him at their convention.
It's about the most disingenuous bluff I think I've every witnessed. I mean, they've totally blown it trying to use Bush's strength against him. Whereas Bush has masterfully used their strength against them.
The Dems had Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 in their corner. Stacked against them is SBVfT. A bald-face bluff versus a royal flush.
bump
Bump to read later
Well .. a few years ago I would have agreed with you. However, I believe the dynamics of politics has changed. I really believe conservative talk radio and the internet have made a dramatic contribution to informing the public. People are much more aware than they used to be.
I agree about the Bible though. Perhaps most people don't read the Bible or listen to news the way I do .. but then it becomes my resonsibility to inform and educate people about what the Bible and the news have to say. It's not good enough for me to say .. oh people aren't paying attention. All my neighbors are paying attention!
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.