Skip to comments.WSJ: Kerry's Quagmire - How the liberal media helped re-elect George W. Bush.
Posted on 07/20/2005 5:30:30 AM PDT by OESY
What were the Democrats thinking? Didn't John Kerry have "loser" written all over him? After all, he was not only a Massachusetts Democrat but Michael Dukakis's former lieutenant governor. He was as liberal as Dukakis but lacked the inspiring immigrant background: a man who married another man's fortune, from a state where a man can marry another man. He had a haughty air, and he looked French, or so some anonymous Republicans told the New York Times in 2003. Mr. Kerry replied, "The White House has started the politics of personal destruction"--proving that he was thin-skinned as well. Yet exit polls showed that Democratic primary voters backed him because he was "electable."
Of course "electable" at that point chiefly meant "not Howard Dean," whose campaign in retrospect seems more performance art than politics. But once Mr. Kerry won the nomination, he had--or seemed to have--something else going for him: the support of the liberal media, which loathed President Bush and yearned for his defeat. "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win," Evan Thomas of Newsweek said last July. "I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards--I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox--but they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Mr. Thomas later revised his estimate downward, to five points.
...Yet there's a case to be made on the other side: that the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true....
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
It's all someone else's fault again. The problem was the average voter doesn't trust the democrats, no matter who they nominate.
Repubs haven't really DONE anything to them, they just have taken themselves out by their arrogant boldness.
Kerry, Dean, Durbin, Schumer, Kennedy, etc...Why doesn't some sane dem just tell them to STFU?!
I will always believe that the Clintons were very quietly behind Kerry's loss. Can't prove it, obviously...and both Clintons DID give the appearance of "helping" Kerry.
He is thinking that he should be King!
The idiot was a traitor... a pampered and efite snot who dedicated his Senate career to abortion and disarmament. With an informed, intellegent electorate, he would have lost by double-digits.
"...rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true...."
As Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." The lack of truthfulness in public discourse by most Democratic politians and supporters is breathtaking; it is either a made-up media spun scandal (as usual) or a glossing over of the seriousness of a matter to gain PR points. They are very dangerous to the process of democracy because of this fact.
Excellent read, thanks for posting. I never get tired of hearing how the dems are spinning out of control and LOSING it!
Freudian slip: he really means Kerry.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge (((ping)))
While people heap accolades on Karl Rove, I thought the GOP ran a terrible campaign against Kerry. They refused to attack Kerry on his anti-war activities, his questionable conduct with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, and his damaging comments in his 1971 Congressional testimony. The GOP also criticized all 527 groups including the SBVFT, the only real 527 out there. The only bright spot was the well organized effort to turn out the vote in key states.
I agree. Kerry was too close for comfort for me, too. I think most of his votes had to to with hatred for Bush versus love for Kerry.
But, since the Dems will have had another four years to continue their implosion while they spread their message of hate, kookiness, obstructionism and mud-slinging, I don't think we'll see that again next time around. *Fingers Crossed*
Hmm, from the picture, Kerry looks like a nine day drunk. TerAYsa had better lock up the liquor cabinet.
He's running for that MA senate again in '06, alas. Don't know who the republicans are thinking of putting up against him yet.
"While people heap accolades on Karl Rove, I thought the GOP ran a terrible campaign against Kerry>"
I agree...They rarely fight to get the truth out there and the Dems project 24/7 until the spin becomes fact. They even allowed the dems to steal the moral authority on the war in Iraq.
A few more examples: "Taxcut for the Rich", "Bush Lied" , Bush stole the election", The current Gasoline situation, 700 flight hours in mishap prone F-102's and he can't even claim to be a veteran!!! Increasing VA funding 50% but yet he doesn't take care of veterans!
The milquetoast bunker mentality isn't working. The Dem's were jumping all over themselves to be the first ones voting to send the troops into Iraq and have since undermined them 24/7 for political purposes, yet they aren't taken to the woodshed on this?!!!
That sounds about right to me.
Kerry had stone loser written all over him.
I share your concern. The election was way too close for my comfort level. Ronald Reagan would have carried 49 states against both Kerry and Algore. The fact that Kerry and Algore came thisclose to the presidency tells me that the Republicans need to really get their act together for the 2008 campaign.
"Mr. Kerry bet that the media's silence would carry him through to the election--and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling Swift Boat Veterans."
I remember a story on FR dealing with this that I haven't been able to find a link to ... I wonder if anyone else has kept it, remembers it, or is able to locate it.
That story, referred to several times, portrayed sKerry's staff sitting around discussing the SwiftVets' story breaking two months or so before they really went public, and discounting it by something like, "Oh, don't worry, the press isn't going to go after sKerry on this. The SwiftVets will be ignored."
I would dearly appreciate a ping from anyone who recalls this, or who saved it. I would also love a FReepmail about it. I'm quite disturbed I can't find that story now.
The US was already committing resources enforcing the no-fly zones for a decade (costing billions annually to maintain), including bombing Iraq almost daily and putting our pilots at risk. Containment doesn't work in the WOT, especially if Saddam could use surrogates like AQ to carry out his attacks. I would ask the critics of the Iraq war to explain what the world would be like today if Saddam were still in power. The Oil for Food program would still be going on providing funding for Saddam to build or buy WMD from places like North Korea and Pakistan. Payoffs would still be made to the French and Russians who would assist Saddam in evading the sanctions. Tens of thousands of Iraqis would be killed under Saddam's repressive regime, which would be perpetuated through his sons. Money and other support would be going to AQ. One only has to read Bin Laden's 1996 and 1998 fatwahs to understand UBL's support of Iraq against the US and its allies.
Iraq was and is part of the WOT. The WH and the GOP need to do a better job of connecting the dots and changing the frame of reference.
It's a dumbed-down electorate we're dealing with... and a MSM that has gone from biased to covert.
The socialist/DNC 'Matrix' that permeates the media is only exposed by the Internet, talk-radio and FOXNews... if you don't follow these... you become part of the problem.
We're dealing with something more than simple bias here... something that won't go away without a fight.
I disagree with Taranto, who I think is terrific, but if the MSM had really done its job, in my opinion, it would have been a landslide. How does it help President Bush by telling the democrats what they want to hear? The MSM never touched his voting record and never asked Kerry, who reportedly served in Viet Nam, one tough question. The election was about much more than Viet Nam and the Swift Boat Vets.
Exactly...Why not beat the Dems over the head with the Al Shifa plant destruction? Bill Clinton told us it had to be destroyed due to Iraqi WMD scientists working with Al Queda to develop WMD? Don't forget DESERT FOX or Gorelick's indictment of OBL.
The Administration has allowed the DNC to compamentalize the Iraq debate from 9/11 onward. Can you say "Miserable failure"?
Kerry was an elitist nominated by an elite(Teddy Kennedy). And thankfully poorly managed by an elite(Bob Shrum). As much as I despise Clinton for his criminality, he won two terms not giving Teddy Kennedy much say, and having someone other than Bob Shrum run his campaign. Clinton won on geography, and being a governor from the south was a help. A senator from the south will not cut it, Gore could not even win his own state. If the Democrats were not beholden to foaming at the mouth savage elite based on both coasts, they might nominate a winner. As a conservative I would hate to see Evan Bayh head the Democrat ticket. On Cspan's road to the whitehouse last sunday, Bayh was featured talking to a few voters and reporters in NH. A blue haired old bag questioned him on how the Republicans stole the election in Ohio. With common sense, he politely told her there was nothing to it and the party needed to put their energy in positive programs for the future. Being your typical Dem automaton she would not let it drop. As long as the Dem nominee must first travel through NH and Tommy Harkin's Iowa, I doubt if a reasonable candidate like Bayh has much of a chance. The Dems did not want Clinton, he was unwelcome, not because of his criminality, but he did not kiss the right rings. If the elite would had its way the nominee would have been another loser named Tsongas. Its not the media helping to elect Republicans, its that elite nominating candidates that affectatiously pronounce Genghis Khan and like to get into Spandex and go blowing in the wind.
This is interesting because this article is right on. Kerry and the media failed to respond to the Swift Vets for 3 weeks because they figured they would ignore them and the issue would go away. The reason Kerry ran on his Vietnam service was so that his awful 20 year political record would not face scrutiny. That was effective to some degree.
However, then the media decided that Kerry was the "electable" candidate in Al Franken's NY apartment (This actually happened, do not have link) before the Iowa primary, they put all their chips on a northeastern liberal. This country has not elected a northeastern liberal since FDR, and that was a different era of democrat. The real electable people were candidates like Lieberman and Graham, but the left threw them away early.
Taranto does do an interesting analysis. However, I think that his conclusion is somewhat wrong. If the media had not been so biased, and had called Kerry on his fibs, the Bush win would have been an out and out landslide.
This is the most important point. The alternative media; talk radio, blogs, FOX etc. must continue working hard to counteract the 15% bias.
Creeps, crooks, shake down artists, grifters and assorted wackos will continue to gravitate to the Democratic Party because they know the MSM provides that party with cover.
They get no cover if they become Republicans. Except of course if they're RINOS.
Some years your party just has an empty stable. Take us in 1996 (please). I love Bob Dole but his campaign was uninspiring to say the least.
I don't think Reagan could do significantly better than Bush did.
Bush didn't lose many if any votes for not being conservative enough. We bitch and moan about him for not being conservative enough, but in the end we mostly vote - and volunteer, and donate - for him anyway. A more conservative candidate would make us happier, and get a few more conservative voters who would otherwise stay home in disgust - and we'd still be hopelessly outnumbered in the dozen states the Dems can't lose, and no better off in the swing areas.
Our problem isn't in the campaigning, it's in the electorate. You'd almost almost think the people failing to teach your kids history or economics and bringing in the unending flood of third world immigrants had an agenda or something!
...the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true....
Heh heh... I don't think of the media as liberal. I think of them as "partisan Democrat". The media are filled with partisan shills. Even when those shills point fingers at Fox or Rush as being partisan or conservative, all they do is emphasize their own partisan nature. Used to be they could get away with making themselves look like the mainstream and the actual mainstream (and anyone else who got in the way) as being extremist and solitary. Doesn't work now.