/political snark on/
There's an adage in campaigning that notes: It's better to get out there and define yourself before your opponent does. I thought about that when I saw this headline on FoxNews
Re-re-inventing him, they mean. After the millions of dollars Bush has spent re-inventing Kerry's record (Oh, keep your knickers on, I know they say they're simply painting an accurate picture. Isn't that what political parties always spend millions of dollars on? "accurate pictures" of their opponents), how dare the Democrats try to convince the nation he's something other than the protrait they've spent all those hard-earned (cough**tax cut**cough) millions on.
Funny thing is, if they had any faith in another adage (i.e., "Somethings speak for themselves"), they'd still have those millions of dollars left with which to paint an accurate picture of Bush's record. Can't figure out for the life of me why they'd not save their money for that.
/political snark off/
What impliedly non-accurate picture of Kerry were Republicans trying to portray?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 04:36 PM
semi-off topic, but sometimes there's a reason we quote Josh Marshall like our lives depended on it. This is dead on:
The only thing I'd quibble with is the "code words" analogy. Not because of the huge moral gap between code words for "Bush sucks!" and code words for "fear the blacks and gays!", which I'm sure he's aware of, but because these phrases didn't have to be encoded beforehand.
Step back for a second, and how innocuous is the phrase "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values"? I mean, it's not exactly a full throated, red meat attack. In another context it would be a vague platitude. And it's not like I've heard a politician phrase it in those terms either.
But Clinton says it, and we all think "oo, harsh! But so very true!", and cheer. And the delegates leap to their feet.
It's not because politicians have used it as a code word though; it's because Democrats have all said the same thing, in harsher terms ("Why do people have to confuse being strong with being stupid?") ("what good is being resolved to win the war on terror when you're totally incompetent at it?") to each other for over a year now.
Posted by: Katherine | July 27, 2004 at 04:38 PM
What good being competent when you have trouble understanding there is a war on terror?
(See primary speeches and interviews before accusing me of attacking a strongman. It wasn't even a year ago.)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 04:56 PM
First, strawman, not strongman.
Second, I don't know exactly which speeches you're talking about, other than Kucinich's.
Third, I tended to say those things when I was having tsuris about what the experts were saying about our failure to secure highly enriched uranium; the more I learned and thought about the extent of the danger the worse I slept knowing Bush was in the White House.
Fourth, that was mainly an illustration of what was so rhetorically effective about last night's speeches. How you feel about the content is somewhat beside the point.
Posted by: Katherine | July 27, 2004 at 05:02 PM
"First, strawman, not strongman."
Unless they are named Kim Jong-Il. Democratic presidents believe in paying him to pretend to cease nuclear weapons programs while he starves his people to death.
(Edward, now I'm being snarky)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 06:36 PM
Wisconsin Democratic debate:
See also the implication in his Larry King interview just a week or so ago:
If he was in a war mentality he either would have gotten briefed, or at least wouldn't have admitted that the briefing was offered and not gotten around to yet.
The war just isn't one of the more important things on his mind apparently.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 06:46 PM
What good being competent when you have trouble understanding there is a war on terror?
What good is it bloviating about a war on terror (which I'll grant you Bush & Co do well enough) when (a) you're so utterly incompetent and (b) you keep trying to claim irrelevancies like attacking Iraq are part of the "war on terror"?
You're claiming Kerry "has trouble understanding" there is a war on terror: but it seems clear that given that he has a far better understanding of what war is than George AWOL Bush, he's just not about to bloviate that fighting terrorism is the same as war. Which it isn't. Same as fighting the drug problem isn't the same as war, no matter whether you call it a "war on drugs" or not.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | July 27, 2004 at 08:12 PM