Great to see you posting, Jay.

Posted by: Alan @ TCP at July 31, 2004 09:43 AM

This is going to be like shooting fish in a rain barrel. I guess it will be a true test to see just how powerful the media is. If a loser like Kerry could possibly get elected, it will be a true sign that there are people (media moguls, etc.) that have more control over what happens throughout the world, than those elected.

Posted by: No Party at July 31, 2004 12:18 PM

Not so fast, No Party… good pick up though on how or where from the mitigation of the President’s charges may come. The media can undully influence such events and speeches with how they report it that is true.

The press has to somehow find a way to get the message and news across without using the words actually spoken at a partisan rally which are meant to support one political party and put down the other.

While the trend and tendacy of the media is to more carefully filter the conservative view point than a Democratic or liberal speech, I wouldn’t get too fired up on what is essentially a Republican stump speech, parts of which have been echoed by others for weeks and even months counting during the Democratic primaries.

Any “loser” (and remember each side calls the other side’s candidate by that name frequently) can win in this tight of an election. The Senator has the more comfortable realization of knowing that the media is prone to go easier on him than the President. So the Republicans have to find other venues to counter any bias in the media that is real or perceived to get their message out. I’m sure that the Democrats are painfully aware of how the Senator’s political record is a net negative and are working to neutralize its adverse impact. It’ll be interesting to see how well they can do it and whether the media are willing allies in this as you suggest might happen.

Posted by: steve at July 31, 2004 05:19 PM

From what we’re seeing, it seems as though President Bush is going to counter the media spin by focusing on what he’s actually done in the War on Terrorism and on domestic issues (tax policy, education, prescription drug benefits, Homeland Security), and what he proposes to do on foreign and domestic issues in a second term. Juxtaposed with Kerry’s meager record in the Senate and his vacuous convention speech on what he would do as president, the contrast between the two candidates should be obvious.

Whether one agrees completely with the President on all issues, there can be no doubt that he is specific, determined and aggressive - regardless of the polls. That resonates with voters and is preferable to the focus group tested tripe that Kerry’s been throwing out there since he was deemed “the democrat front runner” or “presumptive nominee” earlier in the year.

Kerry has to manuver through his record like a mine field, and as a consequence he appears weak and vacillating. Bush in contrast has a record that he can stand on and be proud of. They can’t throw out the usual “Bush Lied” or “No WMD” because the reports of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission have nullified those mantras.

About the only cliche that the Dems. have left is the carping about the “Mission Accomplished” sign on the carrier. However, that complaint has worn thin. People understand what the carrier speech was all about. In any event, in itself it doesn’t provide a reason to vote either for Kerry or against the President.

Posted by: Jim at August 1, 2004 04:55 PM