Journal pudge's Journal: Now I Remember 14
I have mentioned many times how much it annoys me when Bush and his camp says Kerry voted against funding the war. It's true, but the statement implies that Kerry was against funding the war, which is false (of course, Kerry has recently fed into this himself a bit, by implying he voted against the funding because he was against the war itself, but that was covered already).
So this weekend Kerry made a similar unreasonable implication about Bush, but I couldn't remember what it was. Yesterday I recalled it.
Kerry has begun saying that Bush opposed the forming of the 9-11 Commission. While true, it implies that he was against government investigating what happened, which is false. What really happened is that, because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence involved, Bush wanted existing Congressional committees to handle the investigation.
It's the same thing: a guy supports the overall goals but supports doing them in a different way, and gets slammed as though he opposed the goals. You could very well argue that Bush's plan for the 9-11 investigation would have been inferior or more serving of his own interests; but that's not interesting, because the exact same thing can be said of Kerry and his favored method for funding the war.
I am suddenly reminded of Monday's The Daily Show (one of my top few favorite TV shows) where Jon Stewart makes a Texas congressman look foolish by showing that he didn't know what he was talking about when he called Kerry the most liberal Senator. It was a great moment for Stewart and TDS, but Stewart doesn't grill the people on the left like that. It's the one thing I dislike about TDS: he is far more deferential toward the people he agrees with more. Both sides lie out their behinds, and he lets his guests on the left get away with more of it.
But then I wonder how useful this all is. In the end, does anyone care if any of the spin is true or not? Both sides get exposed for their dishonesty and nothing seems to change, either in public support for them and what they say, or in their methods.
It's not about informing the public... (Score:2)
I think you may be missing the point of this 'negative' spin used by both sides. It's not to convince 'joe voter' the other guy is bad -- because that's next to impossible. Most voters are already 'set' in how they will vote. The best either side can hope
Re:It's not about informing the public... (Score:2)
What I am saying is that no one seems to care about the truth. If you like a guy, you don't believe the bad things said about him. If you don't, you do. No matter what is said to disprove the myths, it doesn't seem to matter to the people who are prone to be affected by them. I don't ask if the spin is useful, but if fighting against it is.
Re:It's not about informing the public... (Score:2)
While I might agree that fighting against 'spin' is difficult -- I wouldn't say it's useless or in ineffective. The main problem is 'time'. The public doesn't like 'long' explainations. It's easier to say "Bush lied" (two words, and they stick) than it is to explain the intellegence failures of virtually every country in the world -- including all those on the UNSC. They bore easily and change the channel.
The best way, I guess, would be
Re:It's not about informing the public... (Score:1)
Re:It's not about informing the public... (Score:2)
Conventional tactics are secondary. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. If I ask a Kerry supporter the biggest reason he's voting for Kerry it'll be some permutation of "He's not the other guy." Ditto for a Bush supporter. The Bush supporter will be unable to give me a list of five reasons we're better off than we were four years ago, and the Kerry supporter will be unaware that Kerry's voting record largely tracked Bush's positions on most significant issues (the difference being more about degree than approach).
It will come down to the swing vote, and at present that looks like it will be determined more by Howard Stern than anything on our 'news' channels or other media that is almost entirely consumed by people who have already made up their minds.
Re:Conventional tactics are secondary. (Score:2)
1. More secure, safer (we FELT safer four years ago, which many people confuse with BEING safer).
2. Lower taxes.
3. Stronger manufacturing sector.
4. Economic growth is headed up, instead of down (the absolute values are lower in some cases, but the direction is better).
5. An Attorney General who enforces the Second Amendment as written, instead of as desired it should have been written.
Not neces
Both sides lie out their behinds (Score:2)
That pretty much sums things up as far as I can tell.
Misleading comparison (Score:2)
Bush opposed the creation of an independent commission. He wanted the intelligence committee [whitehouse.gov] to do all the investigating! If that opposition had been successful, this wou
Re:Misleading comparison (Score:2)
Just because things don't happen on the timetable the 9-11 Commission wanted doesn't mean a damned thing. Did you even read the story? The spokesperson for the Commission agreed that those kinds of documents aren't the sort of thing you just hand out, and that it needed to be done carefully, which is what they were working on, which is what happened.
Quo
Bush "Flip Flopper"? (Score:2)
The funny/odd thing is that Kerry does try to navigate the complexity of issues (in my opinion). Stuff isn't always black and white, so some of his arguments are ab
Re:Bush "Flip Flopper"? (Score:2)
Sure. But he doesn't help matters when he does take both sides of an issue, such as previously claiming he voted against the $87b because he wanted it funded another way, and then saying he did it because he was against the war. I don't think his vote against the funding was a flip-
Re:Bush "Flip Flopper"? (Score:2)
As a political strategy, I think it works for Kerry. If everyone is calling each other a "flip flopper" it cheapens the argument... ala "He's a Flip Flopper"... "No, HE'S the Flip Flopper.