Waiting for an attack on Bush's deceptions

[papau]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/09/17/waiting_for_an_attack_on_bushs_deceptions/

Waiting for an attack on Bush's deceptions
By Scot Lehigh | September 17, 2004

IF ONE had to pinpoint the most important difference between George W. Bush's energized presidential campaign and John Kerry's stalled effort in the last few weeks, it would be this: Bush has been actively molding public opinion while Kerry has not.

On the stump, Bush is a skilled performer. He's relaxed, he's on message, and he connects well with his audience. Indeed, his skewering of John Kerry's position(s) on Iraq is delivered with the deft timing and sly mockery of a professional comedian.

But here's the president's not-so-secret weapon: He is dismayingly willing to say things that are either blatantly false or clearly designed to create a misleading impression.

The most recent example came when he claimed that Kerry's health care plan amounted to "a government takeover of health care with an enormous price tag," something that Kerry couldn't possibly pay for "unless he raises your taxes."

In fact, Kerry's carefully designed plan would operate through financial incentives and maintain the existing health care framework. And the Democratic nominee has stipulated that he would pay for it by rescinding tax breaks only for upper earners while retaining middle-class cuts.

But by far the most egregious example of Bush's "say anything" approach comes on Iraq. What Bush and the Republicans did at their New York City convention was to paint Iraq as an essential war in the battle against terror.<snip>

[Shoeempress]

1. Read that this AM and wrote the Paper immediately. How dare

Lehigh transfer the responsibility of reporting on Bush's lies from the Media to Kerry. And they can't figure out why no one pays attention to them anymore.

[papau]

2. I agree - but while polite, the Globe -like the WashPo - is never wrong

At lease on the editorial page review os the news section.

sigh...

:-)

[Crachet2004]

3. In two weeks, if Dick Cheney doesn't flinch every time John Edwards...

Is mentioned, we are doing something wrong. If ever I saw a ludicrous, puffed-up, pompous, over-inflated ego, ripe for the pricking (and I use that term knowing it could be read in different ways), then that draft-dodging, war-profiteering coward would be...Dick Cheney. Think of the 'Penguin', in the original Batman series. Penguin=Dick.

He is a candidate for the tactics of ridicule and derision if ever I saw one...and all that is needed is to tell the truth about him!

Bush on the other hand, is an out-and-out liar, and people are dying because of it. When we make our political ads, he should always be spoken of in a voice dripping with contempt...the tone of voice reserved for cowards and traitors.

There are many, many things both Bush and Dick Cheney are guilty of, that we cannot accuse them of in a political ad. But the tone of our ads know no such limitations. In this regard, we can be, respectively, as contemptuous and derisory as is humanly possible-and people will remember the tone, if not the content of our message...in effect, the tone will BE the message.

And since we have legitimate reasons for believing as we do about both of these idiots, I believe the message will stick...the real message being the tone...Dick Cheney is a criminal, cowardly buffoon-while George Bush is worthy of nothing but contempt.

The American People will recognize the truth, if we can somehow present it to them. And if we cannot say it in words, we have to go another way.