Centerfield

I suspect the media is looking for the attack quotes. I haven't heard a full speech by Kerry, but if it's a mix of positive and negative, I bet the negative gets reported.

Would he have to give an entirely positive speech for the positive to get reported?

Rick, speaking as a journalist -- yes, he would.

Will,

I 100% agree... great post.

What I think is too bad here is that when Kerry stayed positive in the primary he was at his best. I think the attacks on Bush are an attempt to solidify his base, but I don't think that it is the right strategy and is further evidence of his campaign's failure to think outside of the box. He is vastly becoming the next Bob Dole and is going to have a hard time dropping the angry, flip-flopping liberal label unless he changes courses in a hurry. Bush should be down in the polls after the last couple of weeks he has had... but he is ahead in most of them now.

I think this is another reason that Gephardt may in fact be the the veep pick in the end, because he is so good at being negative which will allow Kerry to go positive. He is going to have a hard time looking good next to Edwards, Richardson, or most of the others.

Rick,

I have heard some of Kerry's speeches in their entirety also, and quite frankly I think he has been way more negative than positive in most of them since he won the nomination.

What he has to do, I think, is talk about his preferred policies. "Instead of doing X, I think we should do Y and Z." That's a substantive critique of the current plan while also remaining positive and forward looking.

Stick with the level of individual policies, and avoid the overarching statements about Bush being "the worst" at something. Let the voters surmise that Bush is bad based on the specific points you make ... and based on the flood of negative information flowing through the media.

These past couple weeks have been a golden opportunity to show you are thoughtful and balanced on the key issues facing this nation. The press has to report Kerry's views because he's the nominee. Staying away from the overarching criticism and the harsh language would show he has an even temperment and is the kind of guy we want making decisions during wartime.

The media doesn't cover positive because there's no conflict there - and the media loves conflict. I fail to see how $50 million in attack ads from Bush is positive, and why Kerry should sit back and take it. Ask President Dukakis how that went.

You make good points. I too think Kerry should try harder to be positive, but I wonder whether he'd succeed on this count if he tried. I'm not sure how much control he has over how he's covered by the media.

The media has an agenda, which is to make their top story as compelling as possible. (It is anyway.) The top story is the war in Iraq. The more ugly, controversial, and in doubt things in Iraq look, the better the ratings. It's a drama. Life as we know it is held in the balance.

The election is being reported in the context of making the war in Iraq look as controversial and exciting etc., as possible. (Not that it's hard, mind you) How much focus is the media giving to the point that Bush and Kerry agree on the broad stroke of staying the course in Iraq, and disagee only on the relative emphasis given to each of the details of achieving this success?

Multilateral! Unilateral. Tastes great! Less Filling.

It's very possible that circumstances beyond the control of either Bush or Kerry will determine the victor. If Iraq steadies(and the media acknowledes this), Bush will win no matter Kerry's tone. And if Iraq deteriorates much further (which we KNOW the media will acknowledge), Kerry will probably gain enough votes from those looking for change to win.

Excellent points, BK. I agree completely. I've never bought into the "liberal media" or the newer "conservative media" hype. It's about money via readership/viewership ratings and how that impacts their revenue stream from advertizing.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned an article by Mark Shields that supports this theory. Shield wrote:

"But Kerry would do well to study the 'game films' of the 1980 campaign, when Republican challenger Ronald Reagan refused to simply run against the unpopular incumbent, President Jimmy Carter. Instead, Reagan laid out his plans repeatedly, in specific detail -- double the defense budget, cut taxes by one third and, that's right, balance the federal budget -- so that when the Republican did win, that November, he could legitimately lay claim to a mandate for his program."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/05/kerry/index.html

Agree: The mix is necessary with Kerry stressing going forward-- like on the bow of a ship.
Agree he canot come across as major angry Bush bashing or like Dole or Dean.

I respect only a few polls. Besides, think there are too many in media and they want to get paid for whatever. Just one more reason why I would like to see much shorter election season and equal time on tv. Another topic for discusssion am sure.

Janus

I couldn't agree with you guys more.

For me, it feels like 1996 all over again, except the candidates are wearing different hats. In 1996, I was really hoping that I could support the Republican candidate because I didn't like some of the policies of the Clinton Administration, but I just couldn't rally around Bob Dole.

This year, I'd be happy to vote for the Democratic ticket, but I find that whenever Kerry goes into his negative jabbering on about how Bush misleads (ie lies), it makes me very reluctant to support Kerry.

I don't feel misled by Bush and I think he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing for the country, but on some policies, I just think he's plain wrong on some issues. By calling Bush a liar, I think Kerry undercuts his own credibility.

The media doesn't cover positive because there's no conflict there - and the media loves conflict. I fail to see how $50 million in attack ads from Bush is positive, and why Kerry should sit back and take it. Ask President Dukakis how that went.

If Kerry outlines the basic steps he thinks we should take in Iraq, the media covers that -- they've certainly been out there asking him that question.

This is a little different from "staying positive", of course. It's a substantive, measured critique instead of a heated one. It keeps you on the playing field, but makes you seem weighty instead of shrill. People are much more likely to elect a president they see as reasonable and balanced than someone they see as angry, or a whiner ... or worse yet, an angry whiner.

Instead of slamming Bush, carefully and clearly undercut his arguments -- and explain where you'd take America in his place.

Bush has always struck me as one of the weakest politicians we've seen at the presidential level. If the Democrats lose to him again, it's cause for some deep soul-searching.

Did he attack Gore for the pattern of dishonesty the media was attributing to him?

Well. Yes.

"Well, we all make mistakes. I've been known to mangle a syllable or two myself, you know, if you know what I mean. I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations. And yes, I think it's something that people need to consider. This isn't something new. I read a report, or a memo, from somebody in his 1988 campaign -- I forgot the fellow's name -- warning then Senator Gore to be careful about exaggerating claims. I thought during his debate with Senator Bradley saying he authored the EITC when it didn't happen. I mention the last debate...Anyway, he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and yet he didn't. And so I think this is an issue. I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. I thought there was some exaggerations about the numbers. But the people are going to have to make up their mind on this issue. And I am going to continue to defend my record and defend my propositions against what I think are exaggerations. Exaggerations like, for example, only 5% of seniors receive benefits under my Medicare reform package. That's what he said the other day, and that's simply not the case. And I have every right in the world to defend my record and positions. That's what debates are about and that's what campaigns are about."

"MODERATOR: Well, what I mean is calling him a serial exaggerator --

BUSH: I don't believe I've used those words.

MODERATOR: No, but your campaign ads.

BUSH: Maybe they have."

And thats just one debate.

Yes. And that's a pretty interesting example, no?

He starts with a self-depricating "aw-shucks" kind of thing.

He implies that Gore has a problem with the truth. But doesn't quite come out and say it.

He steers in the direction of his own policies -- couching his criticism in terms of defending his own policies.

He says the voters will have to decide.

Then he tries to disavow the really harsh version of this criticism. Those aren't the words he'd use. Which the moderator calls him on.

I detect a fairly sophisticated kind of intention behind Bush's answer to this question -- and I'm impressed he was able to control his message enough to pull it off.

I never thought Bush was stupid, either. Press memes are rarely invented by the press, rather the politcal operatives who transmit to the press.

Hippocrite, that's a great example. I'm of two minds though. It seems to me that sometimes Bush does a very good job on answers like the one you cite of hitting all the right notes. He has some skill at appealing to common sense notions, getting people to like him and feel he's on their side, and distancing himself from his operatives when need be.

But on the whole, I don't get the sense that these types of answers are really the rule, or necessarily the exception either. Occasionally he has shown himself very skilled, especially as a politician. But sometimes he has shown himself quite inept too. My sense is that usually these instances come when he is required to digest a long question with reference to a variety of details, and needs to quickly synthesize. I don't think he's a moron at all, on this point I definitely agree with you and William. But I think it's fair to note that he has some deficits, and I think they stem from an impatience with detail and less than optimal practice with mentally digging into long chains of thought to explore connections. He has a strong preference for "cut to the chase" type reasoning, which though it has popular appealing we can appreciate is sometimes a virtue and sometimes a vice. As folklore goes, he who hesitates is lost, yet fools rush in where angels fear to tread.