Newsweek poses it as a question, but what they mean is “Kerry is totally lame.”
For months the media have been making much ado about nothing: John Kerry. Are they finally weary of trying to make Kerry’s campaign seem exciting?
He’s been called flat, stiff, wooden, lackluster and bereft of ideas. His motto is “Vote for me because I’m Not-George-Bush.” Ever since Kerry emerged as the frontrunner of his party, the newspapers, magazines and news anchors have puffed him up into something he’s not. Now they’re struggling to explain why he’s still trailing President Bush.
In story after story under headline after breathless headline, Kerry is crafted into a dynamic statesman as the media attempt in vain to prop him up. Well, it seems some have had enough.
I read with delight an article by Howard Fineman, who writes for Newsweek and covered such issues as “the rise of the religious right.”
In “Why the race is looking so good for Bush”, Fineman conveys his disappointment in Kerry’s dull performance so far. Check out his headshot. He looks downright morose!
Sen. John Kerry’s spin doctors claim that they haven’t lost ground to George Bush in recent weeks, and they are staging what they insist is the “launch” of his general election campaign this week with new TV ads airing and a trip next week to the Midwest. But the fact is that Kerry has lost ground – ground he has to make up if he hopes to win in November. The more interesting question is why?
Fineman thinks several factors are working against Kerry, including Richard Ben-Veniste and his comrades on the 9/11 Commission (too partisan), the thugs over in Iraq, Bush’s vision for the protection of our homeland, Bob Woodward’s book (which happens to make the president look good) and John Kerry himself.
As Kerry continues to flip flop like a fish out of water, big media is practically forced to write something about it. They can’t ignore the obvious and still feign objectivity.
The Washington Post comments on Kerry’s failure to make gains during President Bush’s “bad” month, while taking potshots at Bush, of course.
And the Post’s editorial board calls Kerry out for contradictory statements:
Mr. Kerry contends that he has not shifted his public position. But there are major differences between what he said in December — right after Saddam Hussein’s capture, when Mr. Kerry was seeking to discredit dovish Democratic challenger Howard Dean — and his remarks last week, which followed several weeks of bad news from Iraq and growing public disenchantment with the course of the war….
We believe a successful political outcome is still possible; others disagree. But Mr. Kerry’s shift on such a basic question after just a few months is troubling and mistaken.
But they still have faith he can win. Whatever they say. But make no mistake. The media are putting out this stuff to shake up the party, to get Democrats to prod Kerry into stepping up his game.
That’s enough “fair and balanced” coverage. Now on to the like-minded. The Media Research Center points out the media’s tendency to report bad news about President Bush ad nauseam while defending Kerry’s incomplete war record as “distinguished.”
Contrast these comments with what they’ve said and written about the president’s service records. The disingenuous folks who run our country’s newspapers and news programs couldn’t be more transparent.
Robert Novak on TownHall.com comments on the ketchup heiress’s refusal to release her tax returns, which she is not required to do by law.
But everyone knows by now that John Kerry wouldn’t be running for president and probably wouldn’t even be a U.S. senator without access to Teresa Heinz Kerry’s first husband’s fortune. Novak says it “excites curiosity about her charitable contributions”, which may be miniscule despite a net worth of $600 million. We’ll see. Novak writes:
Kerry aides shrug off as unimportant his incorrect statement that he was required to disclose tax returns but his wife was not. However, making up things in response to an unpleasant question can signal trouble ahead. Kerry’s interview may have been smoother and more articulate than George W. Bush’s press conference, but it planted seeds for the same credibility problems that trouble the president.
All this bodes well for President Bush. I just hope the Republicans exploit Kerry’s weaknesses and relentlessly dog him to prove assertions and explain inconsistencies. Republicans are sometimes too polite.
