June 2, 2004
THEY LET THIS NITWIT RUN THE TIMES?:
Must do better: His poll ratings have slumped and each day brings more bad news from Iraq, but George Bush has one big advantage in the coming campaign: a ponderous, uncharismatic challenger with no clear message. (Howell Raines, June 2, 2004, The Guardian)
While Bush's poll figures look sickly to the unschooled eye, his 40% support level does contain some good news for him. It shows that his base of cultural and political conservatives is holding together - so far. White House strategists are betting that leaving Iraq in 30 days - no matter what chaos ensues in that country - will leave them time to revise history between now and election day and, more importantly, get on with the work of destroying Kerry's image.In recent weeks Kerry has been trying hard to sharpen up his act, but so far the results have not been encouraging. As America's first war-hero candidate since John F Kennedy, he ought to be leading the national discussion on what went wrong in Iraq. But for his current series of speeches on national security issues, he rounded up a series of experienced hair-splitters from the Clinton years - Richard C Holbrooke, James Rubin, Sandy Berger - and they produced a script that would have played very well before the Council on Foreign Relations. The speeches were intended to fire up his campaign, toughen his image and to modify - without disowning - his Senate vote for the war. The problem is that speeches that sound right at the Council don't necessarily work for an electorate schooled to respond to simple messages.
Bush delivered just that in a television-ad blitz in 19 crucial states. The ads depicted Kerry as going wobbly on terrorism because he first voted for the Patriotic Act and then became worried about its authorisation of wire-taps and other infringements of civil liberties. And the nature of the Republican spinners' big chisel was now clear - a depiction of Kerry as the "for/against" candidate who can't make up his mind on any big issue, foreign or domestic.
Set aside for the moment Mr. Raines's dismissal of war heroes like George McGovern, George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, what can he possibly be talking about when he refers to the White House destroying Senator Kerry's image? All they want to do is publicize the image that even the Boston Globe (the Times's sister paper) has written about extensively. That Mr. Kerry's image is abysmal can hardly be blamed on CREEP. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 2, 2004 8:01 PM
Taranto put it best: Howell Raines wants to believe what he wants to believe, regardless of the facts. So he liked Jayson Blair.
Interesting that the former editor of America's "leading" newspaper wrote this for a British paper - perhaps no American sheet would have printed it. It's been a long fall.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 2, 2004 8:50 PMAlso, as Taranto and others have pointed out, Raines' basic strategy for Kerry is lie to the American public, because they're greedy idiots who don't know what's good for them, and if you have to fib about your true intentions to overthrow the nefarious rube in the White House, so be it.
I posted on Roger Simon's website Tuesday that I was at part of Michael Moore's 1996 libel trial where he pretty much used the same defense -- that is, if a coporation (in that trial) or person is so sleazy/evil, then you are justified to cut corners on the truth in order to get to a "higher truth/higher good". The jury didn't buy that argument in their final verdit (though Moore later won a reduction of judgment on appeal), and Raines appears to be infected with the same "two wrongs make a right" mindset as Moore -- Bush is so bad for the country it justifies Kerry lying in order to get him out of office.
A pretty slippery slope to be traveling, especially for someone formerly in charge of the supposed "greatest newspaper in the world." But if that's the standard Times editors are expected to hold to, maybe Pinch Sulzburger will be naming Michael Moore executive editor of the Times somewhere down the line.
Posted by: John at June 2, 2004 9:49 PM"Two wrongs never make a right. But three do." -- Deteriorata.
(And three rights make a left...)
[span class=WilliamConradDoingRocky&Bullwinkle]
Tune in to The Guardian for our next episode:
"When it Raines, it Howells"
--or--
"All the Moose That's Fit to Print"
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 3, 2004 6:06 AMWhat's the definition of a war hero? It sometimes seems anyone who served in combat is called that. Or is it reserved for those people who have won medals? Is there any media standard?
I always assumed to call anyone who served in a war/combat a veteran, and reserve the term war hero for people who received medals, even if it's the Purple Heart which might not indicate the recepient did anything heroic (other than their sacrifice in getting wounded).
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 3, 2004 3:02 PMWell, Dole seems to count by any measure.
Interesting that Raines has been purged. How many other high-level nitwits of the past few years have enjoyed the same fate?
It may be that Raines is fixated on getting Bush out any way possible, but if so, why was he expending so much effort on Augusta National?
How many editors who flogged phoney Whitewater stories have been sacked?
Not one, as far as I know.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2004 3:26 PM