Posted on 03/11/2004 10:23:37 AM PST by So Cal Rocket
On September 4, 2000, George W. Bush, unaware that a microphone was catching his comments, confided his opinion of New York Times reporter Adam Clymer to Dick Cheney. The vulgarity Bush employed was picked up by the microphones, and was instantly a front page story in the campaign. The Boston Globe, for example, ran a page one story the next day by Anne E. Kornblut and Glenn Johnson that began:
"George W. Bush yesterday urged voters to put 'plain-spoken Americans' in the White House, intending to contrast himself with Vice President Al Gore. Instead, his frankness created an embarrassment, after he uttered a vulgarity that was accidentally broadcast over loudspeakers to a crowd of hundreds."
The next day a Globe columnist blisted Bush's choice of words in a column, as did the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and scores of others. Clymer himself chipped in with a 1291 word special on Bush's off-the-record-on-the-record remark to The New York Times' "Week in Review."
What a difference a party identification makes. John Kerry's gutter politics yesterday, recounted in detail below, didn't warrant a headline in Kerry's hometown Globe, but showed up in paragraph two of a story titled "Kerry, Dean meet in party unity push." Glen Johnson, co-author of the 2000 story, is also co-author of this one. The second paragraph then proceeds to misquote Kerry's remarks:
"The Massachusetts senator, meanwhile, triggered another rhetorical exchange with the White House when he said into an open microphone after a speech in Chicago, 'These guys are the most crooked, and you know, lying group. Its scary.'"
"An aide said Kerry was not referring to the Bush administration, but rather broader Republican efforts to besmirch his reputation, such as distributing a doctored photo of Kerry and Vietnam War opponent Jane Fonda. " The Globe then quotes a Bush-Cheney spokesman blasting Kerry and leaves it at that.
It is terrible journalism to get the quote wrong and to leave off the context that made it clear Kerry meant Bush and his colleagues in the Administration. The lowered voice, the comments leading up about just beginning to fight etc. No serious observer could buy the Kerry campaign whitewash because there's no need to whisper outrage over doctored photographs, and besides, that's the third explanation offered by Kerry's people in an effort to get their candidate away from his gutter politics and the window it opens onto the venom in his voice and person.
The Globe is far from alone. The Los Angeles Times headlined the story "Off the Cuff and Into the Crossfire: Kerry remark about 'crooked' and 'lying' opponents draws angry retort from GOP. Comments may haunt the Democrat," and buried it on page 24. The first paragraph in Matea Gold's account begins "John F. Kerry leveled his harshest criticism yet at Republican critics Wednesday, accusing them of corrupt and deceitful behavior -- comments that some analysts warned could backfire on the presumed Democratic presidential nominee." The Times at least got that part of the quote it reproduced correct --perhaps the Globe should check the Times for accuracy of quotes-- but also ran a Kerry spin in paragraph five that "the senator was speaking about 'the Republican attack machine,' not President Bush personally." The Bush spokesman isn't quoted until paragraph 17, and there is no "expert" quoted as condemning the obvious persona; attack on the president' integrity.
The New York Times, which lavished attention on Bush's "open mic" vulgarity four years ago even though it was directed at a journalist and not the sitting president of the United States, gets around to telling its readers about Kerry's slander in paragraph eight of a story headlined "Kerry and Dean, All Forgiven, Join to Unseat a Common Foe." The Washington Post does headline the story, but buys the Kerry spin in its headline on the page 6 story: "Kerry Decries GOP as 'Crooked' and 'Lying.'" The Post's Dan Balz wrote the least objectionable lead of the majors:
"Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) dueled with President Bush over taxes and the economy yesterday, and then, in an offhand comment to factory workers in Chicago, called the Republicans "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen,' triggering an angry denunciation from Bush's campaign."
There's no ambiguity in Kerry's comments, and the ridiculous attempts to spin from the Kerry people should have been met with derision, and Kerry peppered with questions. But just as the press laid off Kerry's two gaffes earlier in the week --that he wanted to be the nation's "second black president," and that he had met with foreign leaders who want him to win-- Kerry's getting a pass from the morning papers again today.
The Post story quotes Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter as insisting that Kerry had no regrets for his comment. "Not at all. There's been a pretty high level of Republican attack machine working for the last four years for the sole purpose of smearing Democrats. We're trying to make this campaign about issues; Republicans are making it about attacks."
When Kerry surfaces for a serious interview, he should be questioned in detail about his comments, and about Gore's "betrayal" mantra, Clark's attack on the president's patriotism, Dean's conspiracy nuttiness, and of course McAuliffe's AWOL charge. Throw in his wife's "asses of evil" buttons. Demns are in the gutter, and Kerry's right there with them. He should have to explain this stuff on camera. But don't hold your breath. Judging by this morning's papers, the elite media is the offensive line for the Kerry campaign.
Do you suppose the Globe will at least publish the correct quote in its corrections page tomorrow?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.