LATimes Editorial: "These Charges Are False ..."

[TahitiNut]

EDITORIAL
These Charges Are False ...

It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication.

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?

<more>

---

Exactly!

[troublemaker]

1. Remarkable editorial. Really fine.

[Leilani]

2. Sounds like some press people

are as fed up as we are.

Good, & about time!

[mark11727]

3. What a great closing line...

...But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?

Reminds me of Joseph Welch's final salvo at Sen. Joseph McCarthy:

I meant to do you no personal injury and if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

I wonder if they phrased it that way on purpose?

[TahitiNut]

4. Well, since the editorial begins with a reference to McCarthy ...

... I'd say it's a conscious choice of words. "Indecent" is one of the milder terms I'd say fits this regime. The basic condemnation is spot on. Junior Fly-Shit doesn't have the simple decency for the job. Not at all.

Worst pResident. Ever.

[enough]

5. Kick