June 29, 2004

We'd Like To Debate Our Opponents' Policy Positions... Except the Media Won't Help Us Discover What Those Might Be
— Ace

The media is forever tut-tutting that Americans spend most of their time arguing about character and personality issues rather than policy issues.

Fair enough. I think they've got their heads up their asses about that -- character and personality have long been used as issue-proxies -- but whatever.

They're very concerned that this election campaign will once again go into the gutter over gotchas and flip-flops and insignificant Willie Horton issues. (Insignificant by the media's lights, I mean-- most would say that a convicted murderer let out of jail for the weekends who then imprisons and multiply-rapes and stabs a woman would be a somewhat important issue. But that's just us krazy konservative kultists.)

The media would very much like to have a campaign which, for once, focuses on politicians' detailed policy positions.

Okay.

Then how about you help us do so and actually trouble yourselves into inquiring as to what John Kerry's positions actually might be?

What is John Kerry's position on using tough tactics, or even torture, on important Al Qaeda prisoners? I don't know what it might be, and I read quite a bit. I know that John Kerry offers us vague formulations and mentions the need to "balance" the rights of prisoners against national security, but that's a no-brainer; George Bush is also trying to "balance" competing factors. The question isn't whether or not there's a 'balance" to be struck, which everyone already knows; the question is Where does John Kerry come down on the balance?

Where's his fulcrum? To the left, or to the right? Does he expressly rule out any harsh interrogation methods for all prisoners? Or for most prisoners? Or would he do what Bush is basically doing, but "just a little bit less"?

Do any of you know? Does Chris Matthews know? Does even John Kerry himself know?

I don't think anyone knows, because John Kerry isn't saying, and the media, trying to safeguard John Kerry's political viability, won't ask him. The media knows that no good can come from asking John Kerry such difficult questions, unless you count providing information the public and letting voters make an informed decision as to which candidate's policies they prefer as "good," of course. But the media doesn't count that as "good" -- not in this case, at least.

The media knows that whatever John Kerry's actual, specific position on this issue might be, it will cost him votes. If his position is too similar to Bush's, he loses those voters flirting with Nader. If his position is too close to Nader's, he loses a big chunk of independents who aren't quite sure we can swear off all tough tactics in dealing with Al Qaeda.

John Kerry wishes to remain vague on the point, because, by remaining vague, he hopes to dishonestly convince both right- and left- leaning voters that his actual position is the one they prefer. I say "dishonestly," for the simple reason this is in fact dishonest: obviously one of those groups will wind up being disappointed by his actual position. By being vague, Kerry is lying to somebody; we just won't be sure to whom he's lying until he's in office for a couple of months.

Similarly, I don't know precisely what Kerry wants to do with all of these illegal combatants at Guantanamo. Does he want to give them all lawyers, as the Supreme Court now seems to require? Does he simply want to set them all free unless they're charged with a crime? What, exactly, the fuck might his position actually be? I don't know, and the media damn-sure aren't going to ask any questions which might illuminate me.

I also don't know where John Kerry stands on bugetary matters. I know, by the estimates most favorable to him, that his spending will exceed his "revenue enhancements" by $900 billion. I know he also claims he'll balance the budget. So I know, to a mathematical certainty, that he's either being dishonest about his spending, or his taxing, or the prospect of him achieving a balanced budget, or a little mix of two or three of the above. But he won't say precisely how he intends to both spend $900 billion more than he's taking it while balancing the budget.

I do know this: When the Bush people took at guess at which of his promises he'd break -- and, once again, at least one of them will have to be broken -- the liberal media cried foul and accused Bush of "distortions" and "misrepresentations."

Again, Media: We wouldn't have to guess which promises John Kerry would break if you could somehow manage to courage to ask him yourself. Would John Kerry reduce the scope of his spending (in which case he can't beat up on Bush for not doing enough to help the "middle class")? Would he raise taxes on the middle class (in which case he's doing precisely what Bush guessed he might)? Or would he let the deficit balloon (in which case he can't complain about Bush's deficits)?

The media seems to be claiming that because John Kerry won't be specific as his budgetary priorities, George W. Bush will just have to live with that vagueness and is "dishonest" for attempting to pin him down on a specific plan.

Dick Cheney can instruct you on some pleasurable-but-difficult solitary activities regarding that claim.

So, Media: Which is it? If we're going to have a "debate" on the "issues," we actually do require you, at some point, to inquire as to John Kerry's delicately-nuanced and gauzy-gray positions.

If you refuse to do so, as you have steadfastly refused so far, then we're just going to have to have the typical "you're a liberal/you lied" election you say you hate so much.

If John Kerry isn't offering us any actual concrete policy positions on the war on terror, and instead only offers us himself -- his resume, his personality, his character -- for consideration, then how can we have a debate on anything other than John Kerry's fitness for office?

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 1048 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Good thing Al Gore invented the internet, because we know for sure that only one presidential candidate considers national security an issue.

Can you guess which one?

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2004 01:44 PM (IpXAD)

2 "The media knows that whatever John Kerry's actual, specific position on this issue might be, it will cost him votes."

I know one of Kerry's advisors. He laughingly told me how Kerry joked the winner of the primaries should be based on the guy who had gotten the most "righteous pussy.

Posted by: Golden Boy at June 29, 2004 02:26 PM (i3DXc)

3 I do know that Kerry served in Vietnam. I've read that at least three times.

Posted by: sonofnixon at June 29, 2004 02:29 PM (2Pa3z)

4 Don't hold your breath, Ace.

Posted by: Aaron at June 29, 2004 03:25 PM (Zg6J9)

5 There's a piece of advice I've gotten from several sources, which I believe the media is following - Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.

I think that most of the Media is so (personally) set on seeing Bush out of office that they refuse to ask Kerry tough questions because it would disappoint the media. Frankly, I don't think they care about disappointing their audience, they're just trying to save themselves.

It's like that Clinton interviews in Europe. Those Europeans were pretty disillusioned by some of Clinton's answers, and I think the same will happen to the press is Kerry is forced to answer these questions.

Even if Kerry is to the left of Bush (which he is), he can never be as far left as the media wants him to be is he wants a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. He's running against Bush after all, not Ford.

Posted by: Brock at June 30, 2004 04:42 AM (9hJ/S)

6 Medsanur Türkiyenin yeni medikalcilik alanındaki yükselen firmalardan biridir. Cerrahi el aletleri, laparoskopi, tek kullanımlık sarf malzemeleri  ve çelik demirbaş hastane aletleri üretmekte olup macaristanın medikal firması balazsi endoscope'nin türkiye disbiritör'dür medikal ürünler ve tıbbi malzemler alanında kaliteli ürün yelpazesi ile türkiyede bayilik dağıtımı yapmakta olup kendi fabrika ürünlerini pazarlamaktadır.

Posted by: medikal firmalar at March 07, 2010 04:00 PM (VbasM)

7

The Supreme Court has turned down the first preliminary challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former custom aprons personalized. Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues custom bib apron personalized have been aired in lower courts. Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took custom chef apron personalized part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan fitted custom hats personalized refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.

Posted by: Stu at November 08, 2010 09:22 PM (MtT9I)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
81kb generated in CPU 0.22, elapsed 1.9766 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.9106 seconds, 243 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.