Brent H. Baker, Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center (MRC), has been the central figure in the MRC’s News Division since the MRC’s 1987 founding.
The MRC tapes over 200 hours a week of news and entertainment shows aired on the broadcast networks and cable news channels. With over 150,000 hours on more than 21,000 videotapes, the MRC is the only organization with a complete tape library of network news and entertainment shows back to the late 1980s. Every day teams of MRC analysts enter data from all these stories and shows into a customized computer database, identifying bias in the process. Analysts also comb daily through the nation's most influential newspapers and news magazines.
The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.
MRC spokesmen appear on network television programs, including NBC’s Today, CNN’s C****fire and Reliable Sources, CNBC’s Rivera Live as well as various shows on the Fox News Channel and MSNBC.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
The MRC tapes over 200 hours a week of news and entertainment shows aired on the broadcast networks and cable news channels. With over 150,000 hours on more than 21,000 videotapes, the MRC is the only organization with a complete tape library of network news and entertainment shows back to the late 1980s. Every day teams of MRC analysts enter data from all these stories and shows into a customized computer database, identifying bias in the process. Analysts also comb daily through the nation's most influential newspapers and news magazines.
The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.
MRC spokesmen appear on network television programs, including NBC’s Today, CNN’s C****fire and Reliable Sources, CNBC’s Rivera Live as well as various shows on the Fox News Channel and MSNBC.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Any accusatory liberals read this or do you still need to cling to false rumors?
BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY
By DEBORAH ORIN, NEW YORK POST
February 15, 2004 -- Serious doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures who questioned whether President Bush showed up for weekend duty there in the early 1970s.
Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.
And The Boston Globe, which took the lead in challenging Bush's Guard service, reported serious doubts about the account given by one of Bush's prime accusers.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him.
"Col. Turnipseed brought [Bush] in when he first came to me. I just know that he saw him there," Calhoun told The Post. Turnipseed said he regards Calhoun as trustworthy and believes he'd remember it correctly.
Calhoun's ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembers her husband talking about Bush back in the 1970s when he switched from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign for family friend, Winton "Red" Blount.
Another Alabama Guardsman, Joe LeFevers, told The Birmingham News earlier this week that he remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.
Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett had claimed he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and saw it happen.
But the Globe reported Thursday that Burkett's corroborating witness, former Chief Warrant Officer George O. Conn, disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY
By DEBORAH ORIN, NEW YORK POST
February 15, 2004 -- Serious doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures who questioned whether President Bush showed up for weekend duty there in the early 1970s.
Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.
And The Boston Globe, which took the lead in challenging Bush's Guard service, reported serious doubts about the account given by one of Bush's prime accusers.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him.
"Col. Turnipseed brought [Bush] in when he first came to me. I just know that he saw him there," Calhoun told The Post. Turnipseed said he regards Calhoun as trustworthy and believes he'd remember it correctly.
Calhoun's ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembers her husband talking about Bush back in the 1970s when he switched from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign for family friend, Winton "Red" Blount.
Another Alabama Guardsman, Joe LeFevers, told The Birmingham News earlier this week that he remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.
Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett had claimed he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and saw it happen.
But the Globe reported Thursday that Burkett's corroborating witness, former Chief Warrant Officer George O. Conn, disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Blue, where's the other 11%. Even if Nader runs I don't see 3rd parties drawing more than 5% tops. And % doesn't decide it it. I could potentially see Kerry win 50-46 and still lose. I am almost certain Kerry will get more pop vote but the electoral is tougher. Less than 50,000 votes will decide electoral in swing states like PA, OH, FL, AZ. Polls will swing both ways but it will be close.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as I am concerned the issue is not whether or not GWB served in Texas or Alabama, but why he never showed in Viet Nam. IMO. that is the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wil,if that is your major concern, how do you view Clinton's activities during the Viet Nam war?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
kw, based on Gore getting quite a bit more than Bush last time around, Kerry a bit more likable than Gore, Bush has turned many off and Dems are motivated and more united. I just don't know if the extra votes will be located in the right places. I'm far more certain that he'll get more votes than get more electoral votes. I'd bet chalk that he'll get more votes but not electoral votes.
Kwalder, I have no idea what Mr. Clinton has to do with the current presedential race. I suppose we could discuss Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy or any other prior presidents, but to what end?
BTW. from the list I posted above, links at the MRC - Media Research Center.
The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias.
National Review
National Rifle Association
New York Post (DEBORAH ORIN author of "BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY" )
NewsMax.com
Oliver North
Etc.
wil.
[This message was edited by wilheim on February 17, 2004 at 12:09 AM.]
BTW. from the list I posted above, links at the MRC - Media Research Center.
The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias.
National Review
National Rifle Association
New York Post (DEBORAH ORIN author of "BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY" )
NewsMax.com
Oliver North
Etc.
wil.
[This message was edited by wilheim on February 17, 2004 at 12:09 AM.]
By the way, here's another major media source admitting it has a left-wing bias:
ABC News website column "The Note" , Monday 2/16/04:
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative effect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.
The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war – in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."
It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias – not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).
The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.
That means the President's communications advisers have a choice:
Try to change the storyline and the press' attitude, or try to win this election without changing them.
So we ask again: What's it going to be, Ken, Karen, Mary, Terry, Nicole, and Dan?
That's quite a headline in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas."
And the Washington Post story filled with quotes from Republican-leaning business people who have politically soured on the President is quite striking.
As is the Wall Street Journal piece despoiling the Medicare reform law before it event takes effect.
On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Sen. Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
ABC News website column "The Note" , Monday 2/16/04:
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative effect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.
The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war – in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."
It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias – not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).
The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.
That means the President's communications advisers have a choice:
Try to change the storyline and the press' attitude, or try to win this election without changing them.
So we ask again: What's it going to be, Ken, Karen, Mary, Terry, Nicole, and Dan?
That's quite a headline in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas."
And the Washington Post story filled with quotes from Republican-leaning business people who have politically soured on the President is quite striking.
As is the Wall Street Journal piece despoiling the Medicare reform law before it event takes effect.
On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Sen. Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as I am concerned the issue is not whether or not GWB served in Texas or Alabama, but why he never showed in Viet Nam. IMO. that is the issue. - wilheim
Kwalder, I have no idea what Mr. Clinton has to do with the current presedential race. - wilheim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wil, if GWB's lack of presence in Viet Nam is currently "the issue", then I assume you felt the same way about Clinton's absence from and protest of the Viet Nam war when he ran in '92 and '96.
Or is this another question about what the definition of the word "is" is?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Kwalder, I have no idea what Mr. Clinton has to do with the current presedential race. - wilheim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wil, if GWB's lack of presence in Viet Nam is currently "the issue", then I assume you felt the same way about Clinton's absence from and protest of the Viet Nam war when he ran in '92 and '96.
Or is this another question about what the definition of the word "is" is?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Feb. 14, 2004, 12:00PM
Some light shed on Bush Guard service
Hundreds of files released; Dems say questions remain
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Seeking to stop the political battering over his 1970s Air National Guard duty, President Bush released hundreds of pages of records Friday that filled in some of the blanks about his service and left others open.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president decided to release the documents, shortly after they were supplied by the Defense Department, to counter "ridiculous suggestions" that "were leaving the wrong impression with the public."
The records failed to directly confirm Bush did any service in Alabama, where, according to some critics, he shirked his Guard duty in the United States during the Vietnam War.
Some documents did provide a partial explanation of why Bush did not begin performing duties in Alabama until months after he left a Texas Air National Guard unit in Houston to work on a U.S. Senate campaign. The papers show officials overruled an initial Alabama assignment for Bush, potentially pushing back the date he began service in the state.
The documents provided no obvious explanation for why Bush neglected to take a physical examination in 1972, resulting in loss of his status as a pilot.
Democrats said Friday the issue of Bush's Guard service had not been laid to rest.
"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered. It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong.
After sputtering as a political issue in 2000, the questions about Bush's Guard duty were resurrected recently by harsh charges from political opponents like Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. He accused Bush of being absent without leave from the Guard during the period when he transferred from Texas to Alabama.
The Vietnam War combat hero record of Bush's likely Democratic election rival, U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, adds to the political mix.
The president's opponents focus on 1972, when Bush took a job with the campaign of Winton "Red" Blount.
Until this week the White House had said nothing about the period, and journalists had failed to produce any witnesses who could place Bush on Guard duty in Alabama. But witnesses began to come forward late this week.
John B. Calhoun, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Alabama National Guard, said Friday he remembered seeing Bush throughout the summer and fall of 1972 at Dannelly Field. Calhoun was a flight safety officer there.
He said Bush was assigned to him to perform nonflight status duties as a temporary transfer from the Texas Guard.
"He came in his uniform and sat in my office reading training manuals and safety reports," said Calhoun, 69, an Atlanta contractor.
"We didn't have F-102s (the aircraft Bush trained on in Texas), so he couldn't fly. He just made his drills in my office," he added.
But the documents released Friday indicated Bush's transfer to the Alabama squadron wasn't approved until September 1972, months after Bush's presence as recalled by Calhoun.
Emily Marks Curtis, who said she dated Bush in 1972 when both worked on the Blount campaign, said she had a clear recollection of Bush returning to Alabama in the weeks after the fall election so he could attend Guard meetings.
"He had left Montgomery and had gone back to Texas," she said. "Then he called and told me he was coming back to Montgomery to do his Guard duty and asked if we could see each other."
She said she didn't see Bush at the Alabama squadron's base, but "I can say categorically he left Montgomery, then came back for what he said were Guard meetings."
Dental records and pay records released by the White House this week put Bush in Alabama in late 1972 and early 1973. Those records however, give no direct insight into what Bush was doing with or for the Guard.
Records that documented points earned toward honorable discharge did show Bush getting credit for unspecified service performed in Alabama.
The documents released Friday night showed Bush attempting to get into an Alabama reserve unit, the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, in May 1972. Bush was accepted by the unit's commander just a couple days later.
But in July 1972, the decision was overruled by an Air Force official who said Bush was ineligible for a reserve unit, which is for those who already served active duty.
Bush then was accepted to the 187th tactical squadron of the Alabama National Guard. He was told to report for that unit's fall training cycle starting in October. Records show Bush performed duties in Alabama after that.
Other questions were only partially addressed by the records. Included was the Sept. 5, 1972, document suspending Bush's flight status because he failed to complete an annual physical.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said one of the reasons for releasing the records was to counter "innuendo" that Bush was hiding a medical problem. Bartlett said Bush skipped the examination simply because he'd decided to go to Alabama as part of the political campaign and wouldn't be serving as a pilot there.
Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth contributed to this story.
Some light shed on Bush Guard service
Hundreds of files released; Dems say questions remain
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Seeking to stop the political battering over his 1970s Air National Guard duty, President Bush released hundreds of pages of records Friday that filled in some of the blanks about his service and left others open.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president decided to release the documents, shortly after they were supplied by the Defense Department, to counter "ridiculous suggestions" that "were leaving the wrong impression with the public."
The records failed to directly confirm Bush did any service in Alabama, where, according to some critics, he shirked his Guard duty in the United States during the Vietnam War.
Some documents did provide a partial explanation of why Bush did not begin performing duties in Alabama until months after he left a Texas Air National Guard unit in Houston to work on a U.S. Senate campaign. The papers show officials overruled an initial Alabama assignment for Bush, potentially pushing back the date he began service in the state.
The documents provided no obvious explanation for why Bush neglected to take a physical examination in 1972, resulting in loss of his status as a pilot.
Democrats said Friday the issue of Bush's Guard service had not been laid to rest.
"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered. It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong.
After sputtering as a political issue in 2000, the questions about Bush's Guard duty were resurrected recently by harsh charges from political opponents like Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. He accused Bush of being absent without leave from the Guard during the period when he transferred from Texas to Alabama.
The Vietnam War combat hero record of Bush's likely Democratic election rival, U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, adds to the political mix.
The president's opponents focus on 1972, when Bush took a job with the campaign of Winton "Red" Blount.
Until this week the White House had said nothing about the period, and journalists had failed to produce any witnesses who could place Bush on Guard duty in Alabama. But witnesses began to come forward late this week.
John B. Calhoun, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Alabama National Guard, said Friday he remembered seeing Bush throughout the summer and fall of 1972 at Dannelly Field. Calhoun was a flight safety officer there.
He said Bush was assigned to him to perform nonflight status duties as a temporary transfer from the Texas Guard.
"He came in his uniform and sat in my office reading training manuals and safety reports," said Calhoun, 69, an Atlanta contractor.
"We didn't have F-102s (the aircraft Bush trained on in Texas), so he couldn't fly. He just made his drills in my office," he added.
But the documents released Friday indicated Bush's transfer to the Alabama squadron wasn't approved until September 1972, months after Bush's presence as recalled by Calhoun.
Emily Marks Curtis, who said she dated Bush in 1972 when both worked on the Blount campaign, said she had a clear recollection of Bush returning to Alabama in the weeks after the fall election so he could attend Guard meetings.
"He had left Montgomery and had gone back to Texas," she said. "Then he called and told me he was coming back to Montgomery to do his Guard duty and asked if we could see each other."
She said she didn't see Bush at the Alabama squadron's base, but "I can say categorically he left Montgomery, then came back for what he said were Guard meetings."
Dental records and pay records released by the White House this week put Bush in Alabama in late 1972 and early 1973. Those records however, give no direct insight into what Bush was doing with or for the Guard.
Records that documented points earned toward honorable discharge did show Bush getting credit for unspecified service performed in Alabama.
The documents released Friday night showed Bush attempting to get into an Alabama reserve unit, the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, in May 1972. Bush was accepted by the unit's commander just a couple days later.
But in July 1972, the decision was overruled by an Air Force official who said Bush was ineligible for a reserve unit, which is for those who already served active duty.
Bush then was accepted to the 187th tactical squadron of the Alabama National Guard. He was told to report for that unit's fall training cycle starting in October. Records show Bush performed duties in Alabama after that.
Other questions were only partially addressed by the records. Included was the Sept. 5, 1972, document suspending Bush's flight status because he failed to complete an annual physical.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said one of the reasons for releasing the records was to counter "innuendo" that Bush was hiding a medical problem. Bartlett said Bush skipped the examination simply because he'd decided to go to Alabama as part of the political campaign and wouldn't be serving as a pilot there.
Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth contributed to this story.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, would you please link to something which shows that as fact? Not some article by a 4 year old which states it with no basis. In fact, Kerry put many murderers in jail for good when he was an AG. NOW that is a known FACT. It seems to me that you just pull stuff out yer azz. - D2Bets<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Per your request:
KERRY'S RECORD
A TIME report by NANCY GIBBS and DOUGLAS WALLER , Monday, February 2, 2004
EXCERPT:
"He (Kerry) voted against mandatory sentences for drug dealers who sell to children; against the death penalty, even for cop killers; against restrictions on abortion. He favored higher gas taxes and raising the minimum wage; he supported providing disability payments to people whose disability was drug addiction or alcoholism—a position he defended in part because of the number of veterans still wrestling with substance-abuse problems."
Sorry to disppoint you D2, but reality is hard to take some times.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
KERRY'S RECORD
A TIME report by NANCY GIBBS and DOUGLAS WALLER , Monday, February 2, 2004
EXCERPT:
"He (Kerry) voted against mandatory sentences for drug dealers who sell to children; against the death penalty, even for cop killers; against restrictions on abortion. He favored higher gas taxes and raising the minimum wage; he supported providing disability payments to people whose disability was drug addiction or alcoholism—a position he defended in part because of the number of veterans still wrestling with substance-abuse problems."
Sorry to disppoint you D2, but reality is hard to take some times.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Typical Douglas Waller column.
The Oh Hell! Primary
The Dems and the press
By DOUGLAS WALLER
Monday, Feb. 16, 2004
One way to chart the changing fortunes of presidential candidates is to note their shifting relations with the press. Back in December, an easy-breezy Howard Dean whiled away hours with his press corps, playing (and routinely losing at) Oh Hell!, a card game he taught them. But by January, as his press contingent swelled to more than 50, his schedule grew tight, and the cards were packed away. Now, with his campaign flagging, Dean is once more cozying up to the media. He's dealing out the cards again and holding so many press conferences that reporters occasionally run out of questions.
Nearly the opposite has taken place on John Kerry's campaign trail, where one-on-one interviews with the candidate are more rationed. Before his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry had lots of time to be chummy, tossing footballs in the aisle of his "Real Deal Express" bus and often grabbing a vacant seat next to a reporter for an off-the-record chat. But now that he's the front runner and his press contingent has grown to some 55, the Senator makes fewer off-the-cuff remarks, and he doesn't even ride on the bus anymore. He's up front in a lead car, cocooned by his senior staff.
John Edwards' dealings with the press have been steadier. Outwardly the most charismatic and gregarious in the race, Edwards is closed and guarded with the media. Once a day he strolls through the press section of his plane and chats casually, but the exercise never lasts more than five minutes. More often he sits alone with headphones on, tuning out the press. Part of that may be simple fatigue. Once, during an interview, Edwards simply dozed off.
TIME magazine
The Oh Hell! Primary
The Dems and the press
By DOUGLAS WALLER
Monday, Feb. 16, 2004
One way to chart the changing fortunes of presidential candidates is to note their shifting relations with the press. Back in December, an easy-breezy Howard Dean whiled away hours with his press corps, playing (and routinely losing at) Oh Hell!, a card game he taught them. But by January, as his press contingent swelled to more than 50, his schedule grew tight, and the cards were packed away. Now, with his campaign flagging, Dean is once more cozying up to the media. He's dealing out the cards again and holding so many press conferences that reporters occasionally run out of questions.
Nearly the opposite has taken place on John Kerry's campaign trail, where one-on-one interviews with the candidate are more rationed. Before his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry had lots of time to be chummy, tossing footballs in the aisle of his "Real Deal Express" bus and often grabbing a vacant seat next to a reporter for an off-the-record chat. But now that he's the front runner and his press contingent has grown to some 55, the Senator makes fewer off-the-cuff remarks, and he doesn't even ride on the bus anymore. He's up front in a lead car, cocooned by his senior staff.
John Edwards' dealings with the press have been steadier. Outwardly the most charismatic and gregarious in the race, Edwards is closed and guarded with the media. Once a day he strolls through the press section of his plane and chats casually, but the exercise never lasts more than five minutes. More often he sits alone with headphones on, tuning out the press. Part of that may be simple fatigue. Once, during an interview, Edwards simply dozed off.
TIME magazine
washingtonpost.com
Time for Clarity
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B06
JOHN KERRY has become the favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination without a detailed or clarifying debate on many issues. This has happened in part because the leading Democratic candidates had relatively few differences on foreign or domestic policy; in part because their multi-candidate forums allowed little time for in-depth discussion; and in part because most have chosen to avoid direct attacks on each other since the primaries began last month. Most of the rhetoric has been directed at President Bush, and exit polls show that many voters have been more interested in which candidate has a better chance of unseating the incumbent than in where he might take the country. Mr. Kerry has surged to the forefront in part because of his biography and in part because he avoided the political misjudgments and verbal gaffes that caused voters to reject onetime front-runner Howard Dean. Now, with the nomination seemingly within his reach, the Massachusetts senator must begin to more fully explain where he stands on the major challenges facing the country.
That task is particularly important for Mr. Kerry because of his fuzziness on issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage. Some of the blur is caused by a record of political activity stretching back more than 30 years, including 19 in the Senate; in such circumstances it's not hard for opposition researchers to unearth contradictions. But even a more independent assessment of Mr. Kerry can lead to puzzlement. He says he opposes gay marriage, yet voted against the federal Defense of Marriage act. He voted for the North American Free Trade agreement yet now talks in protectionist terms, promising he will provide American workers "a fair playing field" while accusing Mr. Bush of "selling them out." Would a President Kerry seek additional free trade agreements in Latin America and elsewhere? What's his position on whether his own state should adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? So far, the answers aren't clear.
The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.
Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing. He would do better to offer a more honest accounting. His estimation of the cost of expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was simply wrong; and if President Bush was mistaken to think in 2003 that there was an urgent need to stop Saddam Hussein from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Kerry made the same error in 1998.
More important, Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq going forward -- and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make. In his last substantive speech on the subject, in December, the candidate called for replacing the U.S. occupation authority with a United Nations mission and recruiting NATO and other allied troops "so that we get the targets off the back of our soldiers." But there is no prospect of a U.N. administration; its envoys are instead negotiating the terms under which an Iraqi government will succeed the U.S. authority. The Bush administration has meanwhile invited NATO to share responsibility in Iraq, only to receive a cool response from Germany and France. Mr. Kerry spoke of "completing the tasks of security and democracy" in Iraq. But he hasn't yet offered a realistic plan for how he would do it or committed himself to the likely cost in American troop deployments and dollars. If he is to offer a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, he must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the United States now faces in Iraq -- without the fuzzing.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Time for Clarity
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B06
JOHN KERRY has become the favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination without a detailed or clarifying debate on many issues. This has happened in part because the leading Democratic candidates had relatively few differences on foreign or domestic policy; in part because their multi-candidate forums allowed little time for in-depth discussion; and in part because most have chosen to avoid direct attacks on each other since the primaries began last month. Most of the rhetoric has been directed at President Bush, and exit polls show that many voters have been more interested in which candidate has a better chance of unseating the incumbent than in where he might take the country. Mr. Kerry has surged to the forefront in part because of his biography and in part because he avoided the political misjudgments and verbal gaffes that caused voters to reject onetime front-runner Howard Dean. Now, with the nomination seemingly within his reach, the Massachusetts senator must begin to more fully explain where he stands on the major challenges facing the country.
That task is particularly important for Mr. Kerry because of his fuzziness on issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage. Some of the blur is caused by a record of political activity stretching back more than 30 years, including 19 in the Senate; in such circumstances it's not hard for opposition researchers to unearth contradictions. But even a more independent assessment of Mr. Kerry can lead to puzzlement. He says he opposes gay marriage, yet voted against the federal Defense of Marriage act. He voted for the North American Free Trade agreement yet now talks in protectionist terms, promising he will provide American workers "a fair playing field" while accusing Mr. Bush of "selling them out." Would a President Kerry seek additional free trade agreements in Latin America and elsewhere? What's his position on whether his own state should adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? So far, the answers aren't clear.
The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.
Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing. He would do better to offer a more honest accounting. His estimation of the cost of expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was simply wrong; and if President Bush was mistaken to think in 2003 that there was an urgent need to stop Saddam Hussein from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Kerry made the same error in 1998.
More important, Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq going forward -- and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make. In his last substantive speech on the subject, in December, the candidate called for replacing the U.S. occupation authority with a United Nations mission and recruiting NATO and other allied troops "so that we get the targets off the back of our soldiers." But there is no prospect of a U.N. administration; its envoys are instead negotiating the terms under which an Iraqi government will succeed the U.S. authority. The Bush administration has meanwhile invited NATO to share responsibility in Iraq, only to receive a cool response from Germany and France. Mr. Kerry spoke of "completing the tasks of security and democracy" in Iraq. But he hasn't yet offered a realistic plan for how he would do it or committed himself to the likely cost in American troop deployments and dollars. If he is to offer a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, he must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the United States now faces in Iraq -- without the fuzzing.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
