When an Explosive Charge Is Not Handled With Care

Published on September 9, 2004 By blogic In Politics

From the New York Times:

Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the nation was more likely to "get hit again" by terrorists if John Kerry was elected was one of the toughest attacks launched in a presidential election in 40 years.

But Mr. Cheney's latest assault on Mr. Kerry, which startled Democrats and Republicans alike, raised a central question even in this notably ferocious presidential campaign: Is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?

As the election approaches, the attacks grow more bitter, from both sides. Personally, I think the Bush aligned forces have made the more specious claims so far -- the anti-Kerry Swift Vet claims have been large disproved by nearly every major newspaper in the country -- but I don't think there's anything inherently Republican or Democratic about baseless vicious campaign techniques. Next election, or next week, Democrats may make the more bogus charge.

The media finds it easier -- and more importantly, cheaper and thus more profitable -- to turn every charge into a "he says, she says" story. Voters say they don't like negative ads, but people assume that where there's smoke, there's fire; and studies have repeatedly shown people respond strongly to negative campaigning. Analyses of the substance of the attacks are buried deep inside the newspapers, while the inflamatory rhetoric of the charges are put above the fold, on the front page.

As long as this tactic works, candidates and their surrogates are not going to avoid outrageous charges. Such avoidance would be irrational, since it would just lead to them being defeated by candidates who have no such scruples. The way to take the air out of these smear tactics is to focus on the truth of claims, and to quickly dismiss stories that are contradicted by the evidence. That should be on the front page. Candidates whose surrogates repeatedly resurrect already disproved charges should be criticized. Repeatedly. On the front page.

Comments

ShoZan

on Sep 09, 2004

We need to stop those Political Campaigners from coming out their perspective holes every four years, let the candidate handle his or her own campaign without a Political Campaigner.

Daiwa

on Sep 09, 2004

There's a danger we'll get hit whichever candidate gets elected, but I agree the risk is greater if it ends up being Kerry, whose election would embolden the terrorists in my opinion. I think Cheney's assessment happens to be correct, sadly. I wish such considerations were not a factor in our election calculus, but reality bites.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ShoZan

on Sep 10, 2004

Still find it funny that he never said Kerry's name, but everybody assumes he did, does that not show that the average person who thought he was talking about Kerry that, hmmm Kerry may not be the right choice, if Cheney only stated that they make the right choice, heck somebody smarter should have ran with it and said Cheney is against Bush, but I guess it shows deep down everybody feels safer with Bush than Kerry, hiliarious

Daiwa

on Sep 10, 2004

heck somebody smarter should have ran with it and said Cheney is against Bush, but I guess it shows deep down everybody feels safer with Bush than Kerry, hiliarious

You are quite right about the prism of our assumptions sometimes distorting the image, ShoZan - good call.

And I've listened to the full quote - it wasn't an "attack" at all. He was speaking calmly, in measured tones about his belief that if we choose the wrong candidate there is a danger we'll be attacked again. He did not say if we choose the wrong candidate we will be attacked again. This kind of distinction, small but signficant, is the kind of distinction blogic just flies right past all the time, God love him.

I saw a clip of Al Bore doing his max-out serious best to melodramatize the remark today and somehow twist it into a high crime, or at least a misdemeanor, calling it the equivalent of extortion. These guys are absolutely panicked and are completely losing it. They don't seem to realize that there are at least 49.9%+ of voters out there who voted for Bush in 2000 - it simply defies logic and reason, not to mention the facts, to characterize Bush as the Devil incarnate the way they do. The prism of their hatred completely blinds them to what they are doing, and insulting half the population, over and over and over again, is not going to win them an election.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa

on Sep 10, 2004

Forgive me, blogic - in this case I need to recant slightly. You did have the "more likely" in there, which is a fair representation of his remarks. As I said before, I think Cheney's assessment is a fair hypothesis and not a dirty trick.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!