January 16, 2004

Moans and groans

iowa.jpg

One of the things that annoys me most about campaign coverage is the emphasis reporters place on a candidate's changing his position. Has the reporter never done so himself? How many of us make decisions based on insufficient data, only to reconsider, modify, or even reverse said decision when the facts warrant it?

Gephardt is attacking Dean in Iowa with ads saying Dean once (in 1993!) called Medicare "one of the worst federal programs ever." Well, as far as bureaucratic complexity and confusion goes, it may well be (speaking as one who's had to try to figure out the bills), and that's what Dean meant. Dean has gone from thinking NAFTA was good to thinking it needs revisiting; how many other programs have needed fine-tuning after their initial implementation? A few, I'd imagine.

Clark was attacked yesterday by the Republicans (who based their attack on a report by Drudge, an unreliable source if ever there was one) for ostensibly switching from supporting the war in Iraq to opposing it. That report has been thoroughly debunked by the folks at Campaign Desk, a brand new and very welcome media watcher from the Columbia Journalism Review. It's so new that all its current balloon-puncturing stories are still on the front page, so just scroll a bit to find its analysis of the Drudge misrepresentations and the RNC's pickup and broadcast of same. Clark did not say he supported the war; what he said, as the Washington Post reported, was that "force might be necessary, [but that] it should be a last resort."

President Bush, on the other hand, doesn't change his mind; he just obfuscates. As Al Gore put it yesterday, "Indeed, they often use Orwellian language to disguise their true purposes. For example, a policy that opens national forests to destructive logging of old-growth trees is labeled Healthy Forest Initiative. A policy that vastly increases the amount of pollution that can be dumped into the air is called the Clear Skies Initiative."

Posted by Linkmeister at January 16, 2004 10:55 AM
Comments

They do that because they have nothing else to get them on.... Howard Dean kept his budget balanced. General Clark got the genocidal maniac he was after. And the senators got through thier careers without Gary Hart-like scandals.

Personally, I like their flexibility. A lot of what they claim are "gotchas" on Dean lately are his words twisted. He didn't say Bush knew about 9/11... he said that holding back the report is making prople speculate crazy theories, one that he heard someone say was that Bush knew. And "Osama getting a fair trial", he said "it's not up to be to decide his guilt, it's up to a jury....

You know, like the kind of Democracy we're trying to promote?

And Clark being for the war than against it... didn't we all have moments on the fence with this one? Especially when the administration swears all sorts of things, and we find out later it isn't so?

Wait till the get Bush in debate about all of his failed economic policies...

Posted by: -=e=- at January 16, 2004 12:49 PM

Yup, no matter which one gets there (except Lieberman, who might nod sagely in agreement).

Posted by: Linkmeister at January 16, 2004 12:54 PM