Codes of Conduct
This weekends symposium question posed by Mr Hewitt:
During each of the three Kerry/Bush debates it was claimed by the MSM that Kerry was victorious. But in each of them, Kerry's victory was pyrrhic. Admittedly the debates gave Kerry the national exposure badly needed after having run from the press since August. However, in each of the debates, he laid a great big steaming one on the floor to stink up his campaign for the next week.
Now working hard to support the MSM spinners is the everpresent loony left. From beneath their tin-foil hats they believe that GW is the omnipresent incarnation of the anti-Christ. They will buy hook line and sinker anything that can be said which has a chance of either helping any opponent of Bush, be he Saddam, OBL, or Kerry or hurting GW directly. However, from an election standpoint, that crowd is irrelevant because their vote isn't up for grabs.
We are now just over 2 weeks out from the election. That is short enough a time period that the stink of this affair may in fact last long enough to make a difference, especially if the focus is kept not on the SSM/Gay rights issue (on which there isn't much distinction between the two candidates position) and firmly on the character issue.
What this issue displays is poor character. This is demonstrated here by his poor judgment (if not policy) in his remarks. In the mind of America, from popular fiction if not in actual fact, even in the war of the mob vs the law, families are off limits. A code of conduct should be obeyed. A win at all costs attitude is not how real Americans play the game. In a war of public opinion, maintaining the appearance of fair play is even more important than playing fair. If Kerry can be shown to have tossed that to the winds, it will be damaging indeed. Statements like this as well may come to haunt his campaign.
If his mother in fact did tell him to remember "integrity, integrity, integrity" then now she is either spinning in her resting place or she, like her son, has a different understanding of the meaning of the word integrity than the rest of us peons. Just as Kerry seems to when he says the word, "respect" or "nuance".
UPDATE: Welcome to the Symposium. Next on Hugh's list is the Doonbloggle.
How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?"
During each of the three Kerry/Bush debates it was claimed by the MSM that Kerry was victorious. But in each of them, Kerry's victory was pyrrhic. Admittedly the debates gave Kerry the national exposure badly needed after having run from the press since August. However, in each of the debates, he laid a great big steaming one on the floor to stink up his campaign for the next week.
- In the first debate we had the "global test" which led "elsewhere".
- In the second debate, he defended Edwards history as a trial lawyer by informing us that "I'm a lawyer too". Admittedly this however this is not a gaffe of as great a magnitude. That surely can't go over well with the "unwashed millions", err... undecided voters, especially those that (like myself) who weren't previously aware of that. And let's face it, lawyers aren't the most loved profession in our fair land.
- Finally in Wednesday's debate, we get some gratuitous remarks re' Mary Cheney. The great spinning machine which is our MSM is trying to play it down.
Now working hard to support the MSM spinners is the everpresent loony left. From beneath their tin-foil hats they believe that GW is the omnipresent incarnation of the anti-Christ. They will buy hook line and sinker anything that can be said which has a chance of either helping any opponent of Bush, be he Saddam, OBL, or Kerry or hurting GW directly. However, from an election standpoint, that crowd is irrelevant because their vote isn't up for grabs.
We are now just over 2 weeks out from the election. That is short enough a time period that the stink of this affair may in fact last long enough to make a difference, especially if the focus is kept not on the SSM/Gay rights issue (on which there isn't much distinction between the two candidates position) and firmly on the character issue.
What this issue displays is poor character. This is demonstrated here by his poor judgment (if not policy) in his remarks. In the mind of America, from popular fiction if not in actual fact, even in the war of the mob vs the law, families are off limits. A code of conduct should be obeyed. A win at all costs attitude is not how real Americans play the game. In a war of public opinion, maintaining the appearance of fair play is even more important than playing fair. If Kerry can be shown to have tossed that to the winds, it will be damaging indeed. Statements like this as well may come to haunt his campaign.
If his mother in fact did tell him to remember "integrity, integrity, integrity" then now she is either spinning in her resting place or she, like her son, has a different understanding of the meaning of the word integrity than the rest of us peons. Just as Kerry seems to when he says the word, "respect" or "nuance".
UPDATE: Welcome to the Symposium. Next on Hugh's list is the Doonbloggle.
posted by Mark at 10/15/2004 05:15:00 PM
<< Home