We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Paul Geary
David Rogers
By Paul Geary
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The New Editor
For all the comparisons to the razor-thin 2000 election, one thing will certainly be different
about 2004: The final two weeks of this campaign will be white hot rhetorically. John
Kerry's campaign will make sure of that.
Many forget that most of the vitriol in the 2000 campaign occurred after the election while
Florida attempted to recount ad nauseum. Up to election day, that campaign was actually
rather civilized in comparison to this year's contest.
Some in the media have begun to point this out, such as the New York Times' David Brooks.
But of course, John Kerry and running mate John Edwards have been throwing bombs for
months, while a somnambulant media failed to expend much ink on Kerry's fairly obvious
strategy to convince the nation that the president is fundamentally dishonest and has sent us
to a war predicated on a lie.
Can any of us remember a campaign where the incumbent's integrity was questioned so
boldly absent any clear evidence of dishonesty?
John Kerry's reputation as a hard campaigner is well-deserved; as Brooks points out it was a
primary reason for his having been nominated by the Democrats. In close campaigns
though, Kerry does not limit himself to tough rhetoric against his opponent's policies or
philosophies. When the going gets tough, John Kerry impugns.
In 1990 Kerry's campaign aired advertisements that questioned the business dealings of his
opponent Jim Rappaport, replete with a video of Rappaport winking at the camera. In that
campaign, Rappaport's cell phone at one point was intercepted and Rappaport's use of an
expletive about Kerry in a private telephone conversation was reported in the media. (The
interceptor was not identified.)
Even in victory, Kerry's modus was to impugn his opponent's reputation. In his speech to
supporters on election night, he said, "Massachusetts voters were able to see through the
rhetoric and advertising to the record and reality. Today in Massachusetts we have learned
that money can't buy you a United States Senate seat."
Word among local Democrats was that Kerry got a talking-to from none other than Ted
Kennedy for his lack of graciousness in that speech. (One hopes that's true.)
Kerry faced the affable William Weld in 1996 and his strategy had to be different from that
used against the often abrasive Rappaport. For most of the year the campaign was a national
model; columnists pointed to Massachusetts as an example of a campaign with two
principled candidates running spirited campaigns and having intelligent debates (there were
eight).
Partaking in a remarkably clean campaign and losing was not an option. With the polls even,
Kerry began comparing and associating Weld with Newt Gingrich -- a pariah in
Massachusetts. (Interestingly, in 1990 a Rappaport advertisement comparing Kerry to
Michael Dukakis was criticized in Time and other national venues as an example of dirty
politics. Kerry's comparison of Weld to Gingrich drew no such attention.)
Kerry also questioned Weld's ethics in a case where the Massachusetts Republican party
raised money by promising access to Weld's administration, though no assertion was offered
that the promises were made with the consent or knowledge of the administration. At the
end of the campaign, Kerry broke the agreed-upon spending cap of $5 million by more than
$400,000. Weld chose no longer to seek elected office.
In 1990 the result was merely that yet another Republican would not represent
Massachusetts in the Senate. In 1996, the cost was an election that could have been a new
standard for candidates to aspire, to perhaps reverse the trend of cynicism in our
democracy.
Apparently unknown to Kerry, the impugn strategy has consequences that transcend his
career this time.
Already we're seeing charges of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement as well as
lawsuits. Even if the president wins, there will be a substantial number of people for whom
the results will be presumed to be engineered. (You've seen "Re-defeat Bush" bumper
stickers, I'm sure.) There is real potential longterm damage to the health of the republic if
the citizenry does not trust the voting process.
The divisions in the nation between conservatives and liberals, "red states" and "blue states,"
will continue to widen.
And charges that the president is lying about the Iraq war -- I don't think most people fully
appreciate how breathtaking this charge is -- will have real impact on troop morale, on how
Congress votes on future appropriations for the war and the defense department, and on the
administration's ability to pursue diplomacy.
Make no mistake about it -- the Kerry is actively fanning the flames of protest and discontent
about the war. His campaign may not have printed the "Nobody died when Clinton lied"
signs, but that's what his campaign wants you to think. How many times has Kerry used the
term "misled" or "mislead" in the debates and on the stump? John Edwards went so far as to
say the president has done a "con job" on the nation. That's all part of the grand strategy.
The ratcheting up of the rhetoric -- the impugn strategy -- has been Kerry's method in every
close campaign he's been in. This one will get uglier in the next two weeks.
Paul Geary is a contributing editor for The New Editor.