| Mainstream Media | Spin Unravelled! |
|---|
| Already, it begins ... the title suggests the article will show how the Economy and the Iraq War frame the debate. In actuality.... |
|
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 10/8/2004 12:00 PM | |
| ST. LOUIS - A lackluster unemployment report and fresh questions about President Bush (news - web sites)'s rationale for invading Iraq (news - web sites) frame the second face-to-face encounter Friday night between Bush and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites). | ... actually, what this reporter reports is that two technically neutral facts stated in such a way as to cast things in a negative light for George Bush, frame the debate. |
| Only the debate's moderator and the 15 to 20 people chosen to ask questions know what topics will be raised during the 90-minute town-hall session at Washington University. | |
| Bush goes into the debate on the defensive, but aides hope the more casual format will play to his strengths as a campaigner. Seeking to avoid a repeat of the scowls that contributed to negative reaction to his appearance in the first prime-time matchup, the president has watched tapes of the encounter. | The rhetoric is falling all over itself to cast George Bush as the underdog, here. |
| | |
| In the hours leading up to debate, Bush huddled with top aides at the home of a St. Louis Cardinals owner where he is staying — and went fishing in the rain to relax. | Couched so as to call up an image like the one in "... huddled masses ..." and he needed to relax. Poor George, we think. |
| | |
| Kerry, criticized at times for what some call a stiff and aloof manner, will try to build on the momentum he gained after favorable impressions of his performance at the Miami debate. The Massachusetts senator holds a slight lead nationally over Bush in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Thursday, reversing Bush's advantage from mid-September. | Now let's report the Kerry side: Kerry will build on his recent gains ... gains which are at best controversial. Three out of three of the most recent polls reported on PollingReport.com, an independent, non-partisan resource on trends in American public opinion, show Bush in the lead. |
| Although voters cite Iraq as a major concern, the economy consistently ranks at the top. The unemployment report — the last to be released before Election Day — provided fresh fodder for the campaigns. Unemployment held steady at 5.4 percent but job creation was lower than expected. | |
| Bush cast the addition of 96,000 jobs as proof his tax cuts have bolstered the jobs market and the economy overall while Kerry pointed out that the country has seen a net job loss under the Bush administration, a first since the Depression. | To quote a recent article: "He [Kerry] noted that net employment growth under Bush's presidency is only a couple of hundred jobs overall, and that more than 60,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost." He should make up his mind. Is there a net job gain, or a net job loss? The above quote acknowledges a gain of at least 60,200 jobs under President Bush ... in fact the bureau of labor statistics report the reporter is calling "lackluster" today reports: "Payroll employment has risen by 1.8 million since reaching a trough in August 2003, with about half of the gain (885,000) occur- ring in March, April, and May. Since May, payroll job gains have totaled 405,000. Employment increases in September occurred in financial activities, professional and technical services, and temporary help services." |
| | |
| "The president's policies are working to create jobs and keep the economy moving forward, but there is still more work to do," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Bush's campaign unveiled an advertisement for national cable networks that touts "nearly 2 million jobs in just over a year." | To say, as reported here: " ... touts 'nearly 2 million jobs in just over a year.' ... " implies it is not true [touts: To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way.]. I have quoted the Bureau of Labor Statistics report above. Why is the press reporting accurate information in such a way as to imply it isn't accurate? |
| Kerry called the number "disappointing" and contended that even the jobs that have been created under Bush pay less and offer fewer benefits than those that have been lost. "The president does not seem to understand how many middle-class families are being squeezed by falling incomes and spiraling health care, tuition and energy costs," he said in a statement. | Disappointment is the result of expectation. If one wants to call something "disappointing" one only has to claim expectations beyond the fact. This is self-serving semantics, what Daniel Boorstin calls a pseudo-event; expectations were touted (there, see how that word works), in order to claim disappointment! |
Hard sparring over Iraq on the eve of the debate also offered a preview of the discussion to come. | |
| A final report from the chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq concluded that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, had no programs to make either them or nuclear bombs, and had little ability — or immediate plans — to revive those programs. | The report summary linked by CBS (I know, very iffy source....) also opens its key findings with the following statement: "Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." ... point being: he had capabilities ("little ability"), and he had plans (none immediate); little and not immediate because he'd been beseiged with sanctions and inspectors for the past how many years. A dangerous man, and a threat to the free world, all (Bush and Kerry both included) agree. What's the issue? |
| The findings contradicted Bush's main rationale for going to war, and Kerry charged the commander in chief with purposely exaggerating the evidence in the run-up to the invasion. "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact," Kerry said Thursday in Colorado. | The rationale for the war was available and known facts and intelligence that both Bush and Kerry read and believed. Now is after the fact ... now we learn the intelligence was wrong; again, what's the issue? Kerry's just name-calling! |
| Bush not only insisted that going to war was right, but turned the tables to say Kerry was the one not being candid. | We've just reminded the reader above that both Bush and Kerry believed it was right ... the reporter, apparently, has been sucked in by Kerry's name-calling ... lock, stock and barrel. |
| The president dredged up Kerry remarks from two years ago in which the Massachusetts senator talked about the threat Saddam would pose if he possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?" Bush said at a campaign rally in Wisconsin. | Note the reporter's choice of the word "dredged up" is intended to imply the remarks are irrelevant ... they are precisely relevant, and accurate. Why is the press reporting Bush's use of relevant facts while at the same time trying, by innuendo, to make readers think those facts are irrelevant? |
| Kerry's campaign accused Bush of taking Kerry's quotes out of context to suit his own political purposes. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer noted that Bush failed to mention that, in his 2002 remarks, Kerry also cautioned against a rush to war and questioned whether the Bush administration was relying on the right reasons to threaten invasion. | This is the pot calling the kettle black ... outrageous! Kerry's favorite saw: "Rushed into war without a plan to win the peace" ... thousands of Americans dead on 9/11 and we should not act decisively, where the facts are in and the course clear, we should hem and haw and ask ourselves: "What if we win?" It just doesn't sound real! |
Their third and final debate is Oct. 13 in Tempe, Ariz., and will focus on economic and domestic policy. |