Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Why do they lie all the time? Well, to steal a line from Animal House, "It's gotta work better than the truth!"

What Kerry Needs To Do.

To cope with the sloppy work the press has by and large been doing for the last five years (yes, I know "sloppy" is a VERY gentle adjective, and "work" may not be correct at all), this is what Kerry needs to say at his next speech.

"Mr. Cheney says that I endorsed a 50-cent tax increase. That is a LIE, and Mr. Cheney KNOWS it's a LIE. He says that I have promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts in my first 100 days. That is a LIE, and Mr. Cheney KNOWS it's a lie.

"The Bush campaign is running an ad that says I'll scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists. That is also a LIE. The Bush campaign knows perfectly well that it's a LIE.

"George W. Bush approved all of these lies, and a whole lot just like them. If you go back through this campaign, back through the record of this corrupt Administration, and back through the last
campaign, you'll see that this is what they do. They've been lying all along. With George W. Bush's approval.

"Next question, please.

That probably wouldn't work. When Bob Dole demanded that GHW Bush "stop lying about my record", he was thenceforth the mean and uncivil candidate. That was the beginning of the end for Dole that year.

Apparently the courtiers in the WH press get the vapors if you call someone a liar, even if his dishonesty is blatant and beyond dispute.

I agree with Name. Why cann't the dems just keep asking Bush why do you lie to the American people?

When Kerry was caught saying the Bush people lie on an open mike he should have simply said the truth hurts doesn't it.

What would be nice is if one of the WH press corps gave him a Ten Commandments question, asking: "Mr President, given your strong Christian values, why is your campaign full of lies and general nastiness?"

One thing that really bothers me about the way both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have framed the issues at hand is the unspoken assumption of equivalence wrt the range of options available to each prospective future administration. The Republicans have effective control of all three branches of government, and have been able to do almost whatever they please. Thanks to legislative redistricting, the same will almost certainly be true after the election.

In contrast, the Kerry administration will be walking a tightrope on every issue. That is, not only will Kerry be faced with the daunting task of rectifying the mistakes of an administration that's run amok for four years, but that he'll have to do so in a political environment that greatly limits his options.

The Bush campaign's contrived impression that in November we'll be electing a king rather than a president is an unspoken lie that's every bit as damaging as the misstatements of fact critiqued in Milbank's article. Somehow, Kerry needs to communicate to the electorate that not only does he not have some sinister, liberal agenda, but that even if he did, he fully understands that it would be politically impossible to implement until Democrats regain control of Congress and, given the fractuousness of the Democratic Party, probably not even then. Near term-- i.e., for at least Kerry's first four years-- his government will be one of the center: mainstream Democrats and grownup Republicans. Policies will be practical, not ideological. There is simply no alternative.

Some time ago I read an analysis of the campaign that predicted these tactics by the GOP. They have a candidate who simply can't run on his record as most incumbents do. He has high negatives and they are increasing. The GOP's best hope in the general election is to "keep in the vote" by increasing Kerry's negatives to a similar level. The idea is to have the undecideds and independents conclude that "there is no real choice" and that "one is as bad as the other". The GOP wants these swing voters to stay home and not vote for either candidate. This would make the election essentially between the core voters of the two parties and the GOP core historically has a much better turnout record. If this is their best shot they really must have their backs to the wall.

I am uncertain just how to counter this tactic but increasing the negative tone of the Kerry campaign would seem to be counter-productive. Perhaps he should run as the pseudo-incumbent by maintaining a "high tone", emphasizing his past performance in government, his military record and the significant differences between his positions and those of the President. Perhaps the effective counter message is that there is a real choice to be made in November...

IMO, it's difficult to overstate the importance of the right's successful campaign to villify the Clinton administration in limiting the Democrats' options at this point. The first item I ever read on this site was Brad's primal scream (which was entirely justified) over the horror of watching the Bush administration systematically dismantle the Clinton administration's painstakingly-developed economic policies in favor of an incredibly destructive, propeller-beanie approach based on the twin pillars of blind ideological fervor and willfully self-imposed ignorance. Thanks to Brad and his Clinton-era compadres, the Democrats have a track record of rescuing the economy from years of Republican abuse, but the Republicans have managed to trump what ought to be an insurmontable advantage for the Democrats by carefully crafting their alternative history of the Clinton era. The myth of Republican competence exists, and it certainly isn't by accident.

It drives me up the wall that there could be any political downside to Kerry's invoking the record of the Clinton years in explaining why Bush must go, but there is. Welcome to 21st century America...

oh, yeah...

Confidence Men
Why the myth of Republican competence persists,
despite all the evidence to the contrary.

By Joshua Micah Marshall. Written in september 2002, worth rereading now.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.marshall.html

They key here is that some one (and preferably, more than one) other than Kerry should publicly call the president and his people a liar. That will allow the candidate to remain above the fray while raising the issue firmly and credibly.

Third party validation is critical in this situation. Remarks like this from Kerry would decrease their value and could hurt him because he would be seen as personally benefitting by saying it. Other Democrats with credentials on the specific issues involved (taxes, etc.) would be a better way to do this but would still be seen as having a personal interest. This is why John McCain's criticisms have been so biting and so hard for the Republican leadership to ignore.

Regrettably, there are few John McCains. So the Kerry campiagn needs to find an apolitical academic or two who is willing to analyze the Bush/Cheney statements and commercials and credibly point out this administration's problem with the truth.

I agree that someone other than Kerry should do it. I would further encourage the surrogates to use statements about how Bush's negative ads have been blatantly false to inoculate voters against future negative ads from the Bush campaign. To counteract this stuff, we need to set the story (as Milbank and VandeHei begin to do) that all of their negative ads have been knowingly false, and therefore upon seeing any future negative ad, a voter's first assumption should be that it is also a lie.

(It really says a lot that after all the gleeful talk about how it would be great to run against a Senator because his long voting record would have plenty of gotchas, they still have to lie about it to come up with attack ads.)

I agree with the last two comments. Here is a running start from Al Gore:

"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/index.html

As readers of blogs, it's also important that we do OUR part, by sending on stories and links of Bush's deceptions to our friends who are less informed.

For Kerry to call Bush a liar directly would be highly detrimental to his campaign. He is right not to, even though it would be so satisfying to hear. The only people who will want to hear that from him are those of us who believe it already, so what's the point?

He is also following a very wise maxim in politics. "Don't attack the guy who is committing suicide." For Kerry this means focusing on the positive.

If you are interested in the best analyses of the poll numbers (to the extent they are relevant) see

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

Which is a blog as thoughtful as this one.

For Kerry to call Bush a liar directly would be highly detrimental to his campaign.

True, however "Mr. Cheney says that I endorsed a 50-cent tax increase. That is a LIE, and Mr. Cheney KNOWS it's a LIE. He says that I have promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts in my first 100 days. That is a LIE, and Mr. Cheney KNOWS it's a lie.

this is different. And if Kerry can't say it then let Gore, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Nader say it for him.

80% of the Bush advertising has been negative so far. The man has nothing to stand on and needs to be called out.

We've already seen how the Bushies will respond to truthtellers. Al Gore's speech was great and right on target, so now Al Gore is "crazy."

I agree with other commenters that Gore's speach was excellent and very useful to Kerry. I would add one point, the contrast with Gore makes Kerry look calm, measured, moderate etc.

In fact, Gore is well to the right of Kerry and is measured moderate and as calm as any well informed decent American can be given who is in the White House.

still prominent Democrat Bush bashers who are definitely independent from Kerry (as Gore is) are useful because they allow the reporters who feel the need for balance to say "While Gore's tone and manner were unfortunately extreme, there is much merit to his criticism of Bush" or even "I reject extremists like Bush and Gore in favor of a moderate --Kerry (that's for the balanced op eds and editorials notably it is a paraphrase of the latest ? lead editorial in the WAPO).

I'd also say that what Kerry needs is a vice presidential candidate. It is the VP candidate who does the attacking. Also the veepstakes are distracting. How about Kerry names his vp candidate soon ? This would put pressure on Bush to decide yes or no on Cheney and he will probably go for yes. Later, if it is clear that Bush-Cheney has no hope he might pull a surprise.

A problem with the VP now approach is that disappointed VP hopefuls might stop working for Kerry. Sad to say, there are VP hopefuls, and their integrity is, to quote cactus Jack probably worth about as much as a bucket of warm s*it
(the usual letter put in the place of the asterisk is a bowdlerisation).

The right wing echo machine will only be effective if there is no left wing counterbalance. In 2000, the left followed the Nadar line of no difference between Bush and Gore. What Kerry really needs is for the left to bash Bush 24/7 so Kerry can campaign as a moderate. The left needs to make it clear that a second Bush is unacceptable, in exactly the same way that the Bush supporters made clear that any count of all the votes in Florida that would proclaim Gore the winner would be unacceptable. If the electorate and the press know that a Bush re-election would result in massive demonstrations, then they will not allow him to lie his way through the campaign.

The Rove/Bush machine must be negative. They have nothing positive to say about themselves and they know it.

As Krugman puts it:

"Beyond the routine mendacity..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

Of course, it would help if the article cited was factual, rather than riddled with misstatements.

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/Read.aspx?ID=2716

Of course, it would help if the article cited was factual, rather than riddled with misstatements.

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/Read.aspx?ID=2716