From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:58:34 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rwojcik@snake.tc-suns writes:
+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
+>:hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
+>:The biased media calls any kind of Bush attack sleaze politics and praises
+>:the Clinton campaign.  That's not going to stop Bush.
+>	The media are covering every COUNTERATTACK by Clinton more than
+>the attacks by Bush lately. Although this does show that Clinton won't
+>make the mistakes of waiting too long to be defined by his opposition,
+>this coverage is stifling Bush from making any substantive criticisms of
+>Clinton.
+
+You are being too charitable to Bush.  He could be out there with his own plans
+and attacks, but he really hasn't done anything except react to Clinton. If you
+strip away his reactions to the Clinton challenge, there isn't much there
+ to report
+on.  So far, Clinton has been able to define Bush, rather than the
+ other way around.
+I would agree that the media has tended to favor Clinton over the past two
+ months,
+but they always try to turn an election into a horse race. 
+ Now that Clinton is the
+perceived leader, you are seeing more attempts to put Bush in a favorable
+ light.
+Expect more "He's gotten a raw deal from the press" press coverage in the
+ future, 
+added to Bush's expected post-convention "bump" in the polls.  
	I might be granting too much charity to Bush, but it is true
that Clinton has been defining Bush rather than vice versa. But compare
the pre-DNC stories to the pre-RNC stories, and see what you get in the
Clinton stories and the Bush stories. I don't think there will be that
much of an effort to put Bush in a favorable light; listen to all the
commenators at the RNC and try to remember what was said in New York a
month ago. The media will just as well let Bush cut his own throat
before even attacking Clinton.

+>	The problem is that Bush will NEVER get the positive coverage
+>that the Clinton-Gore camp is receiving...
+
+I disagree.  All Bush needs is one halfway decent event--a dramatic
+ improvement in
+a government economic indicator, a successful military venture, a flashy
+ diplomatic
+resolution (e.g. of the Bosnian situation)--and the press will be all over
+ the place
+with "Has the Clinton juggernaut been stopped?" stories.  The last thing
+ the media
+wants is a cakewalk election.  Campaign season doesn't really get under way
+ until
+Labor Day, and Bush gets to wear the cherished mantle of the underdog
+ going into the
+election.  He is far behind now, but momentum now begins to build in his
+ direction.
+Don't be surprised if it's neck and neck on November 7.
	Agree with you that November 7 will be a very close finish, but
I don't even think one dramatic improvement in the economic indicators
will help him politically in the media. Every "positive" in economics
I've heard has always been damped out by the economics reporter.
Currently the questions abut whether we'll attack Iraq is a political
ploy puts doubts that a military venture will be perceived solely as
that and not a means to get a few thousand more votes in November. As
for the diplomatic resolution, we HAD ONE recently: the granting of US
loans to Israel. The new prime minister of Israel (Rabin I think) was in
the US for the approval. The only problem is that the news was dominated
by the New York Post story about Bush's alleged infidelity. The question
was popped up at Kennebunkport in the presence of Rabin! Bush is going
to have to do a lot of things on his own and start getting on the
offensive and doing something to help his campaign.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?