Afraid of Howard Dean, Republicans, Media, and Some Democrats Use Character Assassination.

Character assassination is all the Republicans have, and too bad the media and even some (I guess) Democrats are joining in blasting other Democrats. Here's my effort to put a negative Washington Post article into context.

Character assassination is all the Republicans have, and too bad the media and even some (I guess) Democrats are joining in blasting other Democrats. Here's my effort to put a negative Washington Post article into context.

Remember, the Post prefers beltway boys. Senators and the like who sup with Post reporters and editors in ritzy Georgetown salons and have them by for a spot of tea. The Post is hostile to people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Howard Dean who they see as barbaric outsiders from the hinterland.

The Washington Post printed a recent letter to the editor - on the back page of its opinion section: "Unseen Dean" Washington Post, Free for All, Saturday, August 30, 2003; Page A27

I was thrilled to learn that 4,500 people turned up Saturday afternoon to see and hear Howard Dean in Falls Church. A huge crowd cheered the candidate, who leads in Iowa and New Hampshire and in several national polls. I bought your Sunday edition to read about the rally. My money was wasted.

Your paper didn't see fit to devote an inch of column space to the event. So much for the myth of the liberal media. The Democratic insurgent-turned-front-runner has a massive rally in your paper's backyard and, other than an op-ed column, which ran on Monday, doesn't even get a nod.

-- Miles Gibson

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/letterstotheeditor

Apparently the Post's policy is to avoid news which shows 1,000s of people peaceably assembling to question Bush. They opt against giving any advance notice or ample coverage to the massive anti-Bush rallies in Washington, DC. After refusing to cover Dean's rally, the Post managed to "report" false, misleading tripe and uninformed opinion as "news."

Dean Invites More Scrutiny By Switching Key Stances

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 30, 2003; Page A01

Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign's straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves.

As he transitions from insurgent to the man to beat in the Democratic primary, Dean is modifying or switching his positions on several political issues. In recent weeks, Dean, the former Vermont governor, has softened his support for lifting the trade embargo on Cuba - an important issue in voter-rich Florida - and suggested he might opt out of the public campaign finance system he endorsed weeks earlier.

Dean also has backed off his support for raising the age at which senior citizens can collect their full Social Security benefits, a change that would save the government money by trimming monthly payments to thousands of older Americans. Dean initially denied he ever supported raising the retirement age, but later admitted he did.

Complete article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2314-2003Aug29.html

To be accurate, Dean never supported "raising the age at which senior citizens can collect their full Social Security benefits," so he never had to "back off" any such stand. VandeHei is either too lazy to do his homework, or else he is just lying about Dean who once allowed we might have to consider increasing the age of retirement, but only as a last resort if necessary to save Social Security.

Dean concluded that approach was not needed, and advocates increasing the cap on income subject to FICA tax instead. Although Vandehei concedes that, he dishonestly implies Dean supports cutting benefits, something Dean never did. This is just a plain lie: "As governor, Dean endorsed raising the retirement age to 70 as a prudent step toward balancing the budget." Dean never made any such "endorsement."

The Washington Post is misleading its readers claiming Dean once supported something he never did, and then going back for another cheap shot accusing Dean of flip-flopping. That's a double deception worse than double jeopardy.

"Softening" support for ending the Cuba embargo is a vague, untrue attack the Post makes to support its contention Dean is somehow lying to voters. At the end of the article, VandeHei admits Dean is reacting to "Fidel Castro's recent crackdown on dissidents in Cuba [which] makes it impossible for the embargo to be lifted anytime soon."

Vandehei misrepresents this principled stand as "nothing more than [Dean's] pragmatism," and even puts these cynical words in Dean's mouth - but not in quotation marks - all without a quote or plausible explanation. Although VandeHei concedes "Dean said he has no qualms about 'changing his mind' when facts warrant it," VandeHei claims "Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign's straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves."

Clearly its the Post and VandeHei who are using trick pitches. "Dean said what differentiates him is his willingness to speak his mind, change his positions and admit when he's wrong. 'They won't beat me by claiming I switched positions,' Dean said in an interview Wednesday. 'They better come out with better ideas.'" So should the Washington Post.

These regrettable lapses of journalistic standards have become all too familiar to Washington Post readers who watched Post writers like Cici Connally and "Stenographer Sue" Schmidt savagely attack Democrats with malicious gossip, partisan leaks, and other mistruths. So much for the Katherine Graham legacy.

Please write to the Washington Post and express your support for accurate news reporting and reasonable journalistic standards:

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

E-mail the Post's Ombudsman, Michael Getler at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.

Use this form to send letters to the editor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

http://www.mikehersh.com