10/10/2004 10:28:04 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

Mark Halperin was on ABC this morning with George Stephanopolous. He skillfully avoided explaining that memo, which was especially impressive considering no one asked him about it. I would love for him to explain this

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

So when Democrats do it (mistakes, distortion, etc.), I'm gathering, it is simply central to their nature, and not in an effort to win? Is this evidence of deficient character, or a further argument that character does not matter when it bears on the right side winning?

What is most amusing, save if this whole kerfuffle did not stem from the political director for ABC News, is that Mr. Halperin is so mired in the rightness of his leftist ideology that he feels that any attacks on Kerry are somehow taken out of context.

John Kerry is his own worst enemy. He says what he says concerned only for the moment, unable to calculate the consequences of his words beyond the daily media cycle. He is the most consistent liberal in the US Senate, but avoids his legacy there like it's a rabid skunk. When his votes are brought to light, people like Halperin feel that it's somehow unfair. As long as Kerry says the right things now, in their view, he should not be held accountable for the disasters his votes would have caused had his position been the prevailing one. If what he says now is not received well, then it's the public's fault, not John Kerry's.

The reality of Halperin's position is that you should like John Kerry despite himself.

Unless, of course, you're one has one of those who has that ridiculous "Wage Peace" signs in your front yard. You're either horribly uninformed about the nature of man and lessons of history, or are completely informed and despise the existence of the United States of America as we currently know it.

If I made my living burglarizing houses, I'd certainly know which one's weren't armed. Telegraphing weakness is a recipe for further, unmitigated disaster. This principal holds true on the micro and macro level.

Mark Halperin's view is one not of journalistic integrity committed to objective reporting, but one of partisan manipulation. He is mad that his candidate is not winning, and comes to the only conclusion his mind can fathom - somehow his candidate is being treated unfairly, and it's Bush's fault. Maybe, just maybe, it's John Kerry's fault, for voting against strengthening freedom at every opportunity and pursuing such a substance-free and "nuanced" communications style.

Sometimes reality is just a hard thing to swallow.

|||109742352423680647|||Sure