New Rethug Frame for Kerry?

[SuzyC]

First let me say that I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before. If it has, I haven't seen it, but I am only an occassional visitor here.

I think I am starting to see a new (?) frame being used for JK, that of 'loser'. It is like the rightwing wants us to associate JK with losing. On what do I base this disquieting conjecture? Looky here http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rory_oco_060927_the_evolution_of_pol.htm
for this sentence: 'Not surprisingly, they agreed that LOSING candidate John Kerry made a lot of mistakes.' (capitalization mine)

And then earlier I saw this one at http://www.pakistantimes.net/2006/09/27/top7.htm
"Senator John Kerry, the UNSUCCESSFUL Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential election"
as well as '...and the party’s DEFEATED 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry,' at
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/dems-s27.shtml

Oh, and that is not all. Here it is again, ' FAILED 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry attempted to moderate his position in favor of unlimited abortions...' at http://www.lifenews.com/nat2596.html

Now perhaps I am just being sensitive. Or perhaps this has been ongoing, as I don't generally raise my blood pressure by reading rightwing rags. But I am used to seeing words like 'senator' and 'challenger' and 'candidate' without the negative adjectives.

What do you think? Is yet something else rotten in Roveland?

[karynnj]

1. I think that's just standard

In good papers, he will be identified as Massachusetts Senator (or Jr Senator), who was the Democratic nominee in 2004.

I don't see that as a major problem. It does associate him his a negative adjective, but one that doesn't really surprise anyone. (They would say the same for Gore) It is actually double sided because to get failed in they need to say Presidential candidate.

This is something he will have to address. He has actually dealt with it pointing out that he did very nearly beat a sitting President in a time of war. (I assume that as he dealt with religion,he may address other areas where there are misconceptions.) The fact is that more than anyone, he is leading. He did debate brilliantly and he tended to be right a lot.

[_dynamicdems]

2. They stressed these words right after the election but it had let up

a bit over the past year. They've recently started cropping up again. Sad to say, I've actually seen more Democrats using these terms to frame Kerry lately, which is interesting. Slight jabs have come from potential 2008 candidates and more direct attacks from liberal blogs who have a candidate of choice in the mix. The media seems intent on using these terms again. Corporate corruption? Preference for another candidate? Rove? The only thing that is certain where the media is concerned is that it is not fair or balanced.

The right has also been trying to frame Kerry as a loser because they see him as a threat. Whenever he makes a statement, the RW is quick to attack or rebut what he's said. If he were such a loser, they would simply ignore him.

Something else that is I find interesting is that the RW seems interested as framing Hillary as the candidate who cannot lose the Democratic nomination. It seems likely that they want her to win the primary because they think she will lose the general election.

It's a crock, all of it, but that's what you do when you play dirty. It saddens me to see the left playing dirty. One of the reasons I support Senator Kerry is his party loyalty. He will never attack Hillary Clinton. In an interview tonight, Paula Zahn asked Sen. Kerry if he thought Sen. Clinton would make a good President. He said that she would. Quite a different story when you hear the indirect jabs she recently directed at Senator Kerry. While she didn't mention his name, she did a nice little hatchet job by talking about how Democrats should defend themselves like her husband did in the FOX interview. It was all so pointed when you consider Bill Clinton recently referred to Kerry as a "deer in the headlights" during the swiftboat attacks. Meow! I lost all respect for them both after that.

It is a bogus way to frame Kerry. If you had a olympic athlete who brought home a silver, would you bar him from competing again? Not likely. Neither would you send a horse that had one start and came in second by a nose to the glue factory. Yet people are saying Kerry was a LOSER and touting candidates who didn't even make it out of the starting gate. People support the candidates who lost to Kerry but call Kerry a FAILED candidate. What's that about?

[wisteria]

3. These negative words to describe Senator Kerry were dissipating,

now, however, I think you are right, they are making a comeback. Some may have to do with Rove. The Republican's want to take on Senator Clinton in 08, and Kerry stands in the way. He hasn't rolled over and faded away like Rove's other victims. Senator Kerry, is also gaining a little more independent and moderate Republican support as the Iraq War grows worse and they realize Kerry was correct. George Will even gave him some credit for his strategy for dealing with terrorists.
Others on our side may support other candidates and will use these adjectives to discredit him in order to promote their candidate.

When I read inaccurate or misleading things abour the senator, I usually write the media source and call them out on the inaccuracies. You can do that with the moderate media, but not with the Rebub media. They paint all Dem's as losers.

[Democrafty]

5. They may have something to do with '06, too.

There will be a push to get Dems to stay home, and we'll be seeing a lot of "Democrats lose, so what's the point?" rhetoric. We just have to encourage people not to fall for that.

[JI7]

4. it's not new, it has been used ever since the elections

i can always sense based on it that it will have an anti Kerry tone to it.