Byron York of National Review Online puts Dana Milbank’s Washington Post story on the Bush campaign’s “negativity” out of its agony. York demonstrates that Milbank is wrong about at least three of his major points: John Kerry did (as we have noted here) question whether the war on terrorism is really a war; Kerry has engaged in far more negative activity against Bush than Milbank says; and Kerry does want to replace the Patriot Act. York also notes that Milbank, like Kathleen Hall Jamieson, his primary source in his attack piece against the Bush campaign, has previously taken the common-sense position that negative advertising is a good thing, and has attacked journalists who assume the role of the “negativity police.” In a 2000 piece, Milbank argued that the press should let the candidates fight it out. But that was before his current man, Kerry, got roughed up.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.