Journalism?

A few days ago The New York Times wrote a piece contending that John Kerry is vigorously competing with George Bush on the topics of patriotism, military service, and national strength. Noted the Times:

It is, in large part, a pre-emptive strategy. Mr. Kerry's advisers say they are well aware of the risks of challenging an incumbent president on foreign policy during a war. For days now, the Bush campaign has been accusing them, via surrogates and campaign advertising, of "playing politics with national security."

To the extent that John Kerry and the Democrats are forcefully wading into the national security debate I say "Bravo." I've been calling for the Democrats to sieze the national security debate for some time now (including posts here, here, and here.

But are John Kerry and the Democrats engaging in the forceful criticism of Bush that I've advocated? I don't know. Or at least I can't tell from reading The New York Times piece. Unfortunately, the Times is more interested in the flag-colored bunting at Kerry campaign events and "his new, red-white-and-blue campaign airplane" than in the real issues of national security which George Bush continues to ignore. Judging from this article I'd have to conclude that Bush is stronger on national defense because he is able to stand "before one of the most powerful and iconic scenes in American history - the beaches of Normandy."

Granted, this article is not intended as an exposition of the differences and similarities in the candidates' objectives and plans. But, unfortunately, like so much of what passes for journalism these days, the article doesn't accomplish much of anything else either.