The reaction of the mainstream media to the candidates’ relative convention bounces (or lack thereof, in Kerry’s case) has come in the form of five major points. Here’s what the media has told us:

1) Okay, so John Kerry didn’t get a bounce. We’re not surprised. There were no swing voters left for Kerry to swing.

2) George Bush’s significant bounce is easily explained. I would be happy to explain it. Because the explanation is simple. And here it is. Ahem. [Takes out hypnotist's watch.] You are get-ting slee-py . . . When I snap my fingers, you will forget we ever made Point 1.

[SNAP!]

3) George Bush’s bounce was because Republicans went negative. That showed their nastiness.

4) You think John Kerry doesn’t know how how to get negative too? Just you wait! Our boy’s a street fighter! Ka-pow! You’ll see!

5) When our boy Kerry goes negative, that won’t show his nastiness. It will show his determination.

The L.A. Times has followed this script to the letter, as I explained on September 4. They made Point 1 on August 3. Two days ago, they made Points 2-5.

Today, the L.A. Times expands on Points 4-5, portraying Kerry as a “Comeback Kid” in a front-page story today titled A Trailing Kerry Has Been There, Won That.

Today’s story manages to put a positive spin on Kerry’s track record of campaign tactics that most people would find distasteful, such as misleading negative advertising, or violating agreed-upon spending limits. In the topsy-turvy world of today’s story, such sordid tricks are advanced as a reason to admire Kerry, rather than to revile him. The message: Kerry is a street fighter who will do what it takes to win. Good for him!

Read the story if you don’t believe me. It opens:

John F. Kerry has been here before.

Turning into the final eight weeks of the presidential campaign, the Democratic nominee faces doubts within his party and pundits increasingly skeptical of his chances against a resurgent President Bush, who seems to have momentum heading his way.

It is reminiscent of the Democratic race last winter, when Kerry was counted among the living dead and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was romping to the Democratic nomination — or so it appeared.

But there is another contest that may be instructive, a campaign that political connoisseurs rate as one of the all-time classics: the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Kerry and Massachusetts’ popular Republican governor, William F. Weld.

The story describes the Kerry-Weld race in detail, and shows how Kerry was able to defeat Weld through a combination of factors including luck, negative campaigning, and violation of agreed-upon spending limits. What is surprising is that the latter two factors are portrayed primarily in a positive light, as evidence that Kerry is willing to do what it takes to win:

Although no election is like any other, the close-quarters combat of that Senate race offers clues to how the Democratic nominee operates under pressure, the steps he will take to win — and suggests why Democrats, nervous as some may be, are counting on another Kerry comeback.

With his reelection bid lagging — polls had Kerry trailing Weld in August by 8 percentage points — the senator abruptly shed one of his top aides and replaced him with a pugnacious ad man who crafted a more partisan message emphasizing pocketbook issues. Kerry worked to overcome his stuffy reputation by revealing a more personal and humble side to voters. He dug into his wallet even though it meant ignoring the spending limits he originally agreed to abide by. And he fiercely defended his Vietnam War record when his credibility was called into question.

The story puts a positive spin on all of this, including the partisan ads and the blowing of agreed-upon spending limits. Rather than citing such evidence as an example of naked ambition or lack of principle, the story suggests that Kerry’s tactics are simply indicative of his resolve:

“He’s at his best when he’s cornered,” said Paul Watanabe, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston and a longtime Kerry watcher. “Putting him in that fighting mode is key.”

The 1996 contest revealed a steel core within Kerry, observers say, along with an agile mind and tenacity that carried him through eight arduous debates.

The story describes how Kerry reached an agreement with Weld on spending limits — and later used a transparently phony excuse to violate that agreement. How does the paper describe Kerry’s decision to seize on a flimsy pretext to violate the spending agreement?

Disingenuous?

Unprincipled?

Nah. Are you kidding?

“Shrewd.”

Kerry was shrewd, seizing upon the disagreement over ad commissions to breach a spending cap that might have forced his advertising off the TV airwaves at a critical point.

The paper also praises Kerry’s debating style. When pressed by Weld on the death penalty, Kerry alluded to — you’ll never guess this, because he tends to downplay it — his Vietnam experience:

If there was a standout moment, it came in the first debate when the governor challenged Kerry, a death penalty opponent, to tell the mother of a slain police officer why her son’s killer should not be executed. (Kerry has since modified his position on capital punishment, saying he supports the death penalty in cases of terrorism.)

Glaring across the stage, Kerry responded, “I know something about killing … I don’t like killing.” As a hush fell over historic Faneuil Hall, the decorated Vietnam veteran said the “scum” who kill police officers should spend the rest of their lives in prison. But, Kerry went on, “I don’t think a state honors life by turning around and sanctioning killing.”

The piece also praises Kerry’s decision to smear Weld by unfair comparisons to other Republicans. Why was this praiseworthy? Because the smears worked.

But Kerry was relentless, persisting long after many had written him off. He also was ruthless, abruptly firing a longtime advisor and replacing him with his current ad man, Robert Shrum, who immediately gave the campaign a more aggressive edge. One TV spot blended photos of Weld with Sens. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, two Southerners who, ideologically, were light-years from the governor. The comparison might have been far-fetched, but it worked.

To sum up: Kerry engages in an unfair smear against his opponent, and the key point is: “it worked.” Kerry seizes on a transparently flimsy excuse to disregard an agreement on campaign spending limits, and that means he is “shrewd.”

Apparently, there is no campaign tactic so cynical that it is not worthy of praise from the L.A. Times — as long as its practitioner is a Democrat, of course.

No wonder Kerry aides are increasingly confident!

P.S. Mark Steyn has an analysis that is remarkably similar to my description above.

UPDATE: Thanks to Mickey Kaus for the link, and for the kind words (especially “paranoid” and “not-implausible”)! I think Mickey has summed up the tone of my post admirably. If I ever put up a “testimonials” section on my front page, these plaudits — or whatever you want to call them — will certainly be included.

As always, I ask that any new readers who enjoyed the post please remember to bookmark the site, and return regularly. There’s plenty more paranoia and not-implausible insights where these came from! (P.S. In honor of Mickey, all exclamation points in this post are ironic!)

UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link! (Okay, so that exclamation point was earnest rather than ironic. So sue me!)