So Sarah Palin made some poorly constructed comments in her interview with Katie Couric about Russians in the airspace around Alaska when asked about how that border relationship relates to foreign policy. As has become standard with an increasingly biased national media, the talking heads rolled their eyes and acted like she was a babbling idiot. Babbling perhaps, but based firmly in real world events. It's the media who don't seem to know what's going on up there. Palin was talking about the increase in bomber exercises by Russia in that region last year. Read about it the New York Times here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/01/america/NA-GEN-US-Russian-Bombers-Alaska.php
No doubt the Times will mock her tomorrow because like the Washington Post they don't seem to read their own paper or consider it any more reliable than I do. (See section "Washington Post Paradox" in this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122193386006060171.html)
Meanwhile, Joe Biden managed to mangle both the president in office during the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the invention of the television. In a CBS interview, he said, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. " (Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glrnb_G34E4) Of course, the president at the time was Herbert Hoover, and the television debuted ten years later. This was at least as eye-roll-inducing as Palin's sloppy presentation, but brought about ten percent of the media response.
Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander in American journalism.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Three Things That Are Genuinely Starting to Piss Me Off
1. Political ads which knowingly distort the opponent’s record.
In the past few weeks, we’ve seen Barack Obama mock John McCain as so behind the times he can’t use a computer and McCain call out Obama for supporting sex ed for kindergarteners. The fact is, McCain understands computers better than most of us—Slate called him the most “cybersavvy” candidate in the 2000 presidential race. He just can’t type because of his war injuries. He can’t comb his hair, either, but the Obama campaign had just enough class not to mention that. As for the sex ed issue, the bill in question has very vague language about being “age appropriate,” but it seems the sponsors’ intent was to teach young children how to avoid sexual predators. I have no doubt the McCain camp knew that. All this prompted Karl Rove to tell both campaigns they had crossed the line. When someone as ruthless as Karl Rove says you’re fighting too dirty, you are fighting too dirty.
That message was not heard, apparently, because right afterward Obama released an ad which basically said McCain and Rush Limbaugh are in league against Spanish-speaking immigrants. First off, Rush Limbaugh hates John McCain’s guts and has made this very public knowledge. McCain has been a lot more subtle for obvious political reasons, but anyone who is paying attention can tell the feeling is mutual. To link them in an ad is the peak of intellectual dishonesty. If that weren’t enough, the content is not merely wrong, it is the direct opposite of the truth. It’s downright fiendish. John McCain has fought tooth and nail for kindness and respect for all immigrants, both legal and illegal, in the face of pure outrage from his own party. To survive a primary, he agreed to secure the borders “first,” but he has never changed his position about immigration reform. Where there is a first, there’s a second.
2. The media is in the tank for Obama.
We’ve known for its entire existence that Fox News was a conservative organization. They call it “fair and balanced,” but they practically wink at the camera when they say it. If you chose to watch that channel, you know what you’re getting. We have also known for at least the same period of time that the other news organizations—CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc., etc.—were owned, operated, and staffed primarily by left-leaning individuals and we had to take that into consideration. In the past, though, they have, in my judgment, attempted to put aside their personal views and be objective. Sure, they failed all too frequently, but with the exception of Dan Rather at CBS and pretty much everyone at the Times, I always felt they took their journalistic integrity seriously. No more. Every night I see Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and Anderson Cooper seething with contempt toward anyone who doesn’t light up like a Christmas tree (as they all do) over every word from Barack Obama’s mouth. The same is true for Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, et al. I won’t waste space on MSNBC.
The problem is even more obvious with regard to media response to Sarah Palin. I am all for asking her tough questions and looking into her background. It is good and right that the media should do exactly that. What bothers me is the stark contrast with the way they have responded to Obama. Never have we seen him attacked and criticized the way she has been. Never have we seen the army of reporters and researchers descend on his home town digging through the minutia of his past. (Sure, there have been a few bloggers and Fox News reps poking around, but we all agree they are too biased to take seriously, so that doesn’t count.) Why hasn’t the mainstream media done their homework? The only answer I can come up with is that they don’t want to know. They can sing Obama’s praises based solely on his soaring rhetoric, but they won’t risk finding something that would hurt his chances of becoming president.
3. Claims that racism will be the only explanation for an Obama loss.
America remains a nation with a racism problem. We see it at schools, in stores, in workplace break rooms, and more than anywhere else, in the segregation of Sunday services. We have made tremendous progress over the last fifty years, but we are nowhere near where we belong. Because of that, there will certainly be a percentage of voters who choose McCain over Obama because of race. But as Obama himself has pointed out, there will also be a percentage who vote for him because of his race, both as an act of racial solidarity by some African-Americans and as act of racial reconciliation by some whites. He said he thinks those considerations will break pretty evenly, and I agree with him.
In the 2000 primary, John McCain lost to George W. Bush in large part because of his record of bipartisanship. It’s tough to win a party nomination when you’ve spent a decent chunk of your time in office telling that party where it’s wrong. As he was losing the nomination, he led Al Gore consistently in general election match up polls. At the time, most Americans felt he was more centrist and on their side than either Gore or Bush, and because of that they preferred him. McCain was able to win the Republican primary this year because he emphasized the more conservative aspects of his record and because most primary voters realized he was the best chance for the Republicans to retain the White House. Bush is extremely unpopular, and Republicans knew McCain to be about as far from Bush as anyone in the party. Despite Obama’s tireless efforts to characterize McCain as the same as Bush, the general electorate knows exactly what the primary voters knew. Anyone who has paid attention will remember the fights between McCain and Bush over taxes, spending, campaign finance, CAFE standards, etc., etc.
If John McCain wins this election, it will be because of his experience and his record. It will be because Americans believe he has the strength of character and the right principles required to reform government and move the country in the right direction. If Barack Obama wins, it will be because Americans agree with him that a radical, fundamental move toward European-style government—everything from military policy to economic structure to health care—is the right plan for the nation. It will be because they believe he can and will do the things he’s been talking about throughout the campaign.
Race has very, very little to do with it.
In the past few weeks, we’ve seen Barack Obama mock John McCain as so behind the times he can’t use a computer and McCain call out Obama for supporting sex ed for kindergarteners. The fact is, McCain understands computers better than most of us—Slate called him the most “cybersavvy” candidate in the 2000 presidential race. He just can’t type because of his war injuries. He can’t comb his hair, either, but the Obama campaign had just enough class not to mention that. As for the sex ed issue, the bill in question has very vague language about being “age appropriate,” but it seems the sponsors’ intent was to teach young children how to avoid sexual predators. I have no doubt the McCain camp knew that. All this prompted Karl Rove to tell both campaigns they had crossed the line. When someone as ruthless as Karl Rove says you’re fighting too dirty, you are fighting too dirty.
That message was not heard, apparently, because right afterward Obama released an ad which basically said McCain and Rush Limbaugh are in league against Spanish-speaking immigrants. First off, Rush Limbaugh hates John McCain’s guts and has made this very public knowledge. McCain has been a lot more subtle for obvious political reasons, but anyone who is paying attention can tell the feeling is mutual. To link them in an ad is the peak of intellectual dishonesty. If that weren’t enough, the content is not merely wrong, it is the direct opposite of the truth. It’s downright fiendish. John McCain has fought tooth and nail for kindness and respect for all immigrants, both legal and illegal, in the face of pure outrage from his own party. To survive a primary, he agreed to secure the borders “first,” but he has never changed his position about immigration reform. Where there is a first, there’s a second.
2. The media is in the tank for Obama.
We’ve known for its entire existence that Fox News was a conservative organization. They call it “fair and balanced,” but they practically wink at the camera when they say it. If you chose to watch that channel, you know what you’re getting. We have also known for at least the same period of time that the other news organizations—CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc., etc.—were owned, operated, and staffed primarily by left-leaning individuals and we had to take that into consideration. In the past, though, they have, in my judgment, attempted to put aside their personal views and be objective. Sure, they failed all too frequently, but with the exception of Dan Rather at CBS and pretty much everyone at the Times, I always felt they took their journalistic integrity seriously. No more. Every night I see Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and Anderson Cooper seething with contempt toward anyone who doesn’t light up like a Christmas tree (as they all do) over every word from Barack Obama’s mouth. The same is true for Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, et al. I won’t waste space on MSNBC.
The problem is even more obvious with regard to media response to Sarah Palin. I am all for asking her tough questions and looking into her background. It is good and right that the media should do exactly that. What bothers me is the stark contrast with the way they have responded to Obama. Never have we seen him attacked and criticized the way she has been. Never have we seen the army of reporters and researchers descend on his home town digging through the minutia of his past. (Sure, there have been a few bloggers and Fox News reps poking around, but we all agree they are too biased to take seriously, so that doesn’t count.) Why hasn’t the mainstream media done their homework? The only answer I can come up with is that they don’t want to know. They can sing Obama’s praises based solely on his soaring rhetoric, but they won’t risk finding something that would hurt his chances of becoming president.
3. Claims that racism will be the only explanation for an Obama loss.
America remains a nation with a racism problem. We see it at schools, in stores, in workplace break rooms, and more than anywhere else, in the segregation of Sunday services. We have made tremendous progress over the last fifty years, but we are nowhere near where we belong. Because of that, there will certainly be a percentage of voters who choose McCain over Obama because of race. But as Obama himself has pointed out, there will also be a percentage who vote for him because of his race, both as an act of racial solidarity by some African-Americans and as act of racial reconciliation by some whites. He said he thinks those considerations will break pretty evenly, and I agree with him.
In the 2000 primary, John McCain lost to George W. Bush in large part because of his record of bipartisanship. It’s tough to win a party nomination when you’ve spent a decent chunk of your time in office telling that party where it’s wrong. As he was losing the nomination, he led Al Gore consistently in general election match up polls. At the time, most Americans felt he was more centrist and on their side than either Gore or Bush, and because of that they preferred him. McCain was able to win the Republican primary this year because he emphasized the more conservative aspects of his record and because most primary voters realized he was the best chance for the Republicans to retain the White House. Bush is extremely unpopular, and Republicans knew McCain to be about as far from Bush as anyone in the party. Despite Obama’s tireless efforts to characterize McCain as the same as Bush, the general electorate knows exactly what the primary voters knew. Anyone who has paid attention will remember the fights between McCain and Bush over taxes, spending, campaign finance, CAFE standards, etc., etc.
If John McCain wins this election, it will be because of his experience and his record. It will be because Americans believe he has the strength of character and the right principles required to reform government and move the country in the right direction. If Barack Obama wins, it will be because Americans agree with him that a radical, fundamental move toward European-style government—everything from military policy to economic structure to health care—is the right plan for the nation. It will be because they believe he can and will do the things he’s been talking about throughout the campaign.
Race has very, very little to do with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
