Somewhere someone said it first. ‘Pres. Barack Obama was losing the PR war to the Republicans in debating his stimulus his bill.’ Then someone else picked up the all-purpose observation and repeated it. Noticing the allure of drama to an otherwise wonky story, other “experts,” “strategists,” and pundits continued the refrain until it filled the echo chamber and was accepted as a universal truth.
There was just one thing missing from this analysis: a source. What was the factual basis for the claim? What knowledgeable, objective person were they quoting? What empirical evidence led to this conclusion?
There’s an old joke… What do you get when you give a reporter two pieces of information and a deadline? The answer? A trend. And so the trendy analysis continued until it was interrupted by real data.
A Monday Gallup poll found that 80 percent of voters felt that passing an economic stimulus proposal was important or very important (51 percent very important, 29 percent important). RealClearPolitics.com reported in their poll of polls that Pres. Obama enjoyed a 64 percent job approval while congressional Republicans earned a mere 31 percent approval. This happened while Republicans were winning the PR war.
What could have possibly led all these experts to conclude that Republicans were besting the president? A bunch of grumpy old men saturated the airwaves peddling 30-year old sound bites and the same baseless predictions that created the current mess. Because of the overall volume of their wall-to-wall pronouncements, the chattering class concluded the opposition must be winning.
I have a little reminder from any Communications 101 course: In order for communications to occur, you need a sender, a message, a receiver, and feedback to suggest the receiver got the message. Short of that complete cycle, you can’t assume that any real communication occurred.
In the Republicans blitz, you had a sender and a message but no feedback that any intended receiver heard or bought into their claims. The only people who seemed to receive the messages were the drama-hungry media. Despite the Republican offensive, Americans didn’t seem to be persuaded. The experts didn’t get the memo.
It’s the same old drill. News stations keep a stable of experts who tell us what we should think about every situation. They pronounce their opinions with absolute certainty, things of which they have no clue. Then they tell two friends. And they tell two friends. And so on. And so on. Until you have a trend story: Republicans are winning the PR war against the stimulus.
By the way, congress agreed on a stimulus plan this week, with the support of a majority of Americans.
To the news pundits who repeat the same tired cliché’s without any facts or sources…I hereby bestow the Peoples Pundit STFU Award. Shut The Fuck Up!
Showing posts with label Pundit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pundit. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Friday, October 17, 2008
Top 10 reasons to reject McCain
With apologies to Dave Letterman and the Home Office, here are the People's Pundit's Top Ten Reasons to Reject Sen. John McCain:
No. 10 -- After creating signs, posters, commercials, and gazillions of specialty items proclaiming 'Country First,' McCain subjects us to endless recitations of his "I'm a war hero" story. Yeah, you got smacked around for five years. Get some counseling. Enough already.
No. 9 -- Speaking of counseling, after selectively dribbling out parts of his medical records, we learned he hasn't released ANY mental health records. Ok tough guy. You just reminded us that you were tortured for five years and subjected to inhuman cruelties. Shouldn't we get some assurances that you won't literally go cuckoo for coco puffs?
No. 8 -- Cindy Lou? Ok, I'm not mad at you for this one. Crashed three Navy planes, Millions of dollars. Ex wife payoff fund, Millions of Dollars. Marrying a stupid-rich know-your-place Barbie and getting seven houses, 13 cars and your own plane while she stands behind you gazing adoringly? Priceless.
No. 7 -- Insanity: Employing the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy of highlighting your experience, denigrating Obama's positivity, and randomly smearing your opponent yet expecting a different result. Helloooo! Get a clue. We already saw how this movie ends.
No. 6 -- Suspending his campaign to go campaign. In the worst of all stunts, McCain gambled his reputation to try and lead 535 people who had no inclination or reason to follow him and over whom he had no leverage. Stupid.
No. 5 -- No poker face -- Telegraphed to the entire world when he was angry, exasperated and disgusted in every debate. How are you going to conduct serious, hardnosed negotiations when everyone knows how to push your buttons?
No. 4 -- He dissed Dave. Really? You thought it would be a good idea to blow off Dave Letterman to go do an interview on the SAME NETWORK? Really?
No. 3 -- Joe the Plumber. After lifting up Joe the Plummer as the symbol of the poor would-be business owner who can't pay taxes on a quarter of a million dollars, we find out he's not a plumber, his first name isn't Joe, he had no plans to buy a business, he makes $40,000 a year, he didn't pay his taxes, and he's a Republican. Naturally, these revelations are evidence of an Obama smear.
No. 2 -- Remained unacceptably silent when attendees yelled "kill him" and "off with his head" about Obama, then whined that Rep. Lewis hurt his feelings. How do you sleep at night?!
And the No. 1 reason to reject McCain.... (drum roll please)
No. 1 -- We can't take four years of hearing him say "My Friends" without wanting to scream "Kill Him!" or "Off with his head!"
No. 10 -- After creating signs, posters, commercials, and gazillions of specialty items proclaiming 'Country First,' McCain subjects us to endless recitations of his "I'm a war hero" story. Yeah, you got smacked around for five years. Get some counseling. Enough already.
No. 9 -- Speaking of counseling, after selectively dribbling out parts of his medical records, we learned he hasn't released ANY mental health records. Ok tough guy. You just reminded us that you were tortured for five years and subjected to inhuman cruelties. Shouldn't we get some assurances that you won't literally go cuckoo for coco puffs?
No. 8 -- Cindy Lou? Ok, I'm not mad at you for this one. Crashed three Navy planes, Millions of dollars. Ex wife payoff fund, Millions of Dollars. Marrying a stupid-rich know-your-place Barbie and getting seven houses, 13 cars and your own plane while she stands behind you gazing adoringly? Priceless.
No. 7 -- Insanity: Employing the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy of highlighting your experience, denigrating Obama's positivity, and randomly smearing your opponent yet expecting a different result. Helloooo! Get a clue. We already saw how this movie ends.
No. 6 -- Suspending his campaign to go campaign. In the worst of all stunts, McCain gambled his reputation to try and lead 535 people who had no inclination or reason to follow him and over whom he had no leverage. Stupid.
No. 5 -- No poker face -- Telegraphed to the entire world when he was angry, exasperated and disgusted in every debate. How are you going to conduct serious, hardnosed negotiations when everyone knows how to push your buttons?
No. 4 -- He dissed Dave. Really? You thought it would be a good idea to blow off Dave Letterman to go do an interview on the SAME NETWORK? Really?
No. 3 -- Joe the Plumber. After lifting up Joe the Plummer as the symbol of the poor would-be business owner who can't pay taxes on a quarter of a million dollars, we find out he's not a plumber, his first name isn't Joe, he had no plans to buy a business, he makes $40,000 a year, he didn't pay his taxes, and he's a Republican. Naturally, these revelations are evidence of an Obama smear.
No. 2 -- Remained unacceptably silent when attendees yelled "kill him" and "off with his head" about Obama, then whined that Rep. Lewis hurt his feelings. How do you sleep at night?!
And the No. 1 reason to reject McCain.... (drum roll please)
No. 1 -- We can't take four years of hearing him say "My Friends" without wanting to scream "Kill Him!" or "Off with his head!"
Thursday, July 17, 2008
People’s Pundit turns 100. Posts that is.
Don’t you hate when you forget to celebrate a major milestone or achievement?
A few blogs back, I uploaded my 100th post. Now this might not be a big deal for the super duper bloggers who post 100 times daily, but it is a big deal for me.
When I started blogging three years ago, I was really just trying to figure out how this “fad” worked. I’d heard about blogging but didn’t really understand it. Or even know if I would want to do it. But another passion pushed me in this direction.
I have always had an enthusiasm for politics. I used to call myself a political voyeur because I would consume so much news and politics. But never in my wildest dreams did I think I could participate on any level.
I remember one Sunday morning before I started blogging, I was sitting on the couch going through my weekly ritual. I was having my argument with the TV while the late Tim Russert grilled his guest. The answers were insufficient. Tim wasn’t asking the right follow-up questions. The interviewee was clearly an idiot, and I wanted Tim to nail him.
As I sat there giving them a piece of my mind, my son walked by and dryly commented, “if you know so much, how come you aren’t on there yourself.”
“It’s complicated, Son” I replied dismissively.
But actually it wasn’t. With this blog thingy, I could have a voice. I could tell all those politicians and journalists what I really thought. So my blogging days were born.
More than 100 posts later, and a delicious feed also informing my blog, I can blast my opinions to anyone who will pay attention.
Now if I could only get someone to pay attention. :-)
Happy belated birthday, People’s Pundit!
A few blogs back, I uploaded my 100th post. Now this might not be a big deal for the super duper bloggers who post 100 times daily, but it is a big deal for me.
When I started blogging three years ago, I was really just trying to figure out how this “fad” worked. I’d heard about blogging but didn’t really understand it. Or even know if I would want to do it. But another passion pushed me in this direction.
I have always had an enthusiasm for politics. I used to call myself a political voyeur because I would consume so much news and politics. But never in my wildest dreams did I think I could participate on any level.
I remember one Sunday morning before I started blogging, I was sitting on the couch going through my weekly ritual. I was having my argument with the TV while the late Tim Russert grilled his guest. The answers were insufficient. Tim wasn’t asking the right follow-up questions. The interviewee was clearly an idiot, and I wanted Tim to nail him.
As I sat there giving them a piece of my mind, my son walked by and dryly commented, “if you know so much, how come you aren’t on there yourself.”
“It’s complicated, Son” I replied dismissively.
But actually it wasn’t. With this blog thingy, I could have a voice. I could tell all those politicians and journalists what I really thought. So my blogging days were born.
More than 100 posts later, and a delicious feed also informing my blog, I can blast my opinions to anyone who will pay attention.
Now if I could only get someone to pay attention. :-)
Happy belated birthday, People’s Pundit!
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Oprah-bama for Black people?
I had to chuckle when I heard a white pundit say that Oprah's endorsement will help Obama appeal to Black people.
Really? Black people?
It seems like the same kind of simplistic thinking that assumed that Barack Obama would automatically get the Black vote. The kind of simplistic thinking that was so wrong that Oprah is now necessary.
I'm not sure what kind of pull Oprah will eventually have, but in many African American circles, it's long been long understood that Oprah has moved on from being reliably Black.
By reliably Black, I mean the kind that most people of color will identify as being in synch with their daily struggles. If you think back to Oprah's comments when she launched her school in South Africa, she defended not opening it in the United States by saying at risk kids here would rather get iPods than books.
Many Black people took that as a direct insult. That is something a reliably Black person would never say (out loud). That's just one example, of course, but it betrays a mindset.
All that said...reliable or not, Oprah is Black. Proudly so, it seems. Black enough to be comfortable endorsing a Black man. And that might translate to some support. More importantly her endorsement might carry cred, not just with African Americans, but with women. Wouldn't it be interesting if Hillary got the Black vote and Barack got the women vote?
It's been hard to predict many things in this race, and the Oprah-bama move isn't making the crystal ball any clearer.
Really? Black people?
It seems like the same kind of simplistic thinking that assumed that Barack Obama would automatically get the Black vote. The kind of simplistic thinking that was so wrong that Oprah is now necessary.
I'm not sure what kind of pull Oprah will eventually have, but in many African American circles, it's long been long understood that Oprah has moved on from being reliably Black.
By reliably Black, I mean the kind that most people of color will identify as being in synch with their daily struggles. If you think back to Oprah's comments when she launched her school in South Africa, she defended not opening it in the United States by saying at risk kids here would rather get iPods than books.
Many Black people took that as a direct insult. That is something a reliably Black person would never say (out loud). That's just one example, of course, but it betrays a mindset.
All that said...reliable or not, Oprah is Black. Proudly so, it seems. Black enough to be comfortable endorsing a Black man. And that might translate to some support. More importantly her endorsement might carry cred, not just with African Americans, but with women. Wouldn't it be interesting if Hillary got the Black vote and Barack got the women vote?
It's been hard to predict many things in this race, and the Oprah-bama move isn't making the crystal ball any clearer.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
What the Huck! Could it really be all in a name?
I mentioned to a friend of mine that Mike Huckabee seemed to be surging in Iowa, and she laughed and replied dryly that America would never elect someone with the last name Huckabee.
It just doesn’t flow well. “Can you imagine having to say Huckabeeonomics?” she continued, referring to how easily President Reagan’s name could be transformed into Reaganomics.
Well for that matter, we’d have to write off Obama, I continued. You can’t have Obamanomics. These are serious issues to grapple with when choosing a president. We can easily say Reaganomics or Clintonian but what do we do with a Huckabee or an Obama?
It’s not enough to aim to write a new chapter in history. You have to sign that chapter with a name we can pronounce. :-)
It just doesn’t flow well. “Can you imagine having to say Huckabeeonomics?” she continued, referring to how easily President Reagan’s name could be transformed into Reaganomics.
Well for that matter, we’d have to write off Obama, I continued. You can’t have Obamanomics. These are serious issues to grapple with when choosing a president. We can easily say Reaganomics or Clintonian but what do we do with a Huckabee or an Obama?
It’s not enough to aim to write a new chapter in history. You have to sign that chapter with a name we can pronounce. :-)
Friday, November 16, 2007
No debate about it, Wolf must go
If CNN wants more substantive debates, they ought to get Wolf Blitzer off the stage.
I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...
It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.
To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.
The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?
That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...
I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...
It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.
To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.
The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?
That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...
Monday, November 12, 2007
Obama: Our moment is now
I must admit that I had been becoming a bit disappointed at Barak Obama's performances lately. I remember how he started with so much energy and optimism. But lately his interviews and debate performances are showing the effects of senatorial speak -- lofty rhetorical and cumbersome explanations rather than the pointed and pithy that you need to grab headlines and generate interest. The interview and debate venues aren't his best formats.
But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.
But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Kucinich impeachment resolution killed but who’s the real kook?
Republicans know that Kucinich comes off as a kook, that's why, when he introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, they wanted Kucinich to be heard.
Democrats also know that Kucinich tilts on the kook factor. They'd just heard him admit in a televised debate that he believed in UFOs. And with that performance still relatively fresh on many mind's, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi wanted no parts of it.
And while we all snickered at the messenger, a message or two slipped past us. One, it was an issue worthy of debate. If anyone remembers the Washington Post's exhaustive series on the vice president, you would remember that there is fertile ground to plow on whether he stretched the boundaries of his power to circumvent the law. The series seemed to make it fairly obvious that the vice president is thumbing his nose at the constitution and doing whatever he pleases.
Second, Democrats, knowing all these facts, did nothing. That's right, in an effort to avoid the label of a do nothing congress, they sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where everyone agrees it will do — nothing.
For those of you who missed the resolution, here is a Cliff Notes version:
Vice President Cheney should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors:
Article 1: He purposely manipulated the intelligence process to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He did this to deceive the US citizens and Congress and justify using our military in a war against Iraq that has damaged our national security interests.
Article 2: He purposely manipulated intelligence to deceive America about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify his war.
Article 3: He openly threatened aggression against Iran without any real threat to the United States. He has done so while proving he has the capability to act on those threats.
Anything really kooky there? The resolution documents each of the articles of impeachment with a bibliography of references, not that we need it. A simple Google search can confirm most of the facts. But Kucinich is a kook. How can anyone take him seriously?
Meanwhile, I think Dick Cheney is having the best laugh. Who are the real kooks here?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Payoff to be an ally in the war on terror, $10 billion. Thumbing your nose at your benefactor, so you can stay in power. Priceless.
You'd think that for $10 billion you could get a guy to listen to you. Apparently not if it is the United States' $10 billion and not if that guy is Pakistan President Musharraf.
In the midst of the chaos that resulted from Pres. Musharraf declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the media is reporting that the United States has paid the country more than $10 billion to help fight the war on terror.
As the situation developed, Pres. Bush refused to speculate about whether he would send more money to Pakistan. That's right, he's not sure if he will send more money to the dictator who he can't influence.
It gets better. The Washington Post reported today that "Even as Bush said Musharraf's actions 'would undermine democracy," he also emphasized that the Pakistani president "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."
Let me get this right. He has suspended the constitution, instituted martial law, jailed the politicians and lawyers who disagrees with him, and declared himself the defacto dictator and we think his actions might undermine democracy. And of course, we are depending on him to help us fight extremists and radicals.
Why such careful treatment you might ask yourself? The Bush administration believes that Musharraf is a key ally in helping the United States combat terrorism:
I now interrupt this blog post to present to you the dictionary.com definitions of Terrorism.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. A terroristic method of governing.
Ok, back to the post about the ally in the war against terrorism who suspended the rule of law, jailed dissenters and used violence to enforce his authority.
Of course Pres. Musharraf was happy to stick his hands into our pockets and promised to play along in the terrorism game. Now comes time for him to give up power as he promised us he would, and he changes his mind.
Wait, a dictator who doesn't willingly want to give up power??!! Who could have seen that coming? And of course with the $10 billion military buildup and a benefactor who can't get his attention, he doesn't have to….
Hollywood writers’ strike? Who wrote that one?
Ok. In what must be the worst advice since someone told OJ to bust into a Las Vegas hotel to get his stuff back, Hollywood writers decided to strike. Hollywood on strike? Really? You think they could have written a better plot for themselves. (No more lukewarm latte's!)
Teachers strike and you wonder who will educate the children. Garbage men strike and you wonder about sanitary issues. You can even feel sympathy for an auto worker striking, as he has to navigate his shitty Ford back to his Detroit trailer park.
But a Hollywood writer? What will happen if they strike? We'll have...Gasp...no TV!! The horror! The tragedy! What's next, cigarette factory employees holding out for better health insurance?
Get a grip guys. You work in Hollywood. You're bickering over royalties. Get better agents and get over yourselves.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Dems, don't count out the white man yet
Hey Dems, here is a prediction you won’t hear every day. While all the other pundits are focused and frothing over the Hillary vs. Barak battle for the nomination, John Edwards will come straight up the middle and overtake them both.
Hillary is too divisive. Barak is too inexperienced. In the end, voters will survey the most diverse group of candidates and, for “legitimate” reasons, go with the white man. Of course, it will spawn a chorus of “Was American not ready?” stories. John Edwards will be forced to pick a minority (Barak Obama) to preserve the narrative.
Breaks my heart, too, but call me a cynic.
Edwards/Obama 08. You heard it here first. Sorry Hill and Bill.
Hillary is too divisive. Barak is too inexperienced. In the end, voters will survey the most diverse group of candidates and, for “legitimate” reasons, go with the white man. Of course, it will spawn a chorus of “Was American not ready?” stories. John Edwards will be forced to pick a minority (Barak Obama) to preserve the narrative.
Breaks my heart, too, but call me a cynic.
Edwards/Obama 08. You heard it here first. Sorry Hill and Bill.
Friday, September 21, 2007
When ads attack
Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?
Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?
GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)