Posted on 09/13/2008 4:24:09 PM PDT by neverdem
Everywhere you turn these days, you find the press in an agitated-to-furious state about the McCain-Palin campaign. Many reporters are downright angry, according to the Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz, in part because of the "lipstick on a pig" controversy. That's obvious to anyone who has watched the news this last week. Many in the press are lacerating themselves for covering this story, and they blame the McCain campaign for having done it to them.
A broader anti-McCain critique is embodied by one of the Washington Post's resident Obamaphiles, E.J. Dionne, Jr., "The campaign is a blur of flying pieces of junk, lipstick and gutter-style attacks . . . McCain has shown he wants the presidency so badly that he's willing to say anything, true or false, to win power."
It's touching that the MSM has recently developed such delicate sensibilities. It's also a shame that their fury at false attacks was missing during the last eight years, when Democrats hurled one false, hateful, and misleading charge after another against President Bush. But perhaps because Bush was the object of the attacks, the press didn't feel the urgent need to police them. It's also worth noting, I suppose, that having become enraptured by a man whose candidacy was based almost entirely on his persona, the mood and feelings he created, and his ethereal promise of change, many in the press now pretend they want the election to focus on a substantive debate about, oh, say, Medicare Part B.
My own view is that the debate about "lipstick on a pig" was silly and will soon be forgotten. Yet it's not as if it broke any barriers in that regard. To take just one arguably more serious example: Recall that in February, Barack Obama said, "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years."
It's a charge Obama repeated, even though he knew it was untrue. (The Annenberg Political Fact Check said, "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.") The fact that the accusation was false didn't seem to matter; one Obama aide told the Politico, "It's seldom you get such a clear shot." But for some reason, the press didn't go into a tizzy on this matter. Puzzling.
Presidential campaigns have long been a mix of lots of things: substantive speeches and political ones, policy papers and personal countenance, issues and character, biography and narrative, charges and counter-charges, and appeals to evocative images and American symbols. Elections are often intense affairs that involve high moments and low ones, moments of drama and trivia. This campaign is no different. And compared to past presidential campaigns - the 1800 election between Jefferson and Adams, two of our more important and impressive Founders, comes to mind - this campaign is a walk in the park.
The important political point is that McCain is controlling the conversation of the election. He has stripped Obama of his mythological standing and has begun making a strong case that he and Palin, rather than Obama and Biden, are the authentic agents of change in this election. Obama is also in a dangerous place for a politician: constantly explaining himself and declaring, in an obvious state of frustration and confusion, "enough is enough." If this continues for the next seven weeks, McCain will probably win.
Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, made an interesting analogy this morning. He spoke about how for years people claimed the Miami Hurricanes were a dirty team--and they won championship after championship. I actually don't think either the McCain campaign or the Obama campaign are particularly dirty. And the effort to portray Republicans as the Party of the Mean (in contrast to Democrats, the Party of Issues) is a tired liberal talking point.
One other observation: The ferocious response Sarah Palin's nomination has provoked among the political class is turning this election into one based on a cultural narrative rather than an economic debate. The dripping condescension that some of Palin's critics are demonstrating toward her is boomeranging. She is becoming a heroine to many Republicans, who are as energized as I can remember in defense of Palin. And in attacking Palin, many Democrats and liberal commentators are mocking her faith, worldview, and life experiences. In that sense, a great unmasking is taking place. A wide swath of liberals are revealing their arrogance, their cultural elitism, and even their ugliness. It may be therapeutic. And it may also cost them the election.
How fitting is it that the media finally speaks out against media bias, when it’s in favor of McCain!
I used to think they had no shame, but apparently they are ashamed whenever they go after Obama.
I saw that issue of Mad in the bookstore the yesterday, and came very close to buying it.
Dang. I knew there was something familiar about Obama’s face that I just couldn’t put my finger on.
Thanks for solving that mystery for me.
: )
I asked a liberal friend of mine what she thought of “our Sarah Palin”. She paused and said (think angry/bitter tone): I don’t think we can have a discussion about Sarah Palin right now. Yowza. Didn’t know it is such a touch subject, but I now see liberals are becoming unraveled, one at a time.
The hate factor is so evident now. In the JFK and Truman days, people fought more over policy. Now it is pure ideology and anyone who does not march the PC Leftist way is simply verboten! We all know with the ABC-Gibson editing farce and the Ras. poll that today said 69% of the media is in the tank for one candidate and Party and has been for decades sans this particular guy, the public is finally getting the message that they have been massaged by the Left for their own purposes.
You all ever hear E.J. Dionne speak? He sounds like Truman Capote with half the testosterone!
“I now see liberals are becoming unraveled, one at a time”
Isn’t it awesome...
LOL!
You can put lipstick on a pundit, but... (well, you know).
Good find!
That tells me that only 69% of the media answered truthfully. They like to pretend that they're unbiased and objective, but we all know differently, eh what?
Imagine how you would feel if you were looking at eight years of Obama followed by eight years of Biden followed by eight years of Pelosi ...
Final paragraph should be read twice...The ferocious response Sarah Palin’s nomination has provoked among the political class is turning this election into one based on a cultural narrative rather than an economic debate. The dripping condescension that some of Palin’s critics are demonstrating toward her is boomeranging. She is becoming a heroine to many Republicans, who are as energized as I can remember in defense of Palin. And in attacking Palin, many Democrats and liberal commentators are mocking her faith, worldview, and life experiences. In that sense, a great unmasking is taking place. A wide swath of liberals are revealing their arrogance, their cultural elitism, and even their ugliness. It may be therapeutic. And it may also cost them the election.
Sheesh...I just ate and now I’m queasy. Note to self: do not let those thoughts penetrate my brain.
I could not give a flying fig if the media producers and writers are upset. they are like actors. I will let them know when I want their opinion. What I want is the news. If they can’t stand the heat of the election, get the heck out of the kitchen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.