The media jackals latest point of interest is a survey by Quinnipiac University on the likeability of various potential presidential candidates and politicians. The Washington Typists have focused on the simple part of the story, Rudy Giuliani was the favorite of the 20 and John Kerry was 20th of 20.
Al Gore came in 14th and George Bush came in 15th, yet Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post talks about how in 2000 Bush was the more likeable and that's why he won. Right.
Well, why wasn't Gore, who defeated Bush by 500,000 votes in 2000 and won Florida if all the votes were counted, "the candidate voters were more comfortable welcoming into their living rooms for the next four years?" Maybe the Post should look in a mirror.
As John Harris (ex?) of the Post wrote in is new book: "A number of members of the Gang of 500 are convinced that the main reason George W. Bush won the White House and Al Gore lost was that Gore's regular press pack included the trio of Katherine 'Kit' Seelye (of the New York Times), Ceci Connolly (of the Washington Post), and Sandra Sobieraj (of the Associated Press)."
As the Daily Howler has pointed out about the Post's coverage - "Ceci Connolly made it up about Gore for twenty straight months. And on occasion, John Harris helped out."
Talk about an inconvenient truth! Unfortunately, the Post helps establish the public's view of a candidate and having someone like Ceci trash Gore enabled Bush to steal the election and lead the US to be stuck (yes, stuck) in a war in Iraq. (Hope she's happy with her work!)
By the same token, the Washington Typists were lead by the nose by the White House over John Kerry sarcastic comment about Bush getting the country stuck in Iraq and lead the charge to demand an apology to those who were either too disinterested or dishonest in learning what Kerry actually said. The Typists efforts played a large role in Kerry's poor rating in the poll.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Grand Old Hypocrites
Members of the Grand Old Hypocrites party were out in full force on Wednesday displaying an amazing, and little questioned, ability to lie and spin their way to attack Sen. John Kerry regarding their own inability to understand the English language.
On the Rush Limbaugh show, only days after Rush made fun of actor Michael J. Fox and his suffering from the effects of Parkinson's Disease, George Bush had the gall to say “Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words.”
Gee, was Bush speaking about Rush, or himself?
This also days after Bush disgustingly all but called Democrats supporters of terrorism. So according to members of the GOH, it is okay to make fun of people with disesases or suggest your opponent supports terrorism, yet it is wrong, very wrong, to tell a joke that can be misinterpreted by only the lazy or dishonest?
For example the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz joined other members of the Washington Typists in lazily repeated Republican talking points, calling Kerry's joke "a crack about uneducated soldiers." No doubt the GOH was pleased with his typing.
Laura Bush joined in, saying "we must conduct our debate here at home in a way that does not jeopardize our troops in harm's way,” and called for “conversations conducted with civility and respect.”
So implying your opponents are supporters of terrorism is a conversation "conducted with civility and respect"? Hah! If anything her husbands comments place U.S. troops in greater harm than a criticism of the president. But then, what does Bush care, other than doing whatever it takes to "win" an election.
On the Rush Limbaugh show, only days after Rush made fun of actor Michael J. Fox and his suffering from the effects of Parkinson's Disease, George Bush had the gall to say “Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words.”
Gee, was Bush speaking about Rush, or himself?
This also days after Bush disgustingly all but called Democrats supporters of terrorism. So according to members of the GOH, it is okay to make fun of people with disesases or suggest your opponent supports terrorism, yet it is wrong, very wrong, to tell a joke that can be misinterpreted by only the lazy or dishonest?
For example the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz joined other members of the Washington Typists in lazily repeated Republican talking points, calling Kerry's joke "a crack about uneducated soldiers." No doubt the GOH was pleased with his typing.
Laura Bush joined in, saying "we must conduct our debate here at home in a way that does not jeopardize our troops in harm's way,” and called for “conversations conducted with civility and respect.”
So implying your opponents are supporters of terrorism is a conversation "conducted with civility and respect"? Hah! If anything her husbands comments place U.S. troops in greater harm than a criticism of the president. But then, what does Bush care, other than doing whatever it takes to "win" an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)