In today’s reviews of why Sen. Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential Nomination one of the points you won’t see much made is the role of George Bush and the 1990s media.
George Bush, the 1990s media? What has that got to do with the Democratic race? A lot, however the mainstream media will focus on Clinton’s mistake of trying to win it by Super Tuesday and the right wing media (almost the same as MSM) will claim people are finally realizing the truth about the Clintons.
No, for a number of people the thought of extending the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency of the last 20 years was too much to take, especially with the idea that there is another Bush (Jeb) out there. The Bush presidencies were so bad, and the 1990s media were so irresponsible (and believed themselves above questioning), that a number of people decided that it was time to move on.
The early rejection of Sen. Clinton was a rejection of Bush and his war, which Clinton probably to her regret, voted to authorize. In addition, people were concerned that if Sen. Clinton were the nominee all the right wing extremists would come out of the woodwork to fight her. And after watching the media of the 1990s, one can imagine the media would gleefully join in the “Hunting of the President, Part II.”
You have to wonder if Sue Schmidt, of the Washington Post, took one of the buyouts when figured she wouldn't have a chance to come back and use her journalistic butcher knives and go after the Clintons.
If anything, the string of victories Sen. Clinton put together at the end of the campaign season show there is still a great deal of desire for another Clinton administration. The problem was that the Clinton’s didn’t understand the hesitancy people would have in giving the media another crack at them or opening the door for another Bush term.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Monday, June 02, 2008
Would President Snippy Have Listened?
One of the biggest White House talking points about former press secretary Scott McClellan's book has been "Why didn't Scott bring up his concerns when he was here?" bringing up an image of poor old George Bush just waiting for someone to tell him the truth.
But in the words of the White House attack dogs, "That's Not the George Bush I knew."
To suggest that Bush would have listened to criticisms is preposterous, ridiculous and for a White House official to offer such a suggestion is tantamount to lying, or possibly remorse that they didn't boot the non-believer out years ago.
In 2005 Newsweek pointed out Bush doesn't tolerate dissent in his administration ["A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president.."] however you don't see that point made in McCellan stories that include the White House talking point that McCellan should have made his views known.
As a reporter, if a White House official makes such a claim and expects the reporter to publish it, shouldn't they ask at least "so Bush would have listened?" Instead too many follow the Charlie Gibson "it was not our job to debate them" mentality.
But since apparently no one in the media is questioning that ridiculous idea, even Sen. Bob Dole has jumped into the fray saying that McClellan "should have spoken up publicly like a man." At least Dole offered also the suggestion that McClellan could have quit. That was the better question. Bush never would have listened, the only option staff had was to quit.
Unfortunately the Bush Bubble was pretty thick and apparently it took a while for McCellan to detoxify. So for all those who believe that McCellan should have spoken up one assumes that they are now urging all White House officials to be up front and frank about any and all concerns they have. I'm sure John McCain will enjoy that.
But in the words of the White House attack dogs, "That's Not the George Bush I knew."
To suggest that Bush would have listened to criticisms is preposterous, ridiculous and for a White House official to offer such a suggestion is tantamount to lying, or possibly remorse that they didn't boot the non-believer out years ago.
In 2005 Newsweek pointed out Bush doesn't tolerate dissent in his administration ["A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president.."] however you don't see that point made in McCellan stories that include the White House talking point that McCellan should have made his views known.
As a reporter, if a White House official makes such a claim and expects the reporter to publish it, shouldn't they ask at least "so Bush would have listened?" Instead too many follow the Charlie Gibson "it was not our job to debate them" mentality.
But since apparently no one in the media is questioning that ridiculous idea, even Sen. Bob Dole has jumped into the fray saying that McClellan "should have spoken up publicly like a man." At least Dole offered also the suggestion that McClellan could have quit. That was the better question. Bush never would have listened, the only option staff had was to quit.
Unfortunately the Bush Bubble was pretty thick and apparently it took a while for McCellan to detoxify. So for all those who believe that McCellan should have spoken up one assumes that they are now urging all White House officials to be up front and frank about any and all concerns they have. I'm sure John McCain will enjoy that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)