Keeping Faith With The Narrative
It's left to Gerard Baker of the London Times to point out the failings of the U.S. Media:
The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.
Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government's effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,
Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.
Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.
Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance...
...here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.
For the last two weeks, the Republican nominee for Vice-President has endured - and continues to endure - the media equivalent of a colonoscopy, while in two years the Democratic nominee for President hasn't had even the discomfort of a finger wave.
And you know what? He still may lose.
posted by VermontGuy @ 6:26 AM
10 Comments:
They're too busy trying to find out how many books Sarah Palin wanted to ban as Mayor of Wasilla, AK.
Are you not interested in the answer to that question? I know I sure am.
That sort of subsumes all other questions
The short answer to that question is: none. There is no evidence to support the supposition that Sarah attempted or succeeded in banning any books anywhere.
However, the Obama campaign has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice to take an ad off the air that questions his association with Bill Ayers. At the same time, when a Chicago Talk Radio Show attempts to have journalists on to discuss the Annenberg Challenge and Obama's role in it, the Obama campaign instructs its followers to call and "spam" the show, so that only the Obama side will be heard.
As an avowed "civil liberties" guy, doesn't this interest you?
There is no evidence to support the supposition that Sarah attempted or succeeded in banning any books anywhere.
The word of the librarian herself counts as "no evidence" to you? No proof, maybe. But no evidence?
Re the Ayers ad, I have no problem with candidates contacting the Justice Department for whatever they please. Presumably, if there's merit, it'll be pursued; if not, not. If Obama was already the head of the executive branch, I'd obviously feel far differently. Nobody has a civil right to avoid gov't scrutiny.
Nor is spamming a tv talk show a civil liberties issue. I would find it stupid tactically and reprehensible morally, but I don't see it as a civil liberties issue. Do you have any citation, by the way, for the claim that it happened?
It is bogus to suggest that Obama has not been subjected to media flogging. No one, Palin included, is subjected to a careful reviewing of the issues, because that doesn't sell. But the media have played heavily into all talking points raised by the right -- for example, examining every person Obama ever knew or spoke to or interacted with (Ayers, Wright, etc.), however peripherally. The press has also played on the "elite" motif; the "Muslim" motif; the "black enough?" motif, etc. In my estimation, having discussed how one would go about banning books with the local librarian is more closely related to one's governing principles than having sat through a few sermons by someone who often makes sense but sometimes freaks out.
The only time the media had looked at these things in Obama's life it when it was raised by the right and they needed to come riding in to the rescue. Meanwhile, the New York Times and other members of the MSM do nothing but attack Palin, all the time. Obama doesn't even have to raise a finger, since they send in the troops en masse to Alaska to find dirt, most of it unsubstantiated but nevertheless published the next day on the front page, with 3 or 4 editorials inside to back it up.
The word of the librarian herself counts as "no evidence" to you? No proof, maybe. But no evidence?
Check out this link from snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
and you will see that my original statement is correct.
As for Obama's actions regarding the WGN broadcast and the Justice Department, see here:
http://www.cybercastnewsservice.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34844&print=on
and here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/08/28/obama-camp-failsto-stifle-kurtzs-obama-ayers-story-chicago-airwaves
He instructed his followers to do the same thing for David Freddoso's (The Case Against Barack Obama) appearance on September 15.
Re book banning, we're just going to have to disagree on what constitutes evidence, I guess. From your source: "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. Combined with the subsequent firing and rehiring, I'd advise a client that's more than enough evidence to survive a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, but probably not enough to survive summary judgment.
Re the WGN show, maybe I'm not good at subtext, but I'm not sure how you get from "Call into the “Extension 720″ show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight). . . " to an accusation of instructions to "spam" the show. Could the show's call screeners not decide how many Obama-defending callers they wanted to take and how many to disconnect?
Finally, re the Justice Dept, they today announced that they have no intention of prosecuting any 527 donors no matter how egregious. See, it's that simple. You ask them to look into it, they do and give you an answer, and it's done.
QG, Ann Kilkenny is not what I would call an "unbiased" source.
http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/
Second, her assertion that Palin fired the librarian because of the book-banning issue is incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
The librarian herself has not spoken about what happened. Again, I see no evidence here that Palin tried to have any books banned nor that she fired an employee in retaliation for not doing what she didn't ask her to do in the first place.
Feel free to disagree.
Regarding Obama and the Justice Department: just because it is permissable or legal for him to do so doesn't change the fact that he is the only candidate in this - or any other - election to ask the government to investigate an advertisement. Even John Kerry didn't do that while he was being "swiftboated". And the point of having his followers "spam" the radio show is to ensure that only one side of the story would be heard - his.
It's clear to me that there are some kinds of free inquiry that Obama is more than willing to suppress.
Finally, I find it interesting that out of my whole post, the only thing you've chosen to address is the book-banning statement. Does that mean that you agree with me that the MSM has treated the two candidates quite differently?
And the point of having his followers "spam" the radio show is to ensure that only one side of the story would be heard - his.
I still don't understand how you're imagining they hoped to accomplish that. The opposing side of the story (or, vicious lies, depending on your POV) was already being told by the show's guest. They were asked to call in and provide the other side of the story. You make it sound like he ordered them to conduct a denial-of-service attack on the station. Again, the station was free to drop all of their calls, limit their calls, or take all of their calls as it chose, wasn't it?
Re the DOJ and this issue, and more broadly, I'm wondering whether we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of censorship. From my point of view, unless you've got the government's power at your command, you are wholly incapable of violating people's rights by "suppress[ing]. . . free inquiry." Obama is not capable, as a presidential candidate or a US Senator, of doing so.
E.g., were I representing someone hypothetically putting out knowingly and wholly false, malicious, lying, and Rove-worthy 527 ads, I would advise them not to give a hoot what Obama says to the DOJ. When the DOJ itself started saying things, that's when I'd tell them to pay attention. They are the only ones capable of suppressing free inquiry, not a presidential candidate.
I didn't respond to the rest of the post for two reasons. First, I didn't hear anything else new or different. You're repeating the right-wing-radio/Fox News talking points that have been repeated incessantly for 14 months now, and were hit on about every 6 minutes during the Republican convention.
You say that "no one in the media, other than a columnist from England, is saying anything about this." I'll bet you dinner next time you're in NYC or I'm in VT that I can find you 50 references to related arguments from mainstream media sources in the last 6 months. (I'd say 100 but I don't want to work that hard. And actually I'd be happy to buy you dinner whether you take the bet or not). Anybody in the US who was surprised and enlightened by the London Times article just hasn't been paying any attention at all. It was aimed at Europeans who don't have access to our regular media, so may not have heard the arguments. I've got to say, I see incredible irony in the right's vehement (correct) opposition to the fairness doctrine, coupled with incessant whining when the "liberal media" don't follow their preferred lines of inquiry on a daily basis.
Second, imagine you had written a post about how the mainstream sports media is failing to pay attention to how the Jets have been undeservedly overhyped because of Brett Favre and instead are focusing on the trivia of new accusations that Bill Belichick taped all of the Jets' warm-ups last week. I might be more interested to know whether you thought the latter was wrong than the former.
Post a Comment
<< Home