curtoid
09-15-2004, 10:31 AM
There is plenty of outrage and phony anger out there - from both sides. But how much of it is from real, hardcore issues and how much of it is simply partisan politics, that has been deeply rooted because of blind hatred for Bush and Clinton?
The cowardly Democrats are willing to forgive the hawkish behavior of Kerry and some of the other on left, if it means getting rid of Bush, while the ball-less Republicans fall in line ignoring how much Bush is really spending (and where the money is really going to - and WHY it's going to where it's going) if it means keeping control. Never mind that Bush's numbers add up to one TRILLION more than the amount he slammed Kerry with during his convention (you remember - the lap dogs hypocrites screamed and hooted when he mentioned the Kerry price tag).
How much more interesting had this election cycle had been if someone of some nerve on the right had stood up and challeneged Bush for the Republican ticket. Not that anyone would have had a chance, but it would have been a healthy exercise to get these issues out there and debated- having someone challenge him on fiscally conservative agendas that he is lacking. For all the good it did him, at least the Dems had Howard Dean who (before he was neutered) really direction of the agenda - before, of course, the actual primiaries started.
At least we have the press that can keep things in perspective...oh wait...that's right...we can't!
Once again we have a campaign for the White House wrapping up, and (once again) the fourth estate is letting us down miserably. Instead of spending some time doing their jobs, they have become mouth pieces to the campaigns, to special interests and to their own ideology (ie: $$$$).
This is from Howard Kurtz's media column in today's Washington Post:
So there it is, exposed for all to see on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post.
The total cost of Bush's proposals at the Republican convention -- permanent tax cuts, prescription drugs, rural health clinics, the whole shmear -- is "likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade."
This from a guy who's been hammering Kerry for proposing a mere $2 trillion in programs (a figure Kerry denies, just as the Bush camp disputes the $3 trillion).
So will this now become the subject of endless cable debates, blogosphere posts and newspaper investigations? The conservative president, the apostle of limited government, is revealed as a Big Spender?
Nah.
The chatter is still about IBM Selectrics and Kitty Kelley.
Whether we spend ourselves into bankruptcy: Booorring.
Whether the candidates are over promising: Yadda yadda yadda.
After all, there are no secret sources, no coke-at-Camp-David allegations, no 1972 documents with a raised "th." That's what media people like to argue about.
Maybe the campaign coverage will turn serious at some point. The belated stories on the unbanned assault weapons were a hopeful sign. But it sure seems like substance doesn't sell.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com)
Grrrr.
This message was edited by curtoid on 9-15-04 @ 2:33 PM
The cowardly Democrats are willing to forgive the hawkish behavior of Kerry and some of the other on left, if it means getting rid of Bush, while the ball-less Republicans fall in line ignoring how much Bush is really spending (and where the money is really going to - and WHY it's going to where it's going) if it means keeping control. Never mind that Bush's numbers add up to one TRILLION more than the amount he slammed Kerry with during his convention (you remember - the lap dogs hypocrites screamed and hooted when he mentioned the Kerry price tag).
How much more interesting had this election cycle had been if someone of some nerve on the right had stood up and challeneged Bush for the Republican ticket. Not that anyone would have had a chance, but it would have been a healthy exercise to get these issues out there and debated- having someone challenge him on fiscally conservative agendas that he is lacking. For all the good it did him, at least the Dems had Howard Dean who (before he was neutered) really direction of the agenda - before, of course, the actual primiaries started.
At least we have the press that can keep things in perspective...oh wait...that's right...we can't!
Once again we have a campaign for the White House wrapping up, and (once again) the fourth estate is letting us down miserably. Instead of spending some time doing their jobs, they have become mouth pieces to the campaigns, to special interests and to their own ideology (ie: $$$$).
This is from Howard Kurtz's media column in today's Washington Post:
So there it is, exposed for all to see on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post.
The total cost of Bush's proposals at the Republican convention -- permanent tax cuts, prescription drugs, rural health clinics, the whole shmear -- is "likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade."
This from a guy who's been hammering Kerry for proposing a mere $2 trillion in programs (a figure Kerry denies, just as the Bush camp disputes the $3 trillion).
So will this now become the subject of endless cable debates, blogosphere posts and newspaper investigations? The conservative president, the apostle of limited government, is revealed as a Big Spender?
Nah.
The chatter is still about IBM Selectrics and Kitty Kelley.
Whether we spend ourselves into bankruptcy: Booorring.
Whether the candidates are over promising: Yadda yadda yadda.
After all, there are no secret sources, no coke-at-Camp-David allegations, no 1972 documents with a raised "th." That's what media people like to argue about.
Maybe the campaign coverage will turn serious at some point. The belated stories on the unbanned assault weapons were a hopeful sign. But it sure seems like substance doesn't sell.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com)
Grrrr.
This message was edited by curtoid on 9-15-04 @ 2:33 PM