here is a post about Cindy McCain's lawyer complaining to the Times. He argues that if they're going to to a story about Cindy McCain's past drug use why not Barak Obama's? He points out that they haven't even tried to interview Obama's drug dealer, whom he talked about in his autobiography.
you know times have changed when the controversial statement is the claim that a candidate's drug dealer should be interviewed. The fact that he has a drug dealer is not part of the story.
Mr. Dowd, Cindy McCain's attorney, goes on to make this argument:
"I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy
of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit
pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would
investigate and publish. I
know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the
level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking
some your own medicine is in order here."
how in the tank are they?
I have one prediction to make: if Obama does win this election it will end up destroying the press as we know it. Once he is elected all of these stories as they have been ignoring become fair game. The press is restrained itself in order to see their preferred candidates get elected, but once that happens the other, normally more powerful, imperative kicks in: the urge to compete. There are just too many good stories about Obama's past and been ignored. Once he is safely ensconced in office, there will be nothing to keep the press often. I expect that will along with these stories will appear stories of how they had been earlier spiked or suppressed by the "will of the newsroom."
Obama is the most liberal candidate for president perhaps ever. It is hard to think of a man whose underlying preferences are so far from those of the median voter. his statements are, on the surface, images of moderation. His actions, particularly those before he got to the Senate, are those of a hard left radical. As president he he will not be able to help revealing this. He has to make too many appointments, too many executive decisions, for his true preferences to remain secret long.
The great disadvantage under which liberal intellectuals operate is their belief that deep inside every American beats the heart of a Swede. They are convinced that the only thing which stops the American people from expressing this preference at the polls is the manipulation of opinion by their enemies and be stirring up of retrograde prejudices among those poor, frightened, economically insecure lower classes, who out of their economic insecurity, "cling to their guns and to their religion." there is is the, "try it you'll like it," theory of public policy: if only we can institute socialism people realize how much better it is for them. Moreover, they are, in their own way, as isolated and insulated from opposing views as the most insular white suburbanite in a gated community, or backwoods Baptist Bible thumper in darkest Alabama. They never hear opposing voices. That is why William Ayers could become a respectable figure in Hyde Park: most Americans on being introduced to such a man would grow their hands back in disgust. Obama saw and nothing controversial in handing over other people's children to be educated by him. Why should he have? No one else he ever talk to did.
you know times have changed when the controversial statement is the claim that a candidate's drug dealer should be interviewed. The fact that he has a drug dealer is not part of the story.
Mr. Dowd, Cindy McCain's attorney, goes on to make this argument:
"I suggest to you that none of these subjects on either side are worthy
of the energy and resources of The New York Times. They are cruel hit
pieces designed to injure people that only the worst rag would
investigate and publish. I
know you and your colleagues are always preaching about raising the
level of civil discourse in our political campaigns. I think taking
some your own medicine is in order here."
how in the tank are they?
I have one prediction to make: if Obama does win this election it will end up destroying the press as we know it. Once he is elected all of these stories as they have been ignoring become fair game. The press is restrained itself in order to see their preferred candidates get elected, but once that happens the other, normally more powerful, imperative kicks in: the urge to compete. There are just too many good stories about Obama's past and been ignored. Once he is safely ensconced in office, there will be nothing to keep the press often. I expect that will along with these stories will appear stories of how they had been earlier spiked or suppressed by the "will of the newsroom."
Obama is the most liberal candidate for president perhaps ever. It is hard to think of a man whose underlying preferences are so far from those of the median voter. his statements are, on the surface, images of moderation. His actions, particularly those before he got to the Senate, are those of a hard left radical. As president he he will not be able to help revealing this. He has to make too many appointments, too many executive decisions, for his true preferences to remain secret long.
The great disadvantage under which liberal intellectuals operate is their belief that deep inside every American beats the heart of a Swede. They are convinced that the only thing which stops the American people from expressing this preference at the polls is the manipulation of opinion by their enemies and be stirring up of retrograde prejudices among those poor, frightened, economically insecure lower classes, who out of their economic insecurity, "cling to their guns and to their religion." there is is the, "try it you'll like it," theory of public policy: if only we can institute socialism people realize how much better it is for them. Moreover, they are, in their own way, as isolated and insulated from opposing views as the most insular white suburbanite in a gated community, or backwoods Baptist Bible thumper in darkest Alabama. They never hear opposing voices. That is why William Ayers could become a respectable figure in Hyde Park: most Americans on being introduced to such a man would grow their hands back in disgust. Obama saw and nothing controversial in handing over other people's children to be educated by him. Why should he have? No one else he ever talk to did.
No comments:
Post a Comment