|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts issued a statement Thursday condemning “racially divisive issues” after an article in The New York Times detailing a proposal by Ricketts’ “super PAC” to challenge President Obama’s re-election campaign because of his relationship with controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, among other things.
The Cubs are currently working with Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, and the state of Illinois to craft a public/private financing plan to renovate Wrigley Field.
In a story posted on the New York Times’ website on Thursday morning, it was revealed that Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who gave his children more than $400 million to buy the Cubs and Wrigley Field, was funding a $10 million political action committee, the Ending Spending Action Fund, aimed at challenging the president in the upcoming presidential election.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4128 - 10:23am, May 23)Last: Bitter Mouse is a genre addictNewsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (43 - 10:20am, May 23)Last: Ron J2Newsblog: Leyland breaks his own rule, lets Verlander get win after delay (5 - 10:19am, May 23)Last: Dale SamsNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-23-2013 (5 - 10:12am, May 23)Last: BDCNewsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (319 - 10:08am, May 23)Last: Shooty is in the Trust TreeNewsblog: Chase Utley 'scared' by injury, could be headed to DL (10 - 10:06am, May 23)Last: Randy JonesNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1191 - 10:04am, May 23)Last: Moses Taylor peacocks peacockNewsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (82 - 10:04am, May 23)Last: gef the talking mongooseNewsblog: Astros vendor brings snow cones into bathroom stall, gets fired (5 - 10:01am, May 23)Last: Ron J2Newsblog: Jose Canseco to join Ft. Worth Cats as player/coach... or maybe not. (4 - 10:00am, May 23)Last: gef the talking mongooseNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1087 - 9:59am, May 23)Last: JuanGone..except1gameNewsblog: Verducci: Offensive decline leads list of 10 early-season trends to watch (42 - 9:51am, May 23)Last: gef the talking mongooseNewsblog: Daugherty: Brandon Phillips has been Reds' MVP so far (8 - 9:43am, May 23)Last: Tom NawrockiNewsblog: Don Mattingly rips into players and makeup of Dodgers (3 - 9:36am, May 23)Last: just plain joeNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 22, 2013 (172 - 8:48am, May 23)Last: Mike Emeigh
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Unless, of course, it pays my bills for me. Then it's OK.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE GOVERNMENT WILL GO BROKE UNLESS WE QUIT SPENDING MONEY!!!!!
Really, I only need a few tens of millions of dollars. That's pocket change.
WE HAVE TO STOP WASTEFUL SPENDING AND CUT TAXES NOW!!!!!
Another f'in hypocritical Republican.
Unless, of course, it pays my bills for me. Then it's OK.
It's kind of hilarious, no?
I can't imagine Rahm isn't taking her calls.
EDIT:
When Laura first spotted that quote, she probably figured it belonged to a pro-Obama strategic proposal.
It's depressing.
Agreed. Almost as depressing as a Romney prank in high school receiving above-the-fold treatment in the Washington Post.
I agree with this also. It was fine for some pointing and laughing on the liberal blogs, but I didn't see the big deal. I mean, yes, at the time it was a big deal and a mean terrible thing to do. Thank God no one will ever judge me on my behavior in high school, except perhaps my Mom on occasion.
But it makes sense.
Draft dodger. Can't be a war criminal unless you go to war.
AGH MY EARS
So the real story here is that poor little rich kid was forced to bite the hand that feeds him and hope that daddy doesn't cut him off?
I know. I wasn't really responding to you. Although I disagree about that Romney story. He's trying to convince people to make him the most powerful person on earth, so the media has a duty to look into his background for stories that might reveal something about his character. Obama has received the same scrutiny. And it's not so much that he did some cruel stuff in high school -- although what he did was pretty awful -- but the fact that he claims not to remember the incidents and issued a non-apology apology.
Apparently not in 2008. Jim Geraghty: "But this year [2012], the political world has been suprised to learn that Obama ate a dog, that he once shoved a girl to the ground, that he used composite characters, and that he attended socialist conferences at the Cooper Union."
So Romney's response to a non-story makes it a story?
Obama said IN THE PREFACE OF HIS BOOK that he composited and condensed. You only "learned" this in 2012 if you're an idiot.
Obama shoved a girl when he was 11.
This was all in his book. It was a best seller, you know.
In part, because of Citizens United. As a political consultant, you want to effect change, but you also want to get paid. When you design a campaign now, things that previously would be considered off-base are now relevant if certain billionaires believe them and are willing to spend. Matt Yglesias has the longer version of this argument.
Every time this starts to bother me, I try to remind myself that electing an African American President represented an astounding leap of social progress and that with this progress there was destined to be those on the fringe so bothered by this progress that they would do whatever they could to turn back the tide. It's not a coincidence that a large strain of this rhetoric tries to make Obama into the "other" - his election made him one of us in a way with which many on the far right are not comfortable.
And yet Gail Collins of the Times and the WaPo's news editors did not consider any of that info newsworthy during the '08 primaries and general election campaign? (It was up to bloggers to finally bring this stuff out in the open.) But Romney placing the dog on top of the car and cutting off some guy's hair in high school must be told?
Got it.
Yes. Is that really strange? The original story isn't completely irrelevant, though it's pretty close, but lots of election stories are irrelevant on the merits (e.g., candidate answers question at campaign stop about intensely local issue that he has no influcence over) But Romney's response, "I don't remember this happening except that I specifically remember that I did not do it because the kid was gay" is really dumb, obviously untrue, and given today.
"Candidate answers question about cuts to local school's sports programs" probably isn't a real story, but "candidate answers question about cuts to local school's sports programs by saying '#### this town, you're all so stupid you probably need the extra time for reading classes anyway,'" probably is.
The MSM these days pretty much covers what the blogosphere tells them to, lest they be accused of being out of touch with "the people." So you're basically complaining because liberal bloggers are faster than conservative bloggers when it comes to "bring(ing) this stuff out in the open."
And yet Gail Collins of the Times and the WaPo's news editors did not consider any of that info newsworthy during the '08 primaries and general election campaign?
So the actions of an adult and actions of a small child are analogous. Got it.
Not to mention that the sensational nature of this now-aborted smear campaign is likely to make the media pay a lot more attention to who's behind those attack ads placed by anonymous "non-profit" organizations. I doubt if this is going to be the last story of this type that we're likely to see, and the faster we can bring these snakes out from under their rocks, the better.
I thought Romney's problem was that the paleocons aren't really his base.
That seems quaintly optimistic. I think the media is covering this stuff for the same reason they've always covered this stuff -- it's easier than covering issues. As soon as something even easier comes along, they'll happily cover that.
AFAIC the dog story and the bullying story are about the equivalent of the Jeremiah Wright saga. All of these stories are deserved coverage for about one news cycle and that's it. All of them show a small snippet of a candidate's past whose significance gets insanely overblown by their opponents. In the Wright case, the right wing blogosphere kept that story alive way past its expiration date, and if it hadn't been for the exposure that the Times gave to the Ricketts story, it might very well have gone on to poison yet another campaign. Let's see just how long and how prominently the dog and bullying stories remain in this campaign before starting up with the usual Liberal Media Conspiracy narrative.
I think the main difference, though --
There is -- or was -- a significant gap in the 'smear assembly line', if you will. MSNBC coming out as essentially the 'liberal Fox News' is a relatively recent event in terms of electoral cycles -- for a good ~15 years from the early 90s until the mid-aughts, you had AM radio and Fox essentially without a counterweight. For all the teeth-gnashing about the Times and WaPo and the network alphabets - they try very hard to be even-handed (just check the numbers on Sunday morning MTP/FTN/etc appearances).
The rise of liberal blogs has served to somewhat balance the public consciousness at least a little -- but when you've got a Fox News asking, supposedly innocently "Did Obama give a 'terrorist fist bump'?" -- well, it just seems to me that's a bit different than the WaPo or whomever deciding that something in a years old book that's sold millions doesn't qualify for banner headlines...
Since there are supposedly no ties between SuperPACs and the candidates, Andy, this should not matter. As you point out, though, someone who is going to blast the airwaves with millions of dollars' worth of attack ads should have their professional dealings checked out. However, culling through the personal life of someone who simply makes a large donation would be more than a little creepy.
I thought Romney's problem was that the paleocons aren't really his base.
Of course you're right, and I used the wrong shorthand term. I realize that the Paleocon (Buchanan) wing of the GOP has no love for Romney. His current base is made up of a coalition of neocons advising him on foreign policy, a bunch of neo-libertarians who see him as a useful vehicle for further crippling the social contract, and a segment of the Religious Right that sees him as better than the Great Satan from Kenya.
I honestly don't see why this matters? Gail Collins' obsession with Seamus is almost certainly an idiosyncrasy. WaPo put it above the fold because it was a really well-cited and sourced story.
No one really reported on Obama's book in 2008 because it was old news and no one cares about it.
I don't see why people get worked up about it as it almost certainly does not matter.
Edit:
You can see this even easier by noticing that Mann/Ornstein have not appeared on any of the Sunday shows since their article in WaPo.
On my good days, I still tend to take a more optimistic, Studs Terkel view of the American people -- that they're smart enough that, given the right information, they'll make the right decision.
On my bad days, I can't get the "keep your government hands off my medicare" thoughts out of my head.
The media goes where the public (and ratings) want them to go. If the public were willing to sit through non-hyperbolic discussions on Keynesian economic theory versus the Austrian austerity, or spend hours -- and it does take hours -- to examine the costs, benefits, and issues with programs like Medicare, the media would cover it.
Well, if you say that NBC News, CNN, and the Gray Lady are unbiased, then it must be true.
A freakin' bestselling book that no one in the MSM either bothered to read or wanted to report.
Which is, as you fully realize, a complete fiction. The Romney campaign can't control the PACs completely, but they can't escape the obvious informal connection. This goes for any Obama SuperPACs as well.
As you point out, though, someone who is going to blast the airwaves with millions of dollars' worth of attack ads should have their professional dealings checked out. However, culling through the personal life of someone who simply makes a large donation would be more than a little creepy.
I wouldn't disagree there. The personal life of an anonymous millionaire PAC supporter doesn't interest me, but his ideology and his financial stakes in the election certainly do.
And of course the real answer to this is to take up the Supreme Court's open hint and start requiring full disclosure of the identity behind all large donations to those bogus "non-profit" front groups. It shouldn't be necessary for the media to have to do this on a piece-by-piece basis.
The idea of anyone - liberal or conservative - defending Gail Collins or the WaPo editors kind of breaks my heart. They live for the superficial and the simple-minded, and are utterly incapable of providing information with real news value, along with their cohort at the NYT and TV news outlets. They're worthless, irredeemable fools, and their work product is absolute poison in the public discourse.
Just for purposes of discussion, let's say they are -- don't you think there's a manner of degree that differentiates something like, say, choosing not to report a 'controversy' that's readily apparent in Obama's book versus having your news anchor ask as a story lead-in whether the President was giving a "terrorist fist-pump"?
The fact is - there was plenty written from Obama's book - the fact that he had tried cocaine, for example, was highlighted on multiple occasions.
The fact that every last conspiracy theory that arose from his past wasn't exhaustively explored just doesn't, I don't think, rise to the level of "bias". The media should be discerning - it shouldn't be winking and nodding towards the sandwich board set to "just ask the questions".
Exercising a modicum of logical judgment isn't the same as "bias"... asking in all seriousness if the President gave a 'terrorist fist bump' is bias.
Jason, just to be clear, are you really saying that there's anything remotely relevant about the fact that a 7 year old boy raised in Indonesia might have eaten dog meat that was presumably put on his plate by an adult? Is this your inner PETA coming out?
Of course not, Andy. OTOH, as a guy who likes to ride with the top down on a sunny day, I see nothing "remotely relevant" about Seamus' adventures either.
Actually, that ought to be up to Harry Reid and John Boehner.
Perhaps this is just my provincialism, but this just really ticks me off... I mean, Illinois isn't a backwoods and Chicago isn't a tiny burg -- absolutely, it's a pretty meteoric rise to go from ~8 years in the state senate to 2 years in the US Senate to President -- but it's not like he just dropped out of the sky.
The problem isn't "vetting" -- the problem is that certain quarters are lusting for some deep, dark, secret because Obama isn't one of our usual patrician class Presidents. Clinton faced the same thing -- recall the stories/rumors about him supposedly traveling to the USSR and secretly being part of the commintern or all the Scaife fueled nonsense about however many people the Clintons had whacked back in Arkansas when they were running a drug cartel out of the governor's mansion or whatever.
Proper "Vetting" would essentially come down to this -- Barack Obama was an ambitious young pol who got his start in politics representing a very eclectic, but very liberal state senate district. By most accounts and compared to his predecessor, he was actually a fair bit more moderate than what would generally fit Hyde Park -- but this served him pretty well to run for a federal Senate seat. He's gotten along with, but certainly wasn't a creature of what was a very strong Democratic machine. He is, essentially, a very good politician -- but this looking for some ah-ha skeleton is just silly... He's a rather ambitious, cautious, and center-left politician -- his heart is probably more left than "he" is, but his head keeps him from following his heart more often than not.
No, I think it's all the same.
This is silly. For one, I gather we know more about every serious candidate that runs in a presidential primary nowadays than we did about any presidential candidate prior to the 2000 election. The level of vetting of presidential candidates borders on the absurd.
Secondly, you don't really want Obama to be vetted - you want the media to make a big frickin' deal about the things you think might cause people to dislike Obama. You can't vet what's in Obama's book - it's already out there for everybody to see. The media read it and they decided that most of it didn't matter. In 2008, the conservative blogosphere decided most of it didn't matter. Now that conservatives have lost one election to Obama and don't want to lose another, they're looking for more ammunition, so they're trying to mine the book more deeply. This isn't vetting - it's the conservative blogosphere trying to get the media to be their megaphone.
He attended a "Socialist Scholars Conference" at Cooper Union as a little kid? Imagine if Romney had frequented a John Birch Society gathering as a university student? Do you think that wouldn't have received any attention?
Nothing can compare to Al Gore saying a lot of basically true things that were portrayed as preposterous lies.
The conservative blogosphore was light years behind the left in 2008. Seriously. For example, Andrew Breitbart did not get his sites off the ground until well into 2009. Neither the Daily Caller nor Washington Free Beacon existed.
Moreover, Senator McCain oversaw the worst presidential campaign in my lifetime. How he won New Hampshire with his "C" team running things is still a sweet mystery. Unbelievably, he eschewed any attacks on Obama that were Wright-related, even though it was Hillary's people who first made that connection.
And one more time: If POTUS loses this fall, it will be first and foremost because of the economy. These other issues exist by and large to motivate the right and left-wingers who otherwise may be less than enthused about the match-up.
EDIT: If I wasn't clear, let me try again: IMHO, the focus on Obama's past is an effort, not only to gin up the base, but help deflect unflattering Romney human-interest stories by pointing out the negligence of both the McCain campaign and MSM's negligence four years ago. Even the ones who push this stuff realize there will be little direct benefit to Romney. What helps him the most is a focus on Obama's four years in office.
[straight face]Obama got fully vetted in '08. [/straight face]
It has received exactly as much attention as it is worth. You know, maybe it's because I've done things like attended panels on Marxist Criticism at literary conferences, but there is simply nothing scary about a young man going to various academic and cultural events. He was a young guy trying to find his way in the world. Socialists are not the Hitler Youth or the KKK, for god's sake. I imagine the conference was full of tweedy college professors giving obscure, jargony talks on political theory.
Precisely. You're desperate for a scandal to hang around Obama's neck and mad because you haven't found one.
The conservative blogosphore was light years behind the left in 2008. Seriously. For example, Andrew Breitbart did not get his sites off the ground until well into 2009. Neither the Daily Caller nor Washington Free Beacon existed.
I call total horseshit. Do you remember the 2004 election? Did the right regress from 2004 to 2008? You know that guy Matt Drudge?
Drudge was indeed in control in 2004. And yet, my friends on the left not only recovered but surpassed the right in time for 2008. Now it's an Internet stalemate, kind of like the Western Front in 1915.
Speaking of saying things with a straight face, can you honestly say that you would still think the Post should not have covered the story about the incidents in high school and that you would not have been troubled by the candidate's response if it had been about Obama and not Romney? A story like that about Obama and a non-apology apology would bother me.
Maybe they noticed how that worked out for Hillary.
Of course not, Andy. OTOH, as a guy who likes to ride with the top down on a sunny day, I see nothing "remotely relevant" about Seamus' adventures either.
Yeah, they both make for entertaining footnotes and that's about it. I have no idea what's obsessing Maureen Dowd about Seamus.
And of course the real answer to this is to take up the Supreme Court's open hint and start requiring full disclosure of the identity behind all large donations to those bogus "non-profit" front groups. It shouldn't be necessary for the media to have to do this on a piece-by-piece basis.
Actually, that ought to be up to Harry Reid and John Boehner.
Indeed it should.
Unbelievably, [McCain] eschewed any attacks on Obama that were Wright-related, even though it was Hillary's people who first made that connection.
That was scarcely Hillary's finest hour, and you know it. And if McCain had stooped to that level in order to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency, it was have been the most Pyrrhic victory in history. When you start applying Vince Lombardi bromides to presidential campaigns, somebody's going to have to clean up the broken bones.
Yes, it was a lame apology but it was still the same classic non-apology apology 99% of politicians give, whether they be on the left, right, or center. My no. 1 problem with the post-WaPo (hmmm) coverage was that many outlets justified the 3,500-word opus by pointing to Romney's answer.
That Romney bullying story was certainly worth covering for one news cycle, but it's also one of those small pieces of the puzzle that can be made way too much of. His record with Bain is infinitely more newsworthy, since that's something Romney is proud of, and indeed wants to bring into the forefront of his campaign.
Did you really enjoy singing "Ma ma, where's my pa?" to Grover Cleveland's supporters? :-)
Considering that McCain spent years whoring after John "The Catholic Church is the Great Whore of Rome" Hagee's endorsement, perhaps that wasn't the worst idea in the world ...
Well either Fox and other conservative outlets did not read it in '08 either, or they did not deem thesse "new" allegatations all that important.
That was a great moment in heckling history, to be sure.
Here's a news flash: Many journalists not named Bill Madden, Mike Lupica, and Jerry Green are lazy too.
Do we really need another WWI hijack?
So is your position that the stories about Obama's youth aren't relevant, but that the media should cover that stuff if they're going to talk about Romney's youth?
Pretty much. Moreover, had the WaPo still published the article but shortened it to 800 words and placed it on page A5, I doubt there would have been nearly this much outrage.
Also, this is what I typed above:
Fair enough. Anyway, I considered this an opportunity for dialogue and education. [ducks]
Not that Dowd isn't a total loon herself, but it's Gail Collins who is ultra-obsessive about Seamus.
Was it not recent history when a major metropolitan newspaper was reporting that Bill Clinton killed a dude, smuggled his body out of the White House wrapped in a carpet, and abandoned it in a public park?
Until Romney proves he did not eat Seamus I hope the attacks continue. I hate to admit this but the first pet that I got to name was a cat we called Seamus, who is buried in my back yard so I can prove I didn't eat him.
I thought that the story was that Hillary killed Vince Foster.
Wait, wait, wait...
How do we know he didn't?
We do know that Romney the collegian was heavily active in counter protests in support of the Vietnam war, and we also now know that just prior to college in prep school, he was led at least in one instance an incident to 'punish' a fellow student who was a bit more 'counterculturalish'. Has anyone ever asked Mitt Romney if ever attended a John Birch info session or event?
See how this works?
By the same token, it was Rick Santorum who dredged up (or re-dredged) the dog-on-car story in all seriousness, right? All Obama seems to have done is play it for laughs, which is what it deserves. (I'm not talking here about media fascination with Seamus, which is indeed puzzling.)
Romney's reaction to the bullying story is more interesting. It would be a chance for him to abjure homophobia and talk about how he's grown, but apparently that can only lose him votes. To me that's a sadder commentary on the electorate than it is on Mitt Romney.
I actually voted for Romney yesterday in the Texas Republican primary. I looked at the ballot and the other names were Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, and the like, and I thought "man, things really could be worse." But I will certainly vote for Obama in the general election, as I did in '08.
Not that Dowd isn't a total loon herself, but it's Gail Collins who is ultra-obsessive about Seamus.
That shows how much attention I pay to either of those featherweight would-be humorists. I really miss Russell Baker.
I chuckled, but that kind of nails part of why the Romney BS stories stick around. Personality matters to voters, much moreso than it probably should, but that's the way it is. Romney so obviously hides behind a mask, the the public is interested in what's behind the mask. Anything that gives a hint of who he really is matters. If Romney could just say "I bullied that kid and I was stupid to do so. And I'm proud of my Mormon faith and I believe X, Y and Z whether the rest of the country likes it or not, and here are some of the problems I've had in my life that I've dealt with, and here are some of the really important things I've done in my life that helped real people", he'd make huge progress. But he just can't do let anyone in...he can't just be honest or even pretend to be honest in a remotely convincing way. He wrote a book, but didn't say ANYTHING about himself. So now the media digs in and starts giving the public a little of what they want to know. That's the only possible effect of his personality on todays political demands. The public wants to think they are getting to really know the candidate.
Obama wrote a book and gave at least some hints at some flaws and transgressions, and he's got charm and personality coming out the wazoo, and he's got 4 years on the national stage for people get comfortable with him, and for the nutcases to come up with anything else they can. Why didn't he get vetted better in 2008? The Clintons were afraid to attack him and then Sarah Palin sucked all the air out of the room. FOX news could have ran all sorts of stories but they were busy defending Palin's ignorance and playing the victim of the rest of the media. No one stopped anyone from digging more, and Obama had done enough to frame his personality and open enough in talking about it that there wasn't a huge demand.
I recently heard someone reporting about Romney loosing to Ted Kennedy and saying that he learned "you need to define yourself to the voters or your opponent will." A lot of candidates say that, but here is Romney letting everyone in the world define who he is and his plan seems to be to change the subject to "Obama screwed everything up" and hopefully remain anonymous. It's his own damn fault.
If this is true why didn't Romney volunteer to serve? Oh that's right, the rich don't have to go, typical chicken hawk.
Hey - he was doing his part - here's Romney at a 1966 rally protesting in favor of LBJ's expansion of the draft.... Rather than volunteer individually, which would have only added one more soldier, he was thinking of the greater good -- ensuring that many more unconnected soldiers would be available.
EDIT: I don't mean to nitpick, but I keep reading fantastic claims about what the CU case stood for, in which every time a political ad appears on TV, CU is cited. Billionaires were allowed to advertise as much as they wanted on TV, as long as they were independent of campaigns, before CU was handed down.
Just like those liberals who talk about how much they support raising taxes, but never contribute any extra money of their own voluntarily, even though the mechanism is in place for such contributions. I'm glad we agree that those guys suck!
Well, you must not have been paying very close attention. There is a long history of very robust debate that seems somewhat uncivil to those on the receiving end - sometimes with considerable justification. I don't have much interest in recounting over-the-top rhetoric but Obama's predecessor received quite a bit - usually without the media calling out those responsible or asking his more civil opponents to distance themselves from it.
Bill Clintion and George Bush were attacked verociously. The first Bush was mocked, Reagan was mocked a ton, Carter got eaten up. Obviously Nixon got it and Ford got lampooned as well. Nobody gives the President of the United States a pass, ever.
Well, you must not have been paying very close attention. There is a long history of very robust debate that seems somewhat uncivil to those on the receiving end - sometimes with considerable justification. I don't have much interest in recounting over-the-top rhetoric but Obama's predecessor received quite a bit - usually without the media calling out those responsible or asking his more civil opponents to distance themselves from it.
Both Bush and Obama got a ton of over-the-top rhetoric. In terms of sheer vitriol there's not much to choose between them, but whereas most of the shrillest anti-Bush rhetoric stemmed from policy differences, much of the anti-Obama rhetoric is largely personal: The looney birther stuff and the related "he's not an American" and "he's a secret Muslim" garbage that goes along with it. IMO that explains much of the difference in the media reaction. When Republicans routinely throw around words like "appeaser" against nearly every Democratic president, which are pretty much the mirror image of the "warmonger" epithets directed against Bush, the media didn't react all that much to those charges, either.
But then there's the elephant in the room, which is that a small but vocal** percentage of the venom directed against Obama is race-based and in some cases it's not particularly subtle. No amount of false "equivalency" cries are going to negate the fact that there's no corresponding sort of venom directed against any major Republican figure, and no amount of conservative mau-mauing of the "liberal media" is going to stop the media from making occasional note of it.
**with equal emphasis on both of these words
True, but the question is the degree of obsession about trivial or imaginary topics like birthplace and religion, as opposed to exaggerated rhetoric that stems from opposition to particular policies.
Of course when the policy differences become stretched to the point of no return, then the floodgates are opened and you get into conspiracy theories from the nutballs on all sides. LBJ got it with both barrels from the lunatic right wing before Vietnam, and then from the lunatic left wing once the war heated up. The latter rhetoric was technically more policy-based, but it was every bit as unhinged and vitriolic. There was absolutely no degree of rhetoric directed against Bush II that hadn't been directed against Lyndon Johnson 40 years earlier.
Success of media is a criteria? There was a film in 2010 ("I'm here for your money" or something to that regard) about Obama... it just sucked and no one paid attention to it. There are plenty of anti-Obama pieces out there - no one pays to watch them.
Polemicist and occasionally dishonest thought he may be, I can't help it that Michael Moore is a slicker film-maker than Roy Griggs...
Well, yeah. I mean if you are going to make the argument that person X has recieved more vitriol than another I'd think an important factor is just how popular the showing of the vitriol is.
But who were these people? I'm sure that you can look through a Daily Kos message board, but please find names (Cynthia McKinney I'll give you). I can show elected officials and party leaders who have called Obama a Marxist, Socialist, Anti-America, Not born in America, wants to destroy America and worse.
I get that random people do nasty stuff, but the level of nuttiness by suppossed "responsible" people like politicians is only comparable to Clinton. A few filmakers you never heard of deciding to make a film about W is not the same as the Federal Judge of Montana forwarding racists emails about Obama or the Kansas Speaker of their House asking people to pray for Obama's death. And that doesn't even count the (likely) hundreds of elected officials who have gone along with this birther nonsense by either supporting legislation or just outright saying that he wasn't born here. I'm sorry but it ain't really comparable.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main