The Angry Right
The Anchoress has a must read post that perfectly describes how I feel. It is too good to cut up and pull individual quotes from.
Go read it and feel free to come back and comment on it.
Update: This post from Right Wing Nut House is also excellent.
Archived in: 2008 Election, ACORN, Media Bias, Presidential Election, Republicans, voter fraudOctober 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Trackback
15 comments
As an outsider…….
Given claims by some on the right who think ‘mainstream media is against them’ (oddly enough a paranoia shared by those in some quarters on the Left who think the media is pro-Republican). Oops, perhaps paranoia is the wrong word in these times of heated debates, perhaps attitude is better word. Apologies.
What is the view about the impact on the electorate of FOX News (massively openly right wing) and the New York Times, now cheerleading harder than ever for the Republicans? And of course the huge broadcast reach of ‘conservative’ talk radio in comparison to it’s ‘progressive’ rivals. I’d just like to know what people who know and understand the systems think.
For what it’s worth (and I fully admit I’m not a student of US politics and the associated byzantine structures), I think what has happened is that the Democrats have now become just as skilled as the Republicans under Rove et al. in the manipulation of the ‘news cycle’ and the planting of talking points and ’story starts’.
I can honestly say that as an outsider, it strikes me that both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses and that neither would be a total disaster as leader of the worlds current hyper-power. Each is stronger in some areas than others and it appears to me both are capable of implementing the others policies should it suit!
PS: Regards to all on this website and apologies if you think I’ve asked some stupidly obvious questions. It’s always a decent read!
Andy, it’s not the top of the ticket that makes the change dangerous. it is one party power with no ability to block legislation. despite what the Donks claim, even whan the GoP held sway in the House and Senate, they did not have veto proof numbers in either chamber, and particularly in the Senate, they could not stop a filibuster which stops legislation from moving forward.
Regardless of who wins at the top of the ticket in Nov., the cold civil war in this country since Carter lost will heat up. Red hot!
Andy: the New York Times, now cheerleading harder than ever for the Republicans
What HAVE you been smoking , Andy?
Gringo,
Apologies, but it is the view of a non-regular reader of US newspapers. It just struck me, that on the whole, the line of the NYT seemed to be very pro-Bush.
I’m not sure if that makes it truly ‘pro-Republican’ but given that Pres. Bush is a Republican president, I thought the two went together.
For all I know, the current NYT editorial policy will change should the Democrats win the election!
I dont understand that getting citizens to register to vote is called voter fraud.
Andy, The NYT is probably the most liberal newspaper in the country and has been extremely anti-Bush. I’d be interested to know what you have read that makes you think otherwise.
Frodo, Registering a voter once is fine. Registering the same person 50 times or completely making up names or illegally using other people’s names is fraud. But you probably know that and don’t care. Anything to help your “Messiah” win is fine with you.
For the Messianic bluster, Obama is a piss poor salesman; he still hasn’t closed the deal. I doubt that after this amount of time, he can.
With some luck he’ll be in the dustbin with Gore and Kerry on the 5th. This country cannot stand a repeat of the glory of FDR’s economic wonders.
“For all I know, the current NYT editorial policy will change should the Democrats win the election”.
Pinch Sulzberger will change it from mere slavish grovelling to liberal authoritarians to something involving handcuffs.
N E Republican & Hotspur,
I have to admit, that I only glance at the website in particular and it appears to me that the tone of the newspaper seems to be more pro-republican and showing a dissatisfaction with the current Democrats.
I’m not sure if that reflects frustration at how close the race for the White House is or the fact that perhaps both Obama and McCain have for the most part not engaged in vitriolic personal attacks on each other. I get the feeling that in some parts of the ‘media circus’, the Democrats feel it’s time for ‘pay back’ about some of the tactics that were used on them in the previous election e.g. the strong perception that the media was encouraged to spotlight Sen. Kerry’s war record whilst the Bush’s miliary record was seen to be off limits due to pressure placed on the MSM etc.
I stress that the above paragraph is simply based on a ‘quick judgement’ after scanning all sorts of websites recently rather than serious research but it seems that the same talking points about tactics (on both sides) keep appearing. Of course I stand happy to be corrected or pointed in the direction of serious analysis.
For the record, I actually thought McCain showed embarrassment at some of the more ‘extreme’ statements made by some of his supporters recently and the fact that he defended Sen. Obama, explicitly stating the decency of the man, showed the calibre of McCain (in that situation at least).
Given the deep division between both sides in this current campaign, may I ask who do people think stands the best chance of uniting the US or in the current climate is this an impossible task?
Who wants to be united? Division works. Dialectics, dear boy. Storm and stress. The struggle for truth and justice. All that stuff. If The West toddles off into extinction, it will be because we want to feel good all time, about everything.
By the way, are you the Andy of yore, from Blairistan?
Representative government - maybe ALL government - is about reconciling competing interests. Law is supposed to control and penalize the worst dissent and mischief, while political compromise is the path to peaceful decision-making. It’s never been true that ANYONE ought to be happy or “united” by this process. That’s a ridiculous proposition. The only thing required is self-control when you lose.
Hotspur and Rhod,
I’m not sure where Blairistan is but I’ve posted on here before. I currently live in the ‘north’ of England (or the East Midlands) depending on who draws the dividing line near the river Humber.
Sorry, perhaps unite and divide weren’t the right words. I just wondered, especially as senior political figures who are supporters of both candidates are ‘ripping into each other, which candidate would do the best job of governing and leading your country i.e. be the best at the art of achiving the possible!
Andy, sorry. It was rude to refer to your country as Blairistan. Tony had mixed results.
I owned a beautiful Humber bicycle many years ago, and a 1953 Hopper made in a town Something on Humber. Great little Sturmey 3-speeds.
Anyway, neither of the two clods running for President can govern effectively - McCain for reasons of temperment, and Obama for reasons of ideology.
McCain will be cork-screwed into the ground in a futile effort to pacify and soothe his opponents, and Obama will need to rule with subversive promises to issue the impossible to a gullible population. Fantasy is our way of life now.
Hotspur,
No apology needed!!
Sorry, I just didn’t get the ‘Blairstan’ bit!! The fault was at my end not yours!
Interesting despriptions of McCain and Obama. I’m gonna give them some thought!