Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn, I disagree
with you when you say that Brooks and his ilk parrot this nonsense because they like it/think it's relevant, whatever. To get to the place Brooks is in the journalism world, you have to know how to satisfy editors and your superiors generally. That fact is true of just about every journalist on the national stage. Those are plum jobs and they don't hand them out to just anyone. People get those jobs because they know how the system works and that means pleasing editors and producers. And editors and producers need to please owners. What that means is that Brooks, et al learn very early in their careers how to please owners. Owners are not liberals or radicals; they're extremely wealthy conservatives who are quite willing to publish/air this stuff because it tends to promote the status quo. It's part of what Chomsky and Hermann described as manufacturing consent. There's great congruency between the values of the monied interests that pay K Street lobbyists and those which pay David Brooks. So politics and the "journalists" who cover it answer to the same bosses.
Who knows what David Brooks would be like if he weren't working inside that particular system? He may be a perfectly interesting guy. But as long as he works where he does, he has no choice but to try to convince people this stuff matters. My guess is that he long ago ceased to even notice what he was doing. I think it's despicable of course, but I can't agree that he does this because he likes it.
Glenn, your criticisms of the media are great, but I don't detect an overall theory, understanding or explanation of why this stuff happens. I urge you to think a bit more about the whys of the things you so rightly criticize. I assure you it's more than just a bunch of lazy slobs who can't do any better. Chomsky and Hermann are a good starting place.
-
Sol Invictus
"Bitter"-gate can only hurt him, and that's why Obama supporters' rationalizations about what he "really" meant are so infuriating; they're blinkered and self-deluded.
I posted earlier about this. As a resident of smalltown PA, I think I am uniquely suited to evaluate Sen. Obama's bitter comments, considering they describe me, my friends, and my family.
If you take anyone's message out of context, it sounds awful. But if you really take a moment to research the context of the statement, you'll realize what he was talking about. You have to consider clinging in the sense of clinging to a life vest in the middle of the ocean. It is what helps people make it through the life, which is filled with uncertainties. That is not condescending in any way.
I'm more serious than you think when I say it helps them through the hard times. Many of my hunter friends hunt not for sport, but to help put food on the table.
I always tell people that you cannot judge what someone says or does unless they say or do it in front of you. Do not judge Sen. Obama's comments without taking the time to read the context surrounding them, and then taking the time to learn about the people he was discussing.
Another thing for all you people who throw around all the polling data...recall that most younger voters don't have land lines.
-
Edmund
I know you are just having fun but why are you spending time back and forth with Sol? I mean at one point Hillary the looked unbeatable too. Who would have ever even thought Barack had a chance.
Now the person who did not have a chance has raised more money then everybody in the history of politics. He has raised that money not with big "elitist" donors but people who have gave $100 dollars or less. That means a whole lot of those blue collar workers have been contributing.
He has more of the popular vote, that just can' be black voters or "elitist" white voters. It has to be Hispanic,Blacks,Whites,Asian,women,men,poor,rich,young,old,straight and gay. His crowds are the most diverse of all the candidates.
He has run the best state by state race. He has won in the south,north,east and west which means he has won in states with white and black voters and he won the most delegates in TEXAS.
Which means he can win. Sol is a status quo. They always believe the way things are, is the way things have to be. They don't believe in possibilities. They veiw "hope" as irrational. Thank God the foundind fathers did not think like that. Thank God abolitionist did not think like that. Thank God civil rights leaders did not think like that.
'Now faith is the substance of things "hoped" for the evidence of things not seen."
-
@Edmund Burka
Please. Cutting and pasting a six-month-old article that was talking about the upcoming 2006 midterm races is as useful now as last year's betting line on the Super Bowl.
A lot has changed since last October. Few people had heard of Jeremiah Wright. Obama hadn't yet put his foot in his mouth. Hillary was the presumed Democratic nominee.
Stop, already. You're just making yourself look silly. Look at the polls as the exist now.! As of this morning, McCain beats Obama--easily.
As I told Iokannen, a lot can change between now and November--but change happens in both directions. Based on clear voting patterns in the Democratic primaries, Obama is going to lose, because on a national scale he hasn't (and can't) attract key constituencies.
-
Sol, Republicans and math
He doesn't believe in simple math. He believes in Intelligent Math. The Creator designed math to insure a continous Republican rule in the Greatest Nation Of All Time On The Face Of The Planet.
-
Uh, Sol
I was about to post something similar to you. What makes you think "bitter-gate," as you cutely call it, is affecting Obama when all data indicate it isn't?
-
Counting 18 states in the Dem bag
2 less than the 20 needed for McAnus' 162.
Total EC votes:
221
Not even going to be close, whoever the nominee is.