What Fresh Hell Is This?

November 13, 2006

Ruth Ann Dailey Spins - again

In a column today, Ruth Ann Dailey spun the following web:
There has been plenty of meanness at both ends of the political spectrum the past few years, much of it fueled by the unfettered, often uncivilized nature of the blogosphere and the strident tone of conservative talk radio. Both parties hit low notes recently with ads appealing to ugly racist cliches.

But whenever this nastiness has gotten bad enough to penetrate mainstream news sources, only the right-wing perpetrators have gotten pasted.

Anyway, RAD opens with:
That was the line ABC News took Thursday night in covering the White House summit between President George W. Bush and new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The reporter framed their meeting with some "very nasty" comments each supposedly made about the other during the campaign.

The only problem with the assertion is that ABC couldn't back it up with facts. While two clips aired of Ms. Pelosi making ugly personal attacks on the president's character and abilities, the only evidence against Bush was his disagreement with her comment that finding Osama bin Laden wouldn't make America any safer.
Her point, as I take it, is that there's nastiness on both sides, but while Democrats are nastier, the Republicans are spanked for it more. Oh, and George W. Bush is never nasty.

I guess she missed this story - it's from October, 31. Bush made the comment on the 30th.
President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.
A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorists to win. He goes on:
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."
No of course that's not a nasty attack. Note he's going with the "Democrat party" minor league insult. It's like calling a grown man "Bobby" (when no one else does) in order to make him seem immature and nothing like Robert, is father.

Now when did John Kerry botch his joke? Here, I'll give you a hand.
Speaking to students at California's Pasadena City College on Oct. 30, 2006, the former presidential candidate said, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in
October 30.

So which story made the headlines on all the National TV News? Kerry's botched joke, of course. Indeed, Mediamatters.org writes:
In contrast, at no point has NBC's Nightly News, ABC's World News, or the CBS Evening News even mentioned* -- much less led with -- President Bush's October 30 statement during a campaign speech that a Democratic victory in the midterm elections would mean that "terrorists win and America loses."
The asterix links to this sentence at the bottom of the page:
*Nexis search of NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News transcripts, October 30-31, for "The terrorists win and America loses."
No mention that night of Bush's incivility yet wall to wall coverage of a wooden man's failure at stand-up comedy. So tell me again, Ruth Ann, do you still think that the media was letting the Democrats get away with being nasty?


Ol' Froth said...

Ruth Ann doesn't know how to do the google on the various internets I guess.

EdHeath said...

This is the problem when partisans of either stripe try to make an objective statement. I am fairly sure that Ruth Ann would say that the republicans tell the truth in attack ads, while democrats simply name call or attack (and she could give you the republican talking points on the ads). The same is true of Tony Norman from the other side. I wish Ruth Ann would address Cheney’s famously uncivil remark to Pat Lehey.

I mean, Annenberg at Penn will probably do an analysis at some point. If RAD wants to report on it, on *all* of it, I will listen politely. But her opinion is *worse* than useless, because she has the platform of the PG to portray her opinion as informed, if not fact.

Paul Krugman’s column today in the NYTimes addresses this very tangentially. Normally I find Krugman a little too shrilly partisan, but I have been thinking about populism for some time, which is what he talks about there. The GOP has courted the common man for some time now, pretending to be the populist party while acting primarily in the interest of corporations. Krugman sees this election as a sign that people are waking up to this sham. I don’t entirely agree, I think the only issue people identified (in exit polls) of this nature was political corruption. Still, there is an opportunity for democrats to vote out of committee true populist issues. They will likely fail on the floor, and of course Bush can veto them if some moderate republicans need cover. But that might open people’s eyes. As Krugman says, reform of the medicare drug plan is crucial. If there is some sort of negotiation or price component in it, used to close the doughnut hole, the voters will see who has their interests at heart. (and yes, seniors are statistically the wealthiest group in the country, but the ones who are poor are desperately poor, and still deserve medication)

Anonymous said...

Indeed, the terrorists will win. Why? Because the Democrats already planning our armed forces "cut and run" from Iraq. Which interestingly enough, Maria blogged (http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-im-all-about-cutting-and-running.html)
about Bush cutting and running from Iraq. Maria, aren't you upset by the Democrats already planning out our cut and run from Iraq? If you were mad at Bush for speaking of it, certainly you are mad at the Democrats for speaking the same thing, right? You're not a hypocrite are you?

The Democrats said that our taxes need raised, something I warned every single one of you about. It's not even a week and they're already speaking of raising taxes.

So, let's review:

(1) Thanks to the Democrats, we're going to demonstrate to the terrorists, not to mention the rest of the world that we cannot win a war...ever. I know you liberals say that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war now, well then, just wait until our military is gone from Iraq. You'll get your civil war in Iraq, people. Thank the Democrats. Thanks a heap.

(2) Your taxes will be raised. A futile maneuver on the Democrats part being that the 2008 election is on the horizon. I am all for it. Go ahead Democrats, raise taxes. The American people will show you their thanks as they cast their vote during the 2008 election. It'll be one hell of a short lived Democratic control of the House and Senate.

Oh yeah...one more thing....


EdHeath said...

The post was on how Ruth Ann says that liberals are ruder than conservatives. Way to prove her wrong.

John Schutrick said...

Well, at least he was precisely on topic.

BTW, edheath, be careful in your use of irony with the trolls on these blogs. They are almost as deaf to it as they are to truth.