Obama:Ayers::McCain:Liddy
As Steve Chapman points out, via Mark Kleiman.
Whew! If there's an ounce of fairness or balance in the MSM...though, well...what am I thinking?...they'll give McCain ten times more trouble about this than they gave Obama for the Ayers business. Liddy is a certified--and I used the following term advisedly--traitor. Not to mention a complete idiot and total psycho. And McCain has a much, much, much stronger, more significant and more recent relationship with Liddy than Obama had with Ayers. Though, as we know, a big chunk of this country has way, way more tolerance for right-wing lunatics than for left-wing ones.
As Steve Chapman points out, via Mark Kleiman.
Whew! If there's an ounce of fairness or balance in the MSM...though, well...what am I thinking?...they'll give McCain ten times more trouble about this than they gave Obama for the Ayers business. Liddy is a certified--and I used the following term advisedly--traitor. Not to mention a complete idiot and total psycho. And McCain has a much, much, much stronger, more significant and more recent relationship with Liddy than Obama had with Ayers. Though, as we know, a big chunk of this country has way, way more tolerance for right-wing lunatics than for left-wing ones.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:58 PM
6 Comments:
Plus, G. Gordon Liddy has his own talk radio show, which instantly gives him unlimited conservative street cred.
This raises an issue that's been hovering in my mind. Assuming it's Obama vs. McCain, both candidates will be people who (at least to me) seem relatively honest and upright (Ayers & Liddy notwithstanding). It will be interesting/depressing to how they each "seem" after everything leading up to November.
WS,
Thanks for flagging this one!
You note:
If there's an ounce of fairness or balance in the MSM...though, well...what am I thinking?...
and
[A]s we know, a big chunk of this country has way, way more tolerance for right-wing lunatics than for left-wing ones.
Your comments speak to the pervasive bias in our media that crucifies Democrats for excesses that it ignores in Republicans. This intrinsic bias, to my mind, justifies entities like the DNC to engage in ads like the one you so strongly oppose. You clearly disagree.
How, then, would you propose that Democratic candidates and the DNC go about effectively opposing -- in the short term -- this intrinsic bias in the media that are the primary source of political information for a significant fraction of the electorate?
The main thing I remember about G Gordon Liddy is that while he was in prison for being a huge, international-scale jerk, he was cell-mates with this dude from Cambodia or something. The dude's parents had broken his thumbs at like age three or something like that so they were useless for grabbing and holding, but he could use them as shanks. It was really something out of a Bruce Lee movie. So Liddy learned martial arts from him, because hey, prison.
(One of my friends in high school read G. Gordon Liddy's autobiography and that, of all things, is what I remember from him talking about it.)
Fun facts to know and tell.
The main thing *I* remember about Liddy is that he is a rat-eater.
Oh, and this:
Back when I was in college, Liddy was on a speaking tour. I was on a dorm floor full mostly of conservatives. My two roommates and I were the only liberals (rather TOO liberal by my current lights, but definitely non-wackos). We'd have these big arguments about politics in the halls, sometimes literally for the better part of days on-and-off, with people leaving and coming back, other people joining up. Some of the conservatives went to see Liddy and came back all fired up about what a genius he was, describing some of his positions--which were uniformly sophomoric, even by our literally sophomoric lights. The guy was obviously a moron, but he sure did grab the imaginations of some of my conservative friends. Scary.
Jim--
I don't have a good answer to that, unsurprisingly.
I still advocate scrupulous honesty in these matters. But I'm not sure that's a view I can defend very effectively. But I'm skeptical that the alternative view can be defended any better.
WS,
I understand the call for scrupulous honesty, and I do respect it.
On my part, I see that:
1) Our media perpetuate an unfair arena, giving Republicans a free pass on topics where it hammers Democrats.
2) This pervasive bias in the media gives many in the public distorted views of the candidates and issues, distorting the outcomes of elections.
3) The electoral results are critical to ensuring the health and well being of our citizenry and our nation. The electoral results are critical to world peace and stability. The electoral results are critical to the global climate. The electoral results are critical to world-wide prosperity.
4) Historically, over the last 15 years or so, attempts by politicians to be honest have failed to improve political discourse in our nation (and have generally lead to them losing the election as well).
So, I conclude that to demand scrupulous honesty in a dishonest political arena:
1) Does not improve the political arena, and
2) Elects people who do things that are bad for us and the world.
Therefore I don't feel that I can insist on scrupulous honesty.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home