For John, BLUF: The Press has always been partisan. Nothing to see here; just move along.
I know I seem to dwell on the Vice President, but more important than his slips of the tongue is the fact that the Main Stream Media just passes over his carelessness, his slopping way of talking, but is happy to make sport of Republicans with even less of a problem. See this item from The Washington Examiner.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
First thought: When assessing the appropriate level of attention paid to the utterances of any particular individual, we have to consider not only the noteworthiness of the utterance, as well as the perceived agenda of the utterer, (e.g. if someone is running for President, announced or not, they both deserve and earn more attention than otherwise), but also the public's perception of that person's level of support and chances of election. (i.e. if someone lacks the perception of the proverbial snowball's chance, especially vis a vis the perception of other people's willingness or interest to listen to them, they neither deserve nor tend to earn much attention). So, though yes, Joe Biden is a worthy successor to any number of notable Veep malapropists, from Palin to Quayle and beyond, and despite his turning up recently in Iowa, (with a bunch of nuns, no less), I should think Republicans would be happy to note that so few people respect the guy enough to really want to pay any attention at all to the nonsense he so apparently randomly he spews.
But, second thought: When stuff like this gains such an enthusiastic hue and cry of self-righteous indignation, it's impossible not to wonder that the partisan agenda of the partisan complainers includes a (possibly unconscious) awareness that partisan opposition will immediately dig in in defense of the indefensible, and make themselves ridiculous in the process. (Such a successful tactic of the left during the far-more-than-15-minutes of fame for the former Mayor of Wasilla, that it's no wonder to me that it's most sincerely being flattered by imitation now).
Of course, for those of us who prefer thoughtful and reasonable public discourse, the whole mess is a complete embarrassment to all of us. The guy's an idiot. And so are the people who want to complain that a out-of-the-blue "Shylock" from someone otherwise not known to be anti-Semitic is not quite as sticky as a more-patriotic-than-you ideologue confusing who, exactly, Paul Revere was in the business of warning.
Though I will add that there is always an exception for humor, and any number of Jon Stewart reruns featuring the best of Herman Cain will be exhibits A through Z and beyond.
I think the second comment makes my point. Jon Stewart is no Will Rogers.
I agree that sometimes Republicans deserve being gone after, my prime example being Rep Mark Sanford of South Caroline, who got the works today from Ms Kathleen Parker in The [Lowell] Sun. The man is a first class jerk and it is a shame that locals keep electing him, but there is no accounting for taste. Look how many times Rep John Tierney was elected.
I do think the Commenter was a little hard on Governor Palin. While I do think President Obama has upped his game for the fight against ISIL, of the four running for P/VP in 2008, Ms Palin was the one with the most common sense and the best sense of what it means to be an American (Constitution, Free Enterprise, individual responsibility, etc). The People, bless their hearts, decided otherwise and thus that is the decision we respect and go by.
Regards — Cliff
Telling that you'd perceive a point that being more-patriotic-than-you and simultaneously and casually inaccurate about an historic patriotic figure like Paul Revere makes for good TV as "being hard" on someone. (Your relentless partisanship is showing). There is no attempt here to judge the suitability of these utterers for public office--I thought we were just talking about why some people get pilloried more relentlessly than others for the silly things that they say. It's clearly not just the substance of their remarks, and, perhaps to your point, it's often weighted by the perception that someone might be capable of gaining the support needed to win the next election. (Hence the greater attention paid to a long-past and failed Veep candidate than to an actual sitting Veep).
Some people just can't take a compliment. ;-)
LOL
More later today—new post.
Post a Comment