|
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Her big mouth is a fountain of stupid, ill-thought and hateful statements. However, I wouldn't call it a fascination for me, more of a constant source of amusement. If Kerry is elected, at least I can enjoy four years of entertainment as she continues to stick her foot in her mouth again and again. |
I've said it before, and I make no reservations for saying it again - I truly think most far-right conservatives despise this woman because she is (usually) a well-spoken and out-spoken woman. She speaks her mind at all times, for better or for worse. In this particular case, however, it was for the worse. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone thinks Laura Bush is anything shy of a Stephord wife - that woman truly scares the crap out of me, even more so than Teresa.
This whole thing with Teresa is nothing but fodder for both the media AND the conservatives. There was Communications professor on NPR a few weeks ago who examined campaign commercials over the last 50 or so years, and noticed a trend - in general Conservative attack ads are more towards character rather than issues and policies, whereas for Liberals the situation is reversed - more attack ads on policies themselves. To me this is completely telling, and it also seems pretty apparent with this present election. Oh sure, there's been character attacks comin' from the Dems., and there's been issue attacks from the Conservatives, but I can't help but notice the historical trend taking place here.
Now in regards to the media, Jesus they live for this shit. Character issues are by far the easiest things to report on, and they are also much juicier too and I think much of the fault should be placed on both media laziness AND sensationalism. As most of us witnessed John Stewart take Tucker Carlson to task the other night, I think most people watchin’ the whole fiasco tended to agree with Stewart’s overall thesis – cut out the sensationalistic bullshit and get down with the issues more. Of course that may hurt ratings, which is why we have NPR and PBS I suppose, but our nation and TV viewers need to have a more coherent understanding of the ACTUAL differences of issues from any political party – the SPECIFICS of those issues would be real nice too. As an example, John Kerry gave a pretty gutsy speech yesterday, aggressively going after Bush's perceived strength as a strong leader:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/..._2004_1020.html
But the media largely ignored one of his most damning charges:
“(Before the war) Zarqawi was operating out of a no-man’s land in North Eastern Iraq, next to territory controlled by America’s Kurdish allies, not by Saddam. He and his terrorist allies were reportedly producing Ricin, a horrific biological weapon. We could have -- but did not -- take them out. That was a terrible mistake that this administration has never explained.”
Kerry was referencing a March edition of NBC Nightly News which reported that three separate plans to attack the camp were scuttled by the White House.
Further, NBC concluded:
| quote: | Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight.
But the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ |
Like the failure to capture Osama at Tora Bora, the decision to let Zarqawi remain at-large is mind-blowing information that most Americans are not aware of. That's why when Kerry mentioned Tora Bora at the first debate, much of the media treated it as old news, but there is anecdotal evidence that it struck a disturbed chord with viewers. From ABC's Oct. 1 edition of The Note:
| quote: | ABC's Kate Snow spoke to six voters in Columbus, Ohio...[One] was taken by Kerry's Tora Bora argument.
He was dismayed that Bush never dismissed that and he wants to know: did the US let Bin Laden to slip out?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=140762 |
The Kerry campaign sensed an opening and has been pounding Tora Bora ever since, with little rebuttal from the Bushies. It's arguable that this has helped close the terrorism gap in the polls. The Zarqawi story could prove to be the second part of a powerful one-two punch, further sullying Bush's credibility on terrorism.
But not if the media refuses to touch it.
On the wires, AP mentioned Kerry's Zarqawi comments in passing, without needed explanation for voters to know what really happened. While, Reuters and Knight-Ridder ignored it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=183789
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=6561245
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9970656.htm
Even more egregious was the treatment from the NY Times and CNN.
The NYT quoted Bush's speech from yesterday -- "Zarqawi ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan until our military coalition destroyed that camp" -- but ignored Kerry's cite of the Kurdish-area camp that was left alone before the war:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/p...print&position=
And CNN's Jeanne Meserve, in a segment about Kerry's so-called "blows to the facts" said this after a clip of Kerry's Zarqawi comments:
She refused to mention NBC's reporting, which attributed the exact opposite sentiment to the Pentagon. That left viewers to presume Kerry was making something up, instead of relying one of the most-watched nightly TV news programs in the country.
Newsflash to reporters: getting party-line CYA comments from higher-ups does not constitute "fact checking".
Now, if Kerry succeeded in getting the Zarqawi story in the headlines, Bush would be put on the defensive, forced to explain how he let the terrorist he can't shut up about get away. Since the bulk of the media appears reluctant to acknowledge what has been reported by NBC, perhaps the answer is for Kerry to grant an exclusive interview to NBC to talk about it.
Huge digression here, but instead of hearing about this, what did I hear instead?
“What are the polls saying today?”
“Teresa Hines blaa blaa blaa”
“That Schwarzenegger was suuure funny the other night!”
“Sinclair, sinclair, sinclair……”
And so on. Discuss the fucking issues for once, will ya please, media folk?
Comin’ back to Teresa, did anyone notice her grateful apology on her mistake, or are we riding that off too? Teresa did, in fact, issue an public apology to Mrs. Bush saying she's sincerely sorry for not remembering that the first lady spent ten years working in education and added, "there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children."
So what was Laura Bush’s response? She sent the fucking Bush attack dog, Karen Hughs on camera to say:
“Well I think it's very nice that she apologized, but in some ways the apology almost made the comment worse because she seems to have forgotten that being a mother is a real job."
Pardon the fuck me? What the fuck was that stupid fucking response all about you dumb nitwit? Mrs. Kerry said nothing of the sort. The woman just apologized to you publicly, and gracefully, and you turn around and slap her in the face while outright lying about what she said. It's Laura Bush's turn to apologize for being such an obvious bitch. Whatever happened to gracefully accepting an apology in this country and moving on? Has she spent some much time with King George that now she's forgotten how to be a real person as well? Sorry, but Laura is comin’ out to be the ungraceful twirp on this one. Not a good response by the Bushies here.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
