General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharles Pierce calls specific members of the media to account for bringing us to today
Reign Of Morons: ApotheosisBy Charles P. Pierce at 7:45am
............
A great portion of the courtier press that now expresses horror at what is going on now went gleefully along for the ride as it became inevitable. Any members of that courtier press who relished the pursuit of Bill Clinton's penis, or conducted the absurd campaign of untruth that was waged against Al Gore between 1999 and 2000 lost the right years ago credibly to denounce conservative extremism and Republican vandalism. That means you, Roger Simon of Politico, who was so shocked the other day to discover that racism may have afflicted the process of government since the president's election, but who once claimed to right to make candidates like Gore "jump through hoops" for the pure hella-fun of it. That means you, Chris Matthews, who chased the presidential dick for two years, all the way through an impeachment process that was a constitutional absurdity, but who now discovers that the campaign of destruction never truly stopped. That means you, Andrew Sullivan, with your current existential torment over How It Came To This. (Pro tip: The Bell Curve? Betsy McCaughey on health-care? Fifth-column liberals? You helped.) This means you, David Brooks, sucking your thumb on book leave while the monster that you got rich feeding grows into its full power. This means all of you who went along for the ride on torture, and on Iraq, and who hid under the bed after 9/11. This is how the power came to rest with Ted Yoho, who is a fool and a know-nothing. This is how historical inevitability is created. This is how its momentum becomes unstoppable. This is how the wreckage piles up.
.........................
Read more:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/today-in-the-reign-of-morons-101613
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Chief D
(55 posts)Hold that mirror up to their face! Let them take a long look.
Hotler
(11,425 posts)Rec'd.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I wish I could disagree.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)I wish I could too
peace, kp
reddread
(6,896 posts)cannot forgive or forget.
I dont mean Ralph.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)From the article:
"The Democratic party was criminally negligent and abdicated its profound responsibility to fight against those forces; indeed, it spent the better part of the 1980's and 1990's trying to surf the wave itself. The Democratic Leadership Council, and Blue Dog Democrats generally, bear a heavy burden of responsibility for failing to demonstrate to the American people in election after election how extreme the Republicans were becoming."
progressoid
(49,991 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)CRH
(1,553 posts)get that pic of the penguins. It is a classic.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,719 posts)and I love what he had to say about "the courtier press" and Ted fkn Yoho.
calimary
(81,304 posts)It goes a LOT farther than roger simon and chris matthews and david brooks. A LOT farther. And that's just in the media - what some of us have been referring to as the "White House Press Corpse" for YEARS.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,719 posts)But yes, there are many more, although he named some of the worst offenders. I would definitely add David Gregory, Chuck Todd, Thomas Friedman, George Stephanopoulos, Tom Brokaw, Tim and Luke Russert and Andrea Mitchell to the list. Just for starters.
hibbing
(10,098 posts)Hey,
I completely agree. Like I have said in previous posts, they all go to the same cocktail parties and have the bubble shoved so far up their collective asses and they are owned shills for the ruling class.
Peace
reddread
(6,896 posts)they didnt shoot the Horse by accident.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)Well, Tim was. Luke is just riding on the brand.
I would add Cokie Roberts to the list as well. Even in this recent shutdown, she is still going with the "both sides" angle.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and even when he was "sane" before, was still wrong 99% of the time on his economic predictions and analysis...
hatrack
(59,587 posts)CrispyQ
(36,470 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts)sound of things breaking."
Spot on.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Paladin
(28,262 posts)Dead-bang accurate assessment of our current sorry-ass situation and its origins. The Democratic Party cannot and should not escape a good quantity of blame for the fix we're in, today. When the Teabaggers first showed up, it was nothing but jokes here at DU---hell, I probably made a few about them, myself. When the Baggers advanced to brandishing assault rifles near Obama appearance sites, it was minimized at DU (I've got a clear conscience on that one). And here we are, with the likes of Ted Cruz holding the fate of the country in his slimy hands.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Charles Pierce is the best political commentator this nation has. "...Chris Matthews, who chased the presidential dick for two years...." Too bad Matthews it too busy with the non-stop whoring of his latest book to absorb that one......
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)especially presidential dicks.
Paladin
(28,262 posts)Stallion
(6,474 posts)did you know he has a new book out concerning his time with Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan when politics "really worked". Available on Amazon for $29.99
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)No kind of Democrat at all.
kimbutgar
(21,155 posts)I can barely watch Chris Matthews on tv and constantly say stfu when he talks about his new book.
Paladin
(28,262 posts)I have never witnessed that level of non-stop, on-air huckstering of a book in my life. It's as if his family is starving and he needs the money, which I damn well know is not the case. Beyond embarrassing.
0rganism
(23,955 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)He's just plain awful 99.99% of the time, and even when he's not awful, he's still terrible.
PCIntern
(25,553 posts)SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)An example of someone who believes that the loudest person in the room is right. Pretty sure he spent his grade school years dealing with bloody noses and loose teeth (at least in my school, kids like him did).
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)DU on its sheer greatness alone.
K&R.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)I would also include wolf blitzer and Anderson cooper
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Has-beens. Charlie Pierce is the bomb - don't forget you can catch him every Tuesday morning on Stephanie Miller. She interrupts him a lot, but he manages to get his points across.
K&R
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)PBass
(1,537 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Ted Yoho has been coming for years. Ted Yoho was made inevitable by the NCPAC campaigns of the late 1970's and by the elevation of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980 and, subsequently, to an artificially exalted place in our history after he left office. The Republican party revelled in all the forces that are now tearing it apart. The Democratic party was criminally negligent and abdicated its profound responsibility to fight against those forces; indeed, it spent the better part of the 1980's and 1990's trying to surf the wave itself. The Democratic Leadership Council, and Blue Dog Democrats generally, bear a heavy burden of responsibility for failing to demonstrate to the American people in election after election how extreme the Republicans were becoming.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)I now need a cigarette, and I don't even smoke.
niyad
(113,325 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)But glad it is finally said.
The end of the military industrial congressional media complex needs to be ended if we are ever to return this government to one of and for the American people.
MichaelKelley
(55 posts)I think it is good for us. What do you think about his decision? Are you all happy? I think this was expected from him and I like him as well.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)I was 17 when Reagan was elected. Watching this slide into populist, know-nothing fascism has been my entire voting life. I never looked away, and I have never failed to vote against it. I have never failed to vote, not once, nor have I ever voted for a republican, and I didn't vote for Nader or Perot.
I don't hold office and I'm not as rich as a Koch. What would you have had people like me do?
MindMover
(5,016 posts)I am talking about
"In all national elections, turnout in the United States has a history of rising and falling over time, although it has never risen to levels of turnout in most of the well-established democracies in other nations. After rising sharply from 1948 to 1960, turnout declined in nearly every election until dropping to barely half of eligible voters in 1988. Since 1988, it has fluctuated, from a low of 52.6% of eligible voters (and 49.1% of voting age population) in 1996 to a high of 61% of eligible voters in 2004, the highest level since 1968.
Turnout in midterm elections is far lower, peaking at 48.7% in 1966 and falling as low as 39.0% in 1978,1986, and 1998 remaining below 50% in midterm elections (see Graph). Even at its highest level in 1960, the percent of eligible Americans who turned out to vote never surpassed 65%. This is still substantially lower than in almost all established democracies; turnout is 70-75% in Canada and well over 80% in most other democracies, including 86.8% in the first round of the French presidential election and 91.7% in the 2004 proportional representation election for Luxembourgs legislature.
Low turnout is most pronounced in off-year elections for state legislators and local officials as well as primaries. In many cities, for example, mayors of major cities often are elected with single-digit turnout ; for example, turnout was only 5 percent of registered voters in a recent Dallas mayoral election, 6 percent in Charlotte, and 7 percent in Austin. Congressional primaries have similarly low turnout; for example, turnout was only 7 percent in a recent Tennessee primary, and was only 3 percent for a U.S. Senate primary in Texas. A statewide gubernatorial election in Kentucky has a turnout of only 6 percent since Kentucky gubernatorial elections are held in the off-off-year between mid-term congressional election and presidential elections was scheduled at a time when there were no elections for federal office. North Carolinas runoff elections have seen turnout as low as 3 percent in statewide elections.
Furthermore, there are enormous disparities that exist in America across income levels in all forms of participation, particularly voting. A study on these disparities found that 86% of people with incomes above $75,000 claim to have voted in presidential elections as compared with only 52% of people with incomes under $15,000. As a result of the participation disparity across demographic lines, politicians are more responsive to the opinions of high-income constituents. A study of roll call votes under the 107th and 108th Congresses reported that legislators were three times more responsive to high-income constituents than middle-income constituents and were the least responsive to the needs of low-income constituents. "
http://www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout
As an electorate we have to make our system of voting easier to accomplish and one party has tried to do just that and the other party, well we all know about that other party now ....
I will ask anyone anywhere, why we aren't using current technology to vote ...?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Low income Americans don't vote because they believe their concerns won't be listened to anyway.
The reasons politicians listen to the concerns of high income citizens over those with low incomes is because the politicians are part of the high income class rather than the low income class. The average working person is not who politicians hobnob with and call friends, no they gravitate to the movers and shakers, the ones who can write the big campaign checks the politicians need so desperately.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)you are absolutely correct, that everything is backwards in our world ....
Besides it is only a voting organization which is known worldwide for its accuracy in reporting factual statements that you are refuting fume sucker ...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I don't see any direct evidence given that the cause->effect runs in the direction they indicate ie: low income disinclination to vote -> elected officials not paying attention to low income concerns. I personally think the cause->effect goes the other way more ie: not paying attention to low income concerns->disinclination to vote.
Why bother to vote for someone who is going to ignore your concerns anyway?
One positive thing you can say about Republicans is that at least they fucking pretend to pay attention to the concerns of their most numerous voting demographics.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)does not have ready access to vote for many reasons more than not wanting to vote because of politicians ignoring them even though this is a true statement .... ie: transportation costs, time due to working or travel time walking, the registration process, family history of voting importance, wages lost, and many more that I am not expressing here ...
I am simply saying that voting is an exercise that has become more and more difficult as I have become older and I believe that voting should have become easier instead of more difficult ... especially with today's current technologies ...
malaise
(269,026 posts)Rec
hue
(4,949 posts)dawnie51
(959 posts)Mr. Pierce never disappoints. He's always spot on.
mcar
(42,334 posts)I love his writing.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)thanks for bringing Charles Pierce to us
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Solly Mack
(90,769 posts)Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)K&R
UTUSN
(70,700 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And for you third wayers:
The power rests with Ted Yoho because the castrato Speaker Of The House, Boehner of Ohio, cares more about his job than he does about his country. The power rests with Ted Yoho because the American political system has tolerated carefully cultivated ignorance andcarefully tailored bigotry for far too long. Ted Yoho has been coming for years. Ted Yoho was made inevitable by the NCPAC campaigns of the late 1970's and by the elevation of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980 and, subsequently, to an artificially exalted place in our history after he left office. The Republican party revelled in all the forces that are now tearing it apart. The Democratic party was criminally negligent and abdicated its profound responsibility to fight against those forces; indeed, it spent the better part of the 1980's and 1990's trying to surf the wave itself. The Democratic Leadership Council, and Blue Dog Democrats generally, bear a heavy burden of responsibility for failing to demonstrate to the American people in election after election how extreme the Republicans were becoming.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/today-in-the-reign-of-morons-101613
I repeat so that this sinks in deeply, deeply, deeply:
"The Democratic party was criminally negligent and abdicated its profound responsibility to fight against those forces; indeed, it spent the better part of the 1980's and 1990's trying to surf the wave itself. The Democratic Leadership Council, and Blue Dog Democrats generally, bear a heavy burden of responsibility for failing to demonstrate to the American people in election after election how extreme the Republicans were becoming."
Americans fought and died on the picket lines, in world wars I and II for the freedom to organize unions, run small businesses and for democracy. (I have never figured out what our subsequent wars were for.)
The third-way Democrats support huge corporations run without unions or other employee/worker participation, selling our jobs to the highest foreign bidder and the oligarchy of corporations and the super-rich.
Enough. There is no middle way. You can compromise the details of legislation, but you cannot compromise democratic values. If you compromise democratic values, if you agree that only those who want to make voting as difficult as possible for the elderly, the poor and people of color, if you want to limit the minimum wage to an unlivable low, if you want to allow corporations to fund the campaigns of our leaders, then you are compromising too much.
And if you compromise with insurance companies and their investors when it comes to universal health insurance, you are compromising too much, Senator Baucus.
There is a long list of members of Congress, functionaries in the White House and leaders at the state level of the Democratic Party as well as a lot of people in the media who have betrayed the values that made it possible for them and their parents to achieve the economic and social status they now take for granted.
Too many of the leaders of the Democratic Party have forgotten where they came from, where the Democratic Party of FDR came from. That's why the Republican extremists are where they are -- foxes in the hen house of democracy.
2banon
(7,321 posts)And I really like "foxes in the hen house of democracy" closing.. nice..
bonniebgood
(943 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)and happy to see the appreciable rec count..
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The ruling class believes that their success as defined by their wealth means they are more capable of ruling us plebeians.
Journalism, what a great job for the child of the 1%. Pseudo-journalism, of course.
Joe Bacon
(5,165 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Love his intellect AND way with words.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)both sides does something. The nation's Press Corp is overflowing with fucking morons. Both sides DO NOT act the same way. Democrats don't try to prevent people from voting unless there is a VERIFIABLE and LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE reason to do so, even then, race and ethnicity are NEVER in the mix. Nancy Pelosi IS NOT a weak kneed asshole that lets the most cravenly insane members of her party take over that party, first because she doesn't have that type in her party, second if she did, she would kick their asses into line. Democrats DO NOT have ANY of their rallies overflowing with racists, women haters and immigrant haters. Democrats DO NOT act like god-damned fools while the nation teeters on the brink of financial peril and honest, hard workers are forced from their jobs. The dumbed down Press, if it would make the slightest effort, even it would recognize that there is NO damned equivalence between the Democratic and republican parties, or between those party's elected officials.
blue14u
(575 posts)will let those 7 Democrats that voted for a rules change that left
Eric Cantor Dictator, of the whole house, know they will be primary
in their next election....
BTW... This is a great post imo.
Blue Owl
(50,393 posts)Takin' names and kickin' asses!
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)He's on my short list of 5 or so I'd love to have a few drinks with while we talk politics.
I still miss Hunter Thompson but his spirit and style live on, I see a bit of him in Charlie and also in Matt Taibbi.
I just love him calling Lindsay Graham senator "Butchmeup".
He is right on the money about MSM, they need called out over and over. They've been cowed by big money and decades of far right cranks like Bernie Goldberg claiming liberal bias - well get real MSM, the truth is facts tend to have a liberal bias.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
Boomerproud
(7,954 posts)K&R anyway. Bravo , Mr. Pierce.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And don't forget Ralph Nader, whose schtick tilted New Hampshire towards the Repubs, which in turn, ensured our loss to Bush after the Supreme Court pulled their schtick in Dec. 2000.....
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I hate all three of those people, as they happily take GOP money and help people that they know will prep the gallows for them, but if we Democrats had been more captial D democrats, they would NEVER have seeen the light of day..
or as Pierce puts it:
"The Democratic Leadership Council, and Blue Dog Democrats generally, bear a heavy burden of responsibility for failing to demonstrate to the American people in election after election how extreme the Republicans were becoming."
May this be the end of false equivalency.
''Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.'' ~A. J. Liebling
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Time to get on point and stay there. We're watching.
ellie
(6,929 posts)I read it this morning.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-07-04 10:42 PM
Original message
The "New" Assassins
Poor Jack Kennedy, Poor Martin Luther King, Poor James Meredith, Poor Malcolm X, Poor Bobby Kennedy...and so many others who were "under the radar", and we never even knew ..
People who dare to speak out are always in fear for their lives, and those named paid the ultimate price for their "free speech".
Had they lived now, in a more "evolved" time, they might have never had to die for their audacity. People who made waves back then were just "dealt with" in the crudest, but most effective way of the day......elimination.. Everyday people were stunned, shocked, saddened, outraged, and then they moved on. Daily life has a way of taking over, and except for a poignant "anniversary" acknowledgment, or the recurring "conspiracy talk", these people just passed into history as tragic figures.
Those assassinations did serve a purpose though. The message sent was loud and clear. Say the Wrong thing, and you are DONE.
In the "modern" world, although there are still assassination attempts here and there, the "serious" ones are not as common . A more efficient way of handling "rogue elements" is the new and improved way...Assassination by Media is the more accepted way now. If one looks back to the period following the Bobby Kennedy assassination, you can see it taking root. Bobby's slaying might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, in that people were ready to say..ENOUGH!!. People took to the streets and things got too "messy" for the old ways to ever work again.
Flash forward to the Watergate era. At first the story dribbled out and people did not pay a lot of attention, but the Washington Post knew they had a story and they kept at it like a junkyard dog. They challenged BIG GOVERNMENT, and they never quit. When the story finally got the attention of the general public, and Nixon was taken down, the press was bolder than ever before.
This was the era of the "white paper".... 60 Minutes was the very embodiment of "make them accountable".. They went after sleazy business practices and governmental screw-ups, and they hit hard.The show they do today is more "individual driven", and is pure tabloid journalism when compared to the way they started. The targets of their "investigation" are often beleaguered people who are already overextended financially by lawsuits or other problems, so they are probably less likely to sue, or they are the pathetic , sympathy-inducing people who have been "done wrong".
Behind the scenes though, there was a group of people who were seething with anger over what had just happened, and they were determined to get things "under control again". This was the beginning of media consolidation. Towns that had once had 2 or 3 competing newspapers, now had only one, television was still the "big three", Republican Think Tanks were sprouting up like toadstools after rain.
Jimmy Carter's tenure was the "test case" for what would come later. This gentle man was attacked in the press for every little thing. The Nixon hangover may have been partly to blame, since people were genuinely more interested in what went on "behind the curtain", but the things that Carter was berated about were just plain silly..Who remembers the "lusting in his heart" episode...or the "attack of the killer bunny".. or the "he wears sweaters in the oval office".."turn down your thermostats"...or "Amy is so ugly".. Those were the memes of the day.. The press chose to amplify these things to make this man appear to be a lightweight. The real problems he encountered as president were things not of his making, and I think he did try to solve them, but with only one term, and the difficulties of the first "oil crisis", and the "hostage thing", he was doomed..
Nightline was born out of the frustration of the hostage crisis. That show started as a one hour news program with a daily update on the hostages.
A rootin-tootin Dubya would have just saddled up (other people's kids) and attacked Iran, and if the hostages were killed, it would have been "collateral damage", but Carter thought he could negotiate them home. This was our first real experience with the "new middle east". They were radical.. They were mad.. They were Bad.The old ways would never work again. Oddly enough, we now know that some of the very same people we associate with the Reagan/Bush , Bush # 1, and Bush # 2 regimes were involved , behind-the scenes , in the Iran Hostage issue.. At the time, I do not recall hearing their names mentioned when Nightline went on night after night, enumerating the "days since....".
The press attacked Carter relentlessly, and I do not recall much rallying on his behalf from anyone, and the hostage crisis did him in. It was not accidental that the hostages were released at the exact moment of Reagan's swearing in. Bush 1 had CIA connections, and the Bush loyalists (the same ones we have now) choreographed the incident masterfully, and the press ate it up. People love a winner, and Reagan came in as a winner. It was also no accident that doing away with the fairness doctrine was high on the list of "things to do".
The republicans were riding high, awash with money, and the public gaze was averted. Inflation was rampant,unemployment was high,there had been wage & price freezes and gas shortages... All in all, people were willing to "be taken care of", and they trusted the grandfatherly guy they had seen in the movies. It was not long before the doctrine was gone, and without that, it was easy for very rich ideologues to start buying up media , and they did it with a vengeance.
Looking back, it's not hard to see how effective it was. The things that have been attributed to Reagan/Bush 1 would have never been tolerated by a Democratic administration.The Clinton years showed us that , in spades.
The switchover was seamless too. Local radio stations had mostly been music, with local hosts who did silly home town pranks, held local contests for their listeners, and had news on the hour. Somewhere during this time frame, "talk/opinion" formats started really emerging, and more and more stations gave up their music formats altogether.
What better way is there to ensure that a particular opinion saturates the public, than to have local radio stations all under the same corporate ownership?. If station ABCD in Omaha is owned by the same parent company as most of the others in the area, the "movement" between stations will not happen. In the past, a radio host could get into a jam with his bosses, and the next week, he was on a competing station in a nearby town, taking a lot of his listeners with him, but when the same people own all the stations, and a host goes against the wishes of his bosses, there is NOWHERE for him to go. The atmosphere of "go-along-to-get-along" stifles any real discussion of opposing ideas.
When the major source of information of a population only airs ONE viewpoint, it's easy to demonize the opposition. The "media people" had , and still have, easy access to their own "facts" that are regularly churned out by the think tanks, they have access to all the "professional speakers/pundits" that they could ever use (also cheerfully provided by the think tanks). These same people are often editorial columnists for the papers , who just happen to be owned by the same people who own/operate the radio & TV stations.. .
There was a time when, once an election was over, people just licked their wounds, accepted that they had lost and then vowed to try again. The "new assassins" in the media cannot ever allow the "quiet time" between elections, because the fires must always be stoked. The potential adversaries must be ridiculed,belittled,scorned, accused and abused, well in advance of the next election so that the "right" people win. The unusual aspect of this , is that since the Fairness Doctrine went by the wayside, it's usually the Democratic candidates who are put through the grinder, while republican candidates with more "baggage" are treated with kid gloves. Any misgivings about a republican candidate can be explained away as a "youthful indiscretion", or a "cute colloquialism" ,or a "miscalculation", or "getting inaccurate advice", and so many more.
A candidate who has all the qualities necessary for office, is attacked mercilessly from the moment they announce they are running for office. The 24/7 media of today is expert at the art of "linguistic assassination", and they have the time to do the job well.
Election 2000 is a prime example of assassination by media. Al Gore was a vice president. He did not wield the power that our current vice president does. He had impeccable credentials, was eloquent, had a squeaky clean family life, and lived modestly considering his position. He was actually considered dull. He never presented himself as a "life-of-the-party" guy.He was the studious guy, who read bills before he voted. He was the guy who did research. He was the guy who actually went to Viet Nam , even though he was not a Green Beret with a bayonet between his teeth, singlehandedly wiping out a division of Viet Cong.The fact is ..He went.
They hammered at him about his wardrobe. Every little gaffe, was portrayed as a LIE. His opponent was secretive, smart-assed, sullen, and unknowledgeable, yet HE was portrayed as "a bit rough", "a nice guy that you would like to have a beer with", " a friendly "people-person", and too many others to list. By implication, HE was the guy with the white hat, the Good Guy, and poor old Gore was the liar with the bad fashion sense, who was dull. The daily indictment and litany of his "sins" was impossible to ignore, and every interview started and finished with him trying to refute the smears aimed at him, and him alone.
The assassins have taken aim this election season, and again they have taken aim and have wounded, if not killed, a few of the possible candidates. The media has moved from a position of watching what happens, and then reporting on it, to MAKING it happen, and then tweaking it to make an ever-better "story"..
A little known governor from a small state ..hmm that sounds familiar... is such a good story. He was this cycle's John McCain. The press loved him.....until they had built him up to almost rock-star status, and then the only thing for them to do to get more ratings, was to "kill" him. And so they did.. They report with childlike wonder at why "he's not doing better in the polls", and then they laugh and giggle and "cue up the tape".. Then they put on their scrunched up worried face and wonder if the campaign is broke.. They are "so concerned".. They cluck-cluck to each other about how disappointing it is to see him not doing well, and yet they have already reloaded for the next victim.
Now on to the next willing contestant...
By the time the election actually occurs, the candidate has been hopelessly smeared, and politically assassinated.. It not only can remove a candidate from the prospect of elected office, but it effectively silences them as well.
Assassination by media is so much more effective, since the whole "martyr thing" is eliminated and it's not nearly as "untidy" as the old way..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------