The Liberal Media and Presidential Campaigning

We're into it now. One of the most important elections in recent memory is currently taking place in the US; and the republican machine is out in force. Sure, every election is the most important- at least, since the last; but this one is a bit different (like all the others). The US is in economic doldrums- to say the least- and there will likely be another Supreme Court nominee during the next four years. The housing market is shit, over all, and oil is steady at three times the price it was just a handful of years ago. The appointees that this president will make are going to affect the political, social, and economic landscape for years to come.

Enter the op-ed. The local newspaper here in Huntsville, Alabama, is the Huntsville Times; and is a part of the regional Times operations. In other words, it's a local out-branch of the NY Times. Though the newspaper itself would like its readers to believe in is neutral, no one does- and for good reason. Look at the opinion pieces, and how they lean politically, and it's easy to see that the Times is catering to a readership that is primarily Republican. In the September 7th, Sunday, edition there was a piece about how the recent conventions effected campaign strategy, one extolling the merits of Senator Lieberman, one saying that if age is a factor for Obama it's also a factor for McCain, and various others.

The convention piece started off talking about the Democrats and Obama. It was a short portion of the overall article and though not exceptionally negative, was certainly not positive. Then, the article continued into the Republican convention. The apologetic acrobatics included dismissing the notion that the Palin-as-VP move was an obvious pander to disaffected Clinton supporters; that McCain wasn't simply "Not Obama"; and touting a "reformer" aspect to the McCain ticket that virtually dripped with pandering to independents via McCain's, and Palin's, fighting "dirty", "corrupt", Republican establishment in Washington.

The piece on Lieberman was written by Joe-ie's old chief of staff. Why? I'd bet it had more than a little to do with Lieberman pissing off most of the Democratic party in the last year or two (at least). The HBO movie Recount, about the misadventures of the 2000 election's polling in Florida, basically said that Lieberman lost the election for Gore due to stupid phrasing of answers during public appearances. Worse, after pandering to his Democratic base about sticking with his party despite being elected as an Independent in 2006, he's gone off the reservation a couple times. Even worse than that, he spoke in endorsement of John McCain- at the Republican National Convention! The former Democratic Nominee for VP, who helped win the popular vote, was endorsing a Republican! Of course his former chief of staff was writing a praise-piece: Joe doesn't want to have to work for a living! The piece made sure to point out that Joe-L was the VP on that popular ticket; that he was married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors; that he was an historic VP nominee; that he won an election despite not being nominated by his own party; and other smaller "praise worthy" tidbits. I think it was Roosevelt or Truman who kicked the last of the Southern "Democrats", who were Republicans by another name, out of his party by saying something like: "It's time for those people in my party who never go along with the rest of the party but who hide under the mantle of a name and so-called 'tradition', to get in line or get out!" Lieberman has distinguished himself, in the last eight years, as a douchebag- from the Democratic prospective. The article was an attempt to give him credibility to independents. He was called, in so many words, a reformer.

Let's be very very clear on John McCain, for a second. He's been two things in his entire life: a pilot- who was shot down and held as a POW- and a politician. McCain deserves vast amounts of respect for his Naval career, and whenever that man talks about torture everyone else should shut the fuck up and take notes. However, he is not a reformer. He is, however, a pandering jackass without strong convictions- other than a junkie-like need to be president. He changed his religion for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He's changed his stance on abortion, gay rights, and several other key conservative issues for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He has done everything in his power to distance himself from George W. Bush for this campaign- to appeal to the coveted independents, undecideds, swing-voters, and fence-sitters. He's a shill. No one gets to sit in Washington for twenty-five years, having failed his last attempt to run for president by not getting his party's nomination, and call themselves a reformer. He's been planning this campaign for eight years; and it's not going well (though, it's not going horribly wrong, either).

The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act is a joke. It did nothing that it didn't also undo by means of opening new loopholes. It didn't? Fuck no! If you were in a position to vote on how easy it would be for you to retain your cozy job, with it's cushy salary, and huge social/political status; would you (1) Try to make it harder to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (2) Try to make it easier to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (3) Try to fool people into thinking you've done something to protect their interests at personal expense, while effectively doing nothing to the money that would ensure your ability to stay employed? Cause I'm taking option 3 every time. That's what McCain did. His huge reform did nothing, except add new laws onto the books that made things restructure, without any change for the better. In fact, a quick search will reveal that some political analysts think the McCain-Feingold Act hurt campaign finance reform FAR more than it may have helped.

Palin.... Palin.... Palin... Obama has said he doesn't want Palin's daughter's pregnancy to be an issue. Good for him, taking the high road- especially because he knows a lot of people are going to ignore him and take the low road anyway. That is smart. Fuck him, too. There is a HUGE issue here, and it's not just that Palin is an evangelical hypocritical shitbag. Palin is all about some abstinence-only education. Every study that's worth a shit says abstinence only education leads to MORE Sexually Transmitted infections and Teen Pregnancies. That is the only thing that really needs to be said about her daughter. Palin herself is a reformer from Alaska with 12 years political experience- and that's counting her terms as Mayor of Po-dunk-bakwards-ville (population: 8). She's a mulit-whammy pander: (1) to women, especially after some have become estranged with Democrats over Hillary Clinton's loss, (2) She's extremely conservative, favoring abstinence-only sex ed, school prayer, teaching creationism, pro-life, etc (3) She's "young" and "pretty" and a "reformer" who fought the "corrupt Republican establishment" in Alaska... for about 15 minutes. 'Cause being governor of Alaska, with it's hundreds of thousands of people is impressive enough to make someone qualified to run a whole country.....

Seriously, there aren't even 700,000 people in the whole fucking state. It's got the 5th highest average personal income, and the highest cost of living, in the nation. Palin is a shit choice, made to appease as many people as possible; but for that she was really good. Biden was the same thing for Obama; but look at how much Biden helps Big-O versus how much Palin helps Johnnie-Mac. If Palin had run a state with, I dunno, let's say the 5th biggest economy IN THE WORLD [California, anyone?], for more than half of a term, I'd focus on her stupid ass policies. Instead, I like to point out that anyone who dislikes Obama's "inexperience" better shut the fuck up now that McCain pandered-out with Palin. It's McCain's fault that the "inexperienced" tag is hypocritical now- and that's probably because it hasn't been working very well for him, so far. Glad to see the old bastard can still pander with the best of 'em!

The Media isn't liberal- many studies suggest that it is actually conservative. The campaigns for president all have their weaknesses; but one side is "soft" lying, while the other is "hard" lying. Soft lying is where someone speaks of intangibles like "change" and "hope", relative terms that can be spun easily after the election. The other side is blatantly not telling the truth- an easy case to prove is McCain was Episcopalian until this campaign, when he has said he's always been Baptist. Guess what? Politicians lie. The best ones do it with charm, flair, and ease- see Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky bullshit, or all of Ronnie Reagan's presidency. The worst ones call themselves reformers and pander to everyone they can.