FAIR has some good analysis of the absence of facts in statements about Kerry made at the RNC. FAIR is kind enough to frame this as a lack of fact checking, if only by the media. Less kind people might frame the comments made at the RNC as lies...
While discussing the media's complacency in doing fact checking before reporting RNC statements FAIR points out that it would be a "breach of media operating procedure" to bring up criticism of a politician during a live interview.
When MSNBC's Chris Matthews (9/1/04) questioned Miller about the fairness of his litany of weapons programs that Kerry "tried his best to shut down," he was following a line of debunking that was laid out six months ago by Slate's Fred Kaplan (2/25/04), who pointed out that Republicans were citing Kerry's "no" vote on the 1991 Defense appropriations bill as if it were an attempt to eliminate all Pentagon spending. What was remarkable was that Matthews was willing to bring up this criticism in a live interview-- a breach of media operating procedure so dramatic that it provoked Miller to say he "wish[ed] we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel."
That my friends is the difference between the media in the USA and the rest of the world and the reason that US politicians will never partake in an interview with a potentially "hostile" journalist. If you have never listened to politicians attacked and shredded by BBC interviewers then you should. You'll be left wondering a) why our media are such a bunch of pathetic sycophants when interviewing US politicians, and b) if any US politician could actually say even their ABCs without a script in front of them and a policy wonks hand up their backside telling them what to say.
I thoroughly recommend that you read the Kaplan article in Slate linked to by FAIR. It shows, as recent research on GOP smear tactics has also done, that as usual not only does the GOP have all their facts wrong about Kerry and defense cuts, they are also guilty of doing the exact thing they are accusing Kerry of. Oy. The remarkable thing is that Kerry isn't able to bury this disinformation effectively, instead he fumbles, he stumbles and he fails to put a stop to this death by a thousand lies that the GOP seems to have unleashed on him.
I would love to see Bush and Kerry in a real debate some day but I know that will never happen, and given Kerry's recent performance I think he's lost his ability to attack Bush the way he needs to. I mean why isn't he roasting Bush for not renewing the assault rifle ban? Unfortunately he's pandering to the same NRA vote that Bush is and doesn't want to offend them. Well how about telling them they are wrong and they need to grow up and get real about what is going on in this country.
Kerry should say "F**k the four million people who might think assault rifles are cool toys and necessary to overthrow the government, I don't need your vote - just what kind of a democracy do you think we're living in now where the gun is mightier than the vote?"
Do the assault rifle boosters think for a moment that Bush and his NeoCon cronies will let the government head in a direction that will allow them the freedom to rise up and overthrow the government? Why that would be giving into insurgency and terrorism. Allow that in America? No way would Bush ever allow that. The NRA need to be backing everything and anything that will enhance the will of the people so that guns are never necessary or a requirement for the maintenance of the Republic that they supposedly love so dearly. The only militia to be raised should be armed by the government to repel external forces - just like Iraqis are trying to do right now.
But of course that wont happen because Kerry has also become a campaign puppet who is too bland, too middle of the road and lets face it too afraid to speak his mind. Its this kind of realization that leads many to wonder if there is any point at all in voting for Kerry after all, even if he is the un-Bush alternative with a chance on the ballot.
Ironically for the exact same reasons Bush wont do it either even though he knows he should. He'll put his own political career ahead of doing what's right, and what the will of the people is because he's to chicken to risk loosing a single one of those 4 million votes as well.
Bush and Kerry united by assault rifles - who would have thought?
2 comments:
just wanted to point out, the president can't extend the awb. it's up to a congresscritter to propose the legislation, the president simply says yay or nay on it. he can work through surrogates to get it done, which he chose not to do.
otoh, there is another presidental candidate that is in the position to do just that: john kerry (or edwards) could directly get the ball rolling if they so desired. they haven't, because as you said they don't have the political willpower to do so, but that is why they can't blast the prez on awb. it's more their fault than his that the ban died.
I agree that the President could not have unanimously extended the ban, however he could have called on congress to do so. At GWB's behest Tom DeLay would have made sure the rest of the GOP would have fallen into line and given it a majority - and the Democrats would have thrown in their "me too" vote and given it an almost unanimous passing.
So the power to make or break lay in Bush's hands. Without his say so and Democratic attempt to pass it would probably have faltered. But I would have applauded them for doing the right thing and trying. Like I said, I honestly think Kerry would have picked up more votes than he would have lost for doing so.
I wonder how different this would be if we had a true multi-party democracy instead of parties representing (in George Bush's words) the "haves and the have-mores"?
Post a Comment