?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I Don't Get It

So, we have a President whose "disapproval rating" is so astonishing that he's not even out publicly raising money for candidates from his party, much less campaigning for them.  They are all actively distancing themselves from him, and criticizing at least some of his policies, and most of them avoid saying his name at all.

It's pretty clear that disapproval of GWB is bipartisan in nature.

So why do the pundits think they can accuse the Democratic candidate of "nasty partisanship" for attacking GWBs failed policies?

Tags:

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
jrittenhouse
Nov. 3rd, 2008 05:48 am (UTC)
Same logic Sarah Palin had in her statements about the First Amendment over the last couple of days. When I was in con law, the professors most certainly did not teach it that way!

The answer is that an awful lot of pundits have gotten mighty cozy with the poobahs on the right/GOP, and they've drunk some of the kool-aid passed out in such gatherings, muttering things under their breath about the hoi polloi out there in the boones, and how the people in power are wise and give them lots of material for their columns, etc.

Then John McCain, the pressperson's pal, cut access to the press and pretty liberally wrote them all of as questioning scum unless they were willing to show their allegiance to the cause. While the pundits were saying hazzah-wha? to this, they found that McCain would freely lie and missate anything he could about ANYTHING to get ahead - and every time they said 'I think that's wrong / over the top', they got a face full of cold pee in their face from McCain's people. Finally, some of the pundits said 'This is not our buddy any more', and they woke up somewhat...

Well, some of them did. Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory are still tied into the old circuits too hard (Mitchell's husband being Alan Greenspan, who got us into a lot of this financial mess in the first place). There's more.

The GOP isn't using logic. It gave up on that a while back. Old pals who are deep through and through Republicans are coming up with the same wild stuff I see in the right-angled blogs; it's almost as if they saw Vladimir Lenin being elected, and they're despondent as to why People Can't See The Evil. Of course, they can't see Bush's evils and inadequacies, because He's On Our Team.

When I was calling people recently for a local Democratic candidate, only one issue came up from people: 'Is he pro-life?' When I replied honestly that the candidate didn't share that stand, as they meant it, they said 'then no way'.

I can understand, somewhat, the people who toss away everything for one issue. "I don't care if WW3 breaks out tomorrow, but abortion issues are *important*." At least they're thinking about *something*. The ones who fall for the *down with all the commie homos and n-words* crap are scarier. And the scariest of all are the Palin in 2012 crowd.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Profile

Creative Joyous Cat
wyld_dandelyon
wyld_dandelyon

Latest Month

May 2018
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Jared MacPherson