Yes, They Don’t Want You To Know.
Minutes of the secret media strategy session to coordinate favorable (but not too favorable) coverage of Obama have got to be available somewhere online. Maybe at whale.to or educateyourself.org? Do provide links if at all possible.
Sounded more admiring than outraged to me. The outrage is directed at Republicans for not knowing whom they are up against.
That’s how I read it, too.
About a C cup, I think.
Repeatedly referring to Obama as “Fast Eddie” and as a sell-out doesn’t come across as all that admiring.
“…on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.”
Brooks has also not been especially admiring of Obama in past columns:
“Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to (“Obamamaniacs”) less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?
…As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself…If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.”
Again, I don’t think his criticisms are entirely invalid (the snottiness of his tone aside). But his air of surprise and bemusement at Obama’s hardnosed/shifty (pick one or both) style in his latest column rings false. He’s playing to the prevailing GOP theme of the season.
Incidentally, the buzzphrase of this campaign season, “throwing (whatever/whomever) under the bus/truck” needs to be retired to the same boneyard where “gravitas” and “soccer moms” reside. Find another goddamn cliche.
So very, very true. It’s a horrible cliche, and as a sports talk buzzword it got old two or three years ago.
I hereby denounce and reject “under the bus”.
But were you for it before you were against it?
Admiring of his political skill even if doesn’t admire his policies so much. And he says in the 2nd to last paragraph that the “Fast Eddie” side of him may be needed when dealing with other world leaders like Putin.
I prefer to think of the two Obamas as “Jesus H. Obama” and “Bad, Bad, Leroy Brown Obama”.
I’ll let the American People decide.
Just one more piece of evidence that this guy couldn’t give a rat’s ass about truth in journalism, politics in general, or the future of the United States, as he fails miserably, once again, to bother to obtain a basic grasp of that which he is condemning. He writes as if he assumes the phrase “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” is an Obama-made slogan, and ponders its meaning as if it were a retarded thing to say.
Well guess what, boy genius, Obama didn’t come up with that, it’s an ancient Hopi Elders’ Prophesy: http://www.matrixmasters.com/takecharge/hopi-prophecy.html.
Why doesn’t someone stuff a sock in this guy’s ignorant pie hole? Seriously, I’ve never heard of him before. Is he always this ignorant about the subjects he blathers about?
The American People are tired of these distractions about who is under the bus, under a truck or near the truck. It’s a manufactured issue that distracts us from the real challenges facing the country, like trying to help working Americans afford the gas they need to drive the buses and trucks over these cliches.
Yes, but ol’ Rupert certainly doesn’t own ALL the media outlets in ALL the markets. Fox News is pretty well balanced by CBS, NBC, ABC, and NPR, if you get my drift.
I don’t get your drift, in fact I think the assertion that the robust, transparent propaganda of Fox is in any way similar to the wishy-washy namby-pamby nonconfrontational newslite of the Big Three is kind of ridiculous. Fox distinguishes itself mostly in its unmitigated gall.
NPR I will give you as biased, but it’s nowhere near as stupid as Fox so it doesn’t quite counter. The “Reality TV” cable network is stupid enough to be the anti-Fox, but has no discernable political agenda. So I suppose we’ll have to settle on MSNBC.
Ah, this old canard.
Your drift is so hard astarboard you’re about to capsize. Fox has no LW analogue.
“You’re either on the bus, or you’re off the bus, and we are all Bozos under this bus. And, of course, some days you catch the bus, some days you miss the bus, and some days the bus runs you over. All and all, this signals serious trouble for Obama with the people who take the bus to Applebee’s for the salad bar…”
You can have this, Dave. Don’t even need to send me a check, I’ll be more than paid to see the look Mark Shields gives you when you intone this crap like it meant something.
It’s possible he picked up the ball from Rush Limbaugh, who was mocking this very phrase in exactly the same way a few weeks previous.
Jesus, all the more reason to look it up himself. Anyone who takes their political cues from Rush Limbaugh is an utter moron who should never be taken seriously under any circumstances.
This is what I mean – what decent journalist doesn’t bother to research the material he’s writing about? If he can’t be bothered to do that much Googling, not a word he ever writes can be trusted. To say this guy is a hack is a gargantuan understatement.
Propaganda is an opinion; if you were to say Agenda I would agree with you. MSNBC has a fairly transparent agenda as you point out, and MSNBC is fairly diametrically opposed to Fox News.
Do you have an opinion about ‘this old canard’ or simply think saying it is a canard is enough to dismiss it?
Oh how very droll.
Fox’s LW analogue is in lots of places. My argument is simple - MSNBC + NPR + Air America + New York Times + Washington Post + Democratic Underground on the left is roughly equal to Fox News + Washington Times + New York Post + RW Talk Radio + Free Republic in impact, froth, viewing / listening / reading audience, and truthfulness. BOTH sides have agendas, above and beyond ratings and audience share; the agendas fairly well cancel each other out and the truth, as always, is to be found somewhere in the middle.