Who, Then, For the Dems?
Note: I fixed the link
I've been having lots of conversations with fellow burned-ou paranoids where we all come to a conclusion that then elicits further questions:
Because of [insert litany of egregious, immoral, and downright godawful things the current regime is currently either denying or trying to shove down our throat], it's pretty evident that the GOP is apt to collapse under its own mismanaged weight.
Question 1: Why in the hell isn't the so-called liberal media going after this group?
Questtion 2: Who on the left--Democratic party member or otherwise--can we rally behind?
To answer both, I submit a quote:
"The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.
The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.
Al Gore for President.
Eight years late is better than not at all.
Yeharr
I've been having lots of conversations with fellow burned-ou paranoids where we all come to a conclusion that then elicits further questions:
Because of [insert litany of egregious, immoral, and downright godawful things the current regime is currently either denying or trying to shove down our throat], it's pretty evident that the GOP is apt to collapse under its own mismanaged weight.
Question 1: Why in the hell isn't the so-called liberal media going after this group?
Questtion 2: Who on the left--Democratic party member or otherwise--can we rally behind?
To answer both, I submit a quote:
"The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.
The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.
Al Gore for President.
Eight years late is better than not at all.
Yeharr
posted by Balloon Pirate at 12:42 PM
14 Comments:
He's not good enough, but better than some alternatives.
Wow. Gore. To tell you the truth, I'm undecided about that. He has a lot going for him, but in the end, there's a character issue, one that is not so much about how the GOP would use dirty tactics to paint a person this or that, but a steely core of protected ground, where the line can be drawn and a person doesn't step back any further and says - this is who I am, whether you like it or not. It's crucial to be elected. Clinton has it. Bush has it. Two sides of a wildly divergent coin. I'm not sure Gore has it - he didn't in 2000, so desparate to please his inner cirlce, and the polls they were reading and afraid they weren't "tracking" well enough, and the public could smell his uncertainty - and that's why the election was so close, that was his fault. Period. Has 8 years in the wilderness toughened him up, made him more at peace with who he is and less desparate to please? If so, he might be a good pick. If not, we've alread lost with him. One ironic upside - it calls back an administration of much brighter days - could the GOP ever have imagined that?!
hmmm...gore? the link you gave timed out...is he really going to run. i'm with philip morton...not too sure how i feel about that.
hmmmm...veddy interesting
I'm a "Whore for Gore!"
(If being a "Hoss for Ross" flew, that one should too)
That was an excellent speech by Gore. He touches on the sad state of content and conduit law which has been effectively wiped off the books over the years by giants like Time Warner and the devil, himself, Rupert Murdoch.
Additionally, consider what network news started as - originally a requirement by the FCC, to be aired in a certain frequency per day, and, most importantly, something the networks loathed to have programmed - compared to the sensational, yellow crap it has evolved into today. Over a few decades, the networks figured out that newscasts could be entertainment packaged as "news". Make a 1/2 newcast approx. 8 minutes commercials, 6 minutes news, 16 minutes "human interest story" and the ratings soar! Suddenly its not a burden to their budget but a cut-throat competition for ad revenue. (Its not surprising that so many television drama series have their plots "ripped from the headlines". The "headlines" are written as drama plots.) At that point we lost any opportunity of having television be a true source of news.
Well, unless Gore's new thing works out the way he has described it will. Let's hope so.
VOTE THIRD PARTY. We need to break up the two party system to have some real reform in government, which is what we need, isn't it? Gore will be able to stabilize the economy, but what else will he do? We need to make this election about more than one issue and remember what America's really about. This is too important to hand over to Gore. We need someone better.
Hilary, Hilary she's our man, if she can't do it, then Al's our man!
Hey, it's Friday...
If Gore ran a better campaign, I think he could really have a shot. Team him with Clark and you've got quite a 1-2 punch.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What about Max Cleland? Maybe as the nominee or as a running mate for any of the top contenders? He's still pissed about what shrubco did to him in 2002 and won't let it happen again.
I like Clark/Cleland, Gore/Cleland. Gore will have to defend his support for Moveon.org and some of the language of his speeches during the last election to the middle grounders. I agreed with everything he says but there are a lot of people, hopefully fewer these days, found his truth a little over the line. I think Hillary is a mistake and will energize the wingers. They are hoping she runs. I also don't think the middle is ready for a woman in the WH, especially given her history. The shame of Lewinsky is still attached to her.
The Democrats need to sling the shit, swiftboat style, if need be. This is hardball. We need an Army of ideologs(sp) ready to scream at the top of your lungs on every talk show every corner. I also think it is time for the White male Liberal to stand up and be counted. We need to actively fight the notion that Liberalism is weak or is the domain of Women's group or minorities. They need to get some ballot initiatives that are pro-labor, pro-working class, maybe something that is specifically targeted at the ultra-wealthy executive excess, in Ohio and Florida. We need to learn from the Gay Marriage issue. The right should be loudly condemned for its attack on the working class, just as the left was condemned for being anti-family, whatever that means. They need to energize the blue collar man to vote. If they want a class war lets give them one.
We need to energize the blacks in Florida. If Katherine Harris runs against Nelson for his Senate seat in Fla we need to focus on her as a way to get every eligible black voter to come out and pay her back for what she did to them in 2000. That turn out would carry up ticket and give Florida to the Democratic candidate.
The right has a problem in 2008. I think neither Giuliani nor McCain will energize the base evangelicals. But may draw the center more than a religious shrubbist type. The religious wing of the right likes being played to. They will be pissed if they don't get an evangelical candidate. I don't see them accepting Condi Rice either because she is black. So short of Jeb Bush, who runs on the right?
crank: it will be Jeb Bush. Katherin Harris isn't making her quota of campaign donations, by the wya, and the right is concerned about how she's tracking and may bump her, which is fine with me. You're right about the Right Wing Wackos, they won't have a candidate and think McCain is too secular. And the black base in Florida is key (bush is pollingat 3% support with African Americans lately, that has to be a new low). I like Clarke. And as undecided on Gore as I am, I can't deny there's power in a Gore/Clarke ticket. Cheney can't say Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about. I like Hillary alot, but I also think she's too easy to attack right now - I think she's in 2012. But in the end, I almost feel like we need a Will Rogers. "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat". Charm and cunning coming from outside of the mainstream Washington fish tank. Unless Bush's idiotic inadequacies have finally shown America that you do need a professional to run the place.
What aboput John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and any number of viable candidates? Gore is not going to get elected, and even if he was, what do we really think he's going to do for us?
Polanco: You know, I think I agree with you. Gore's a bore. He might make a good President, but he's not going to be elected to the Presidency. The Right would come out in full righteous hatred to vote against him, and the Left would feel so uninspired, they'd stay home. Edwards, intriguing, if he's toughened up a bit, is a little less eager to please on the public stage, a little more ready to fight like he supposedly did in the court room, I think he'd be a hit. Hillary I feel one day will be president, but it's two or three cycles away, not now, she's too fresh a target.Who else? Clarke is way cool, though I don't know if he can pull it off, As I said before - where's our Will Rogers? I want Tom Hanks to run for the Dems. Where's our charisma?
Post a Comment
<< Home