ABC Debate Failed To Be Shill For Obama
Tom Shales is as reliable as my dogs. I know they'll bark if someone knocks on our door and I know if liberalism is not regaled as the law of reason that Shales will bay at the moon as if the moon gives a damn what Shales thinks. In both cases they think they are sounding a warning of some import. In one, the mailman is delivering the mail as he does with regularity and in the other Shales is delivering his message as usual, but without the hope of an interesting bit of news.
Why is it that liberals do not find it interesting that a presidential candidate has such a tin ear as to not have heard a racist message filled with hate for all things not colored and an antipathy for the nation that the candidate hopes to lead? How is that a Shales doesn't notice that a presidential candidate is lying when he said he didn't hear anything as he sat in a pew over twenty years nor understood that friendship with a domestic terrorist involved in murder is not a resume building occurrence?
I resent it when people look down their adopted urban nose at my beautiful little "provincial" village. I have a real problem with a pseudo preacher telling God to damn America. Alas, I may be provincial because when someone becomes an enemy of those I love they become an enemy of mine. Besides, assumed arrogance is such an ugly thing and should be reserved to those of an improperly formed mind, just as it has always been.
Arrogance, mixed with ingenuity, is a Shales message delivered with the regularity of a country postman being barked at by dogs.
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.
"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."
Maybe if Shales delivered a coupon for dog food mingled in with his message it would be of interest to those of "us" interested in the character of our candidates, but as a self annointed speaker of "them" Shales probably hates dogs too.
