Washington Post's double standard.

Curator · 06-25-2008, 11:20 AM

David Broder wrote in the Washington Post last Sunday:

Quote:

We are barely at the beginning of the long period in which most Americans will give their first serious scrutiny to the presidential candidates and decide whether Barack Obama or John McCain will get their vote.

. . . What may be crucial in the end is whether people become comfortable with the prospect of Obama as their president.

McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura. Obama is much newer to most voters, less familiar and more dependent on the impressions he is only now creating.

Chris Cillizza quickly stepped up to plant a sloppy kiss on Broder's ass by amplifying the message.

Quote:

Broder is “required reading for anyone who calls himself a political junkie." He argues that two decisions by Barack Obama in the last week -- to reject John McCain's proposal for 10 joint town halls and to opt out of public financing -- will put to the test the question of how well voters know the Illinois senator and how far they are willing to trust him.

And finally Richard Cohen picks up the same theme endorsing the same double standard outlined by Broder that Obama's reversal on campaign financing matters more than similar acts by McCain.

Quote:

The Democratic nominee reversed himself on the public funding of presidential campaigns and decided that he would, after all, raise the money himself. The reason for this reversal is that Obama is going to raise much more money on his own than the $84 million the government is prepared to give him. This is the kind of math even I can understand, and I forgive Obama for valuing victory over consistency.

But what is far less forgivable is the socialist realism language he used to rationalize his decision. He couched his selfishness as the essence of civic duty. He explained that he had to adapt to an exigency that was there all along but that he had somehow not foreseen when he pledged to accept public financing: to respond to those slimy campaign committees of the type that Swift-boated poor John Kerry.

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama — and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It’s not just that he’s been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It’s also — and more important — that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This — not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express — is what commends him to so many journalists.

We will never know what his North Vietnamese captors found out because McCain will not release his full military record.

McCain has significantly changed his position on a whole range of things in order to gain a political edge. If people think that Obama did wrong by opting out of public campaign financing, then fine. If they think his explanation was incomplete, well...OK. But please. Please, please, please don’t tell me that what Obama did is completely inexcusable while similar flip-flops by McCain are a-OK.

The Washington Post must have a gigantic crush on McCain.

Personally, I don’t want Obama taking public financing. I want him to raise a zillion dollars and use it to ass rape the Republican party so thoroughly that it runs to the Canadian border, begging and pleading for asylum.

We got the fire to burn this motherfucker down.

RK77 · 06-25-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curator

David Broder wrote in the Washington Post last Sunday:

Chris Cillizza quickly stepped up to plant a sloppy kiss on Broder's ass by amplifying the message.

And finally Richard Cohen picks up the same theme endorsing the same double standard outlined by Broder that Obama's reversal on campaign financing matters more than similar acts by McCain.

We will never know what his North Vietnamese captors found out because McCain will not release his full military record.

McCain has significantly changed his position on a whole range of things in order to gain a political edge. If people think that Obama did wrong by opting out of public campaign financing, then fine. If they think his explanation was incomplete, well...OK. But please. Please, please, please don’t tell me that what Obama did is completely inexcusable while similar flip-flops by McCain are a-OK.

The Washington Post must have a gigantic crush on McCain.

Personally, I don’t want Obama taking public financing. I want him to raise a zillion dollars and use it to ass rape the Republican party so thoroughly that it runs to the Canadian border, begging and pleading for asylum.

We got the fire to burn this motherfucker down.

I see him doing Town Halls every day. I would love it if Obama would drop his decorum for a second and simply remark that McCain can't get the crowds without him.

I don't see the Town Hall forum as being such a big "service" to the American people (as does Broder). I frankly, see the bullshit questions like in the April 16th, ABC debate a waste of my time to watch.

If we want McCain's ass burned we are going to all spend more time posting in local papers etc---where opinions are being formed as we speak.

Jonesy · 06-25-2008, 04:01 PM

Fuck trust. Trust is for religious 'faithful' assholes. How about we make god-damn fucking sure? There is no room for error in the Oval Office.

Comicsartist · 06-25-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Fuck trust. Trust is for religious 'faithful' assholes. How about we make god-damn fucking sure? There is no room for error in the Oval Office.

If there truly is no room for error in the Oval Office, Dubya would have been gone on January 21, 2000.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode