Than today.
In today's Washington Post you will find this "reportage" on Bill Clinton's speech from Alexandra Petri:
It was too big to fail. It was almost too big to check. It would be like fact checking a century. At dawn tomorrow, I am going to see the factcheckers off on their long voyage into miles and miles of wild, verdant speech. I expect them to write me every month to offer an update on their progress. Perhaps they will return by 2016 with a report. Then again I only dimly recollect the Clinton era. To me, it was a time of Pokemon and prosperity during which your fifth-grade teacher had to awkwardly explain specific sex acts. But everyone who was there in '88 assures me that his speech then was easily as long, if not longer...
Then, with a flick of your wrist, you can turn the page and find Jennifer Rubin bitterly complaining in column after column that Barack Obama hasn't been impeached yet for
The Democratic convention goes far left; media unaware
By Jennifer Rubin
You know, once they get rid of all the toddlers like Ms. Petri who were weaned on "David Brooks' Big Whiz-Bang Book of Funny Humor Jokes"...and then chase out that scabrous nest of neocons who still dream their little "nuke 'em all" dreamy-dreams in hammocks spun from John Bolton's mustache hair and felted with Paul Wolfowitz's spit-comb...and sack the editorial staff who keep letting George Will and Bill Kristol butt-scoot their crazy all over it's pages...and change the name of the place...and raze the building to its foundations...and salt the Earth where it stood...and take a "Men in Black" memory-erasing thingie to everyone who has every had brain cells snuffed out in the service of reading their tripe...There is no mystery as to why media are smitten by the Democratic National Convention. Not only do they see nothing wrong with hours of abortion speeches and moldy class warfare rhetoric, but they agree with it and think that this is “mainstream” politics. I don’t think that more than a few recognize how far left they and their favored speakers are in the current political environment. They naturally also see actual centrist ideas as conservative and mainstream conservative ideas as extreme...
...then the Washington Post might have a real shot at being whatchacall a "newspaper" once again.
8 comments:
if Ms Rubin's reaction to the dem convention is from the perspective of her loony wingnut edge of magical thinking land, yes it was awfully, awfully librul and such. Especially that sermon by the Rev Billy Jeff Clinton who shouted to the rafters that those pesky, and usually spineless democrats got it right.
But to us over here on the third planet from the sun, the tone of this convention is just about right. Especially all those rants about womanly things like their body parts and killing zygotes through the miracle of chemistry. And booing the imaginary friend of the taliban crowd, even though we were more upset by being railroaded on a voice vote than about some silly platform plank that nobody cares about.
So in other words, the republican't war on reality is continuing on without a pause.
"But everyone who was there in '88 assures me that his speech then was easily as long, if not longer..."
Bill Clinton's 2012 DNC speech: 48 minutes.
Bill Clinton 1988 DNC speech: 33 minutes.
Time it took to find this out on Google: 1 minute, 53 seconds.
"letting George Will and Bill Kristol butt-scoot their crazy" -- Perfect! (Of course, that disturbing image is now stuck in my head...)
Did you hear that the WAPO was entertaining buyout offers?
They're just an educational fraud-selling (Kaplan) organization now.
And they haven't been doing real reporting since before Clinton, so who'll miss them or even reads them anyone except for the sales pages?
The WaPo also ran some good pieces on the speech. (Sargent, Klein, Bernstein, among others.) But they do have a high number of neocons and conservatives of all stripes. It's inexcusable that Rubin has a job there. (Some of Rubin's commenters read her for the unintentional comedy, so there is that.) She's such a transparent hack, and she's not even a good one. As I've said before, Charles Krauthammer is a loathsome propagandist who cannot write a column without being disingenuous, but at least he takes some pride in his craft. Where is the work ethic of today's propagandist? (I blame Jonah Goldberg.)
And as I implied in an earlier thread, I might have to borrow that pic for a post... Holy FSM, but do I hate dogmatic centrists. Why, you would never know from talking to them that the point of elections is actually to research issues, give matters some thought, and choose a fucking side. (Even if that "side" is a third party or conscientious abstention.) Funny, ain't it, how David Brooks always says "Both Sides Do It" to the proles, but he still figures out who's he voting for on election day?
"Abortion speeches".
Nice.
Hey, I think I remember seeing Jennifer at a clinic not so long ago screaming "Jesus wants you to be a mother" at people.
But, yeah, those Democrats...gosh, they're extreme.
With all that inclusionary rhetoric of the left, one can understand why Jen's so pissed off -- no one includes her when speaking of "journalists".
Post a Comment