Hey Tucker, supress this!
Just saw Tucker Carlson on KQED. I had never seen him before watching him be smacked down by Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I watched him talk to some sort of man/ape from the Washington Post (Richard Cohn) and right-wing nutball David Horowitz. I could only watch for about 2 minutes while they blathered. I turned in to see the end of the show in which Tucker said,
WHAT THE F???! I was SOOOO blown away, I thought, is he being sarcastic or is he trying to say, "I know if there is a big turn out Bush will lose, so liberals watching PBS at home, it's okay if you don't bother to vote." Stunning, just stunning. Take about unpatriotic stances!
Now, after having read this aren't you outraged? Well guess what I did? Like the Bush Campaign does, I took the above comments out of context. The bigger context was that if you are a friend of someone senile don't let them vote. Sounds like decent advice, but of course he has to get a dig in at the Democrats (since the Republican's NEVER work to suppress the vote) who is it that he says takes these senile people to the polls? "Democratic Party activists, who specialize in bringing the senile to the polls."
Good one, and your proof is? He sites a Washington Post article
in which Democratic activists wanted to educate people in a nursing home, most who were of sound mind. The one example of fraudulent voting they provided was a woman who voted for Bush for her demented husband. (The jokes just write themselves folks.)
As the Post article points out, this is a somewhat complex issue. But my first thought is, "If the demented votes will help Kerry, the Republicans will sue. If the demented voters will help Bush the Democrats should sue, but won't."
The biggest issue is, just how informed are voters who AREN'T demented? We let people vote who don't like Kerry's face or think George W. Bush looks like someone they would like to have a beer with!
Each campaign has to pay attention to these external image questions because of idiots who make decisions like this. Smart people use their gut too, I understand the wisdom in some gut decision processes. But your gut/intution is based on what you have been exposed to and how that compares with your past history of finding out the truth. If you aren't exposed to the truth, your decision making process is fatally flawed.
Does the better deceiver win? Maybe in the short run, but if the media does their job and reports on reality, truth will win out. We have to also pay attention and do our job and keep informed. We must DEMAND that the Media does their job.
If the media did its job the Bush admin would have been frog marched out of the White House years ago (or they never would have made it in!) The White House now hides behind the phrase "We're at war, National Security requires us to classify this!" all the time.
What is especially difficult when the politicians know how to suppress the media with fear and threats and, most often, by appealing to the press' desire to keep their access. I understand why the NYTimes would be pissed off when Cheney banned their reporter from his plane, but why aren't all the other papers pissed? They should boycott him and refuse to go on the plane unless the NYTimes is on board as well. The Republicans use the press' egos against them.
What is that about hanging together or hanging separately?
As the saying goes, voting is a right, not a privilege. But rights go both ways. The rest of us have the right not to have our government chosen by people who no longer understand what government is - or even by the totally uninformed. So come November second, do America a favor. If you don't know what you're voting for, please, don't vote.-Tucker Carlson on Unfiltered 8-15-2004
WHAT THE F???! I was SOOOO blown away, I thought, is he being sarcastic or is he trying to say, "I know if there is a big turn out Bush will lose, so liberals watching PBS at home, it's okay if you don't bother to vote." Stunning, just stunning. Take about unpatriotic stances!
Now, after having read this aren't you outraged? Well guess what I did? Like the Bush Campaign does, I took the above comments out of context. The bigger context was that if you are a friend of someone senile don't let them vote. Sounds like decent advice, but of course he has to get a dig in at the Democrats (since the Republican's NEVER work to suppress the vote) who is it that he says takes these senile people to the polls? "Democratic Party activists, who specialize in bringing the senile to the polls."
Good one, and your proof is? He sites a Washington Post article
in which Democratic activists wanted to educate people in a nursing home, most who were of sound mind. The one example of fraudulent voting they provided was a woman who voted for Bush for her demented husband. (The jokes just write themselves folks.)
As the Post article points out, this is a somewhat complex issue. But my first thought is, "If the demented votes will help Kerry, the Republicans will sue. If the demented voters will help Bush the Democrats should sue, but won't."
The biggest issue is, just how informed are voters who AREN'T demented? We let people vote who don't like Kerry's face or think George W. Bush looks like someone they would like to have a beer with!
Each campaign has to pay attention to these external image questions because of idiots who make decisions like this. Smart people use their gut too, I understand the wisdom in some gut decision processes. But your gut/intution is based on what you have been exposed to and how that compares with your past history of finding out the truth. If you aren't exposed to the truth, your decision making process is fatally flawed.
Does the better deceiver win? Maybe in the short run, but if the media does their job and reports on reality, truth will win out. We have to also pay attention and do our job and keep informed. We must DEMAND that the Media does their job.
If the media did its job the Bush admin would have been frog marched out of the White House years ago (or they never would have made it in!) The White House now hides behind the phrase "We're at war, National Security requires us to classify this!" all the time.
What is especially difficult when the politicians know how to suppress the media with fear and threats and, most often, by appealing to the press' desire to keep their access. I understand why the NYTimes would be pissed off when Cheney banned their reporter from his plane, but why aren't all the other papers pissed? They should boycott him and refuse to go on the plane unless the NYTimes is on board as well. The Republicans use the press' egos against them.
What is that about hanging together or hanging separately?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home