Plan B Forum

Someone finally slams the useless Washington Post for what it is:

__________________________
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_b ... -vote.html

Prairie Weather
Reading, listening to, and questioning America... from the southern Great Plains

« Scary voter turnout in Texas | Main | The really important things we do as a nation »
Maybe it's the media we really need to put to a vote

The Washington Post -- given the role it could play in the media -- is a really unforgivably lousy rag with, admittedly, some good people writing for it. Why the paper is so bad is beyond this reader. Maybe it's an indication of Washington's culture -- government and DC's civilians -- that the town is a political slum with a couple of really crummy papers. Beats me...

The Post's editorial board has come up with an indictment of Mitt Romney today which is true, but which is also an indictment of the Post itself. If Romney is as bad as they say (and I think they're right), why in god's name haven't they been harder on him all along when their indictment could have been useful?

Why, all along, didn't they slam Romney for hiding his financial issues -- money for the campaign and money paid in taxes?

Why haven't their reporters and fact checkers been harder on him for his blatant lying as their editors are doing now, at the last minute, on the dusty, grey editorial pages?

Why haven't they drawn attention, as clearly as they are doing now, to the fatuity of Romney's budget proposals? "Mr. Romney," the editors now write firmly, "seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

Behind the curtain! Who's responsible for operating the ropes on that curtain if not the press? In a time when TV news has been so biased and unreliable, shouldn't the Washington Post, of all papers, have been willing to take Romney on well before the last hours of the campaign?

The Post this morning, on its front page, in reference to its editorial, writes "Romney's campaign insults voters." So do you, WaPo. So do you.
________________________________


yrs,
rubato

"seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

Not a bad bet ,that.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

"seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

Not a bad bet ,that.

Especially if he's targeting the Santa Cruz pseudo-scientist vote....

rubato wrote:"seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

It's an American paper, right?

Gob wrote:

rubato wrote:"seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

It's an American paper, right?

The American press is only an embarrassment until I look at yours. And we elected Obama who did the right thing to pull us out of the collapse while the UK went the other way and are suffering a double-dip depression* as a result.


yrs,
rubato

* Officially, now longer than the great depression.

"seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."

I found that rather complimentary than insulting.

For the record, here is the dramatic conclusion of the WaPo editorial mentioned above:

"Within limits, all candidates say and do what they have to say and do to win. Mr. Obama also has dodged serious interviews and news conferences. He has offered few specifics for a second-term agenda. He, too, aired commercials that distorted his opponent’s statements.
But Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.
Mr. Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him wrong."

Sooooooo, let's see. Obama has lied and distorted not only his own record but that of his opponent, he has published a bullshit budget for the coming years, he has declined to make any proposal whatsoever to bring Medicare, Medicaid, and SS to a sustainable position, and, oh by the way, has stewarded this country through the worst recovery from any recession in American history. In short, he has been an abject failure, and promises more of the same, if re-elected, HOWEVER, he has indicated that he will have "more flexibility" after the election, so will be more true to his historical self.

The "funniest" point in the WaPo editorial is the laugh-out-loud statement, "But Mr. Obama has a record,,,[he]...wouldn't make things worse." Hello? Hello? His record is that he DID make things worse! Jesus Fuck, isn't anybody in that editorial board room paying attention?

Clearly, Barry has earned another shot! The compelling logic of the editorial is inescapable!

Your definition of "abject" needs a serious recalibration to point it much closer to reality.

Because your current definition seems to be "not able to instantly solve, and implement solutions for, the problems brought about by previous administrations".

dgs49 wrote:His record is that he DID make things worse! Jesus Fuck, isn't anybody in that editorial board room paying attention?

Yes. They are paying enough attention to know that your assertion is risibly false.

The only conceivable frame of reference from which one can possibly conclude that Obama was not a failure (I happily use the past tense) is if one assumes that things would have been much worse had he not acted as he did.

Ironically, this is the same framework from which President Roosevelt the Great is seen by Democrats, so I suppose it is not surprising that the delusion repeats itself in that community.

By Barry's own measures, he is a failure. He "promised" to cut the deficit in half - even stated that if he failed to do so, his would be a one-term presidency. He failed to reduce unemployment at all. Indeed, one need not dig too deeply into the numbers to recognize that the unemployment situation is much, much worse than it was when he was elected.

If your party's Senators had not done everything they could to keep both the deficit and the unemployment level as high as possible, things might be very different ....

dgs49 wrote: The only conceivable frame of reference from which one can possibly conclude that Obama was not a failure (I happily use the past tense) is if one assumes that things would have been much worse had he not acted as he did.

Saying he's a failure and saying he's an "abject" failure are two different accusations.

Don't get angry just because your insane hyperbole is getting you laughed at.

You've got to cut Dave some slack. He lives in Faux-News-Land, where the number of jobs is still going down, the number of unemployed is still going up, the GDP is still shrinking, home prices are still going down, foreclosures are still going up, and corporate profits are still shrinking. The rest of us live here:

And also, speaks French, too.