esmaspäev, juuni 07, 2004
And the NYT is the Dumb One?
Kaus:
NYT to Kerry Camp: Spin Us! We're Dumb for You! If Kerry's wise, all-powerful inner circle was dead set against his delayed nomination idea, then why (as is widely believed) was he actually planning to do it, until it leaked? Or is the New York Times once again playing the gullible spinnee, suspending normal journalistic skepticism to retell a story in a way highly convenient to the Kerry campaign?
Me:
First of all, "widely believed"? In other words, not exactly true. It's not a fact. It's an impression garnered from inferences in news articles. So what you're really asking is, "Why did I think he was planning to do it until it leaked?" You're entire entry and insult against a major newspaper is based on your assumption and not fact? And, well, this seems obvious to me, but maybe that's just because I don't have to labor under the pressure of being a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, but that's probably exactly why it leaked. Which is to say, they were against it, they thought it would be a bad idea, so they leaked that they were considering it. That way, they could find out what the reaction would be without committing to it. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They were throwing up a test balloon. They were dangling their feet in the water. The reason they leaked that they were debating it and not that they were doing it was because they weren't sure if they were going to do it. Obviously someone didn't think it was a good idea or it wouldn't have been leaked.
Jackass.
And I'd also add that there are several good reasons why Kerry wouldn't choose McCain even if he was willing to accept. For one, there's the fact that he's a Republican and doesn't agree with Kerry on many issues. He's a very vocal Republican, which would mean plenty of mixed messages coming out of the Kerry/McCain White House. If there weren't, McCain wouldn't be McCain, so what would be the point? A lot of liberals would be turned off by his conservatism, which is very strong, and might defect to Nader. Moderate Republicans might be uncomfortable with McCain jumping the fence. It sends a bad signal about the Democratic party if he needs to go outside to find a viable running mate. I love the notion of a unity ticket, of symbolizing bipartisanship. I think it would be great for this country. And I have tons of respect for McCain. But I'm not so numbingly stupid that I can't see why Kerry wouldn't be 100% behind the idea.
Kaus, on the other hand, is that stupid.
|
Kaus:
NYT to Kerry Camp: Spin Us! We're Dumb for You! If Kerry's wise, all-powerful inner circle was dead set against his delayed nomination idea, then why (as is widely believed) was he actually planning to do it, until it leaked? Or is the New York Times once again playing the gullible spinnee, suspending normal journalistic skepticism to retell a story in a way highly convenient to the Kerry campaign?
Me:
First of all, "widely believed"? In other words, not exactly true. It's not a fact. It's an impression garnered from inferences in news articles. So what you're really asking is, "Why did I think he was planning to do it until it leaked?" You're entire entry and insult against a major newspaper is based on your assumption and not fact? And, well, this seems obvious to me, but maybe that's just because I don't have to labor under the pressure of being a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, but that's probably exactly why it leaked. Which is to say, they were against it, they thought it would be a bad idea, so they leaked that they were considering it. That way, they could find out what the reaction would be without committing to it. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They were throwing up a test balloon. They were dangling their feet in the water. The reason they leaked that they were debating it and not that they were doing it was because they weren't sure if they were going to do it. Obviously someone didn't think it was a good idea or it wouldn't have been leaked.
Jackass.
And I'd also add that there are several good reasons why Kerry wouldn't choose McCain even if he was willing to accept. For one, there's the fact that he's a Republican and doesn't agree with Kerry on many issues. He's a very vocal Republican, which would mean plenty of mixed messages coming out of the Kerry/McCain White House. If there weren't, McCain wouldn't be McCain, so what would be the point? A lot of liberals would be turned off by his conservatism, which is very strong, and might defect to Nader. Moderate Republicans might be uncomfortable with McCain jumping the fence. It sends a bad signal about the Democratic party if he needs to go outside to find a viable running mate. I love the notion of a unity ticket, of symbolizing bipartisanship. I think it would be great for this country. And I have tons of respect for McCain. But I'm not so numbingly stupid that I can't see why Kerry wouldn't be 100% behind the idea.
Kaus, on the other hand, is that stupid.
