NADER AND RUSSERT: A MATCH MADE IN UGH
Nader's probably in, and Paul Bruno is on the case, complete with a humorous picture that reminds me of a scene from Dave.
The Fox story is going on word from some Nader advisors. His official announcement of his intentions will be tomorrow morning, when he makes an appearance on . . . Meet the friggin Press???
Isn't that a microcosm of what's fundamentally wrong about Nader's candidacy?
Ralph will sit down with Tim Russert, the person who most exemplifies the disparity between how the So Called Liberal Media treats Democrats and Republicans (Timmy was MWO's Whore of the Year, by the way.). Either Nader is showing a blind-spot for this disparity, or he means to.
My sense -- and this is totally subjective, and relative to the experiences I've had among liberal student communities, such as within the USCA -- is that while the average potential Nader voter knows enough not to fully trust the United States media, particularly the television media, he/she might have forest-trees issues with those who uphold non-corporate journalistic standards, even while operating under the blanket designation of "the media". Helen Thomas asking a question at a White House briefing is very, very different from Jim Angle, or even David "Stretch" Gregory doing so. Being interviewed by Aaron Brown is, in fact, rather different from being interviewed by Tim Russert, or heck, Bill O'Reilly. So why isn't Ralph announcing his intentions on ABC's This Week, hosted by a much more even-handed interviewer, George Stephanopoulos? (Oh wait, I know why: Ralph supported the Republican-led impeachment of President Clinton)
Maybe this is a consequence of your average SB liberal or Berkeley co-oper not regularly watching cable news, which is, no doubt, a very valid and respectable life choice. Maybe this is a case of blogger triumphalism: A lot of college-age bloggers are really into this sort of thing. But regardless of his soon-to-be-announced intentions, Ralph's talking to Tim Russert about the relative congruency of the two parties in America sends a message to me, but I don't know if some of the people who might constitute his voting base will receive the same message.
But let's make as much good of a bad situation as possible: As long as Russert's gonna be the one asking the questions, could he please, please put together one of his happy little charts, outlining Duverger's Law?
Of course, I feel sad for the political party whose vote will be split by Nader's candidacy. Funny, how Ralph Nader may be positioning himself to become the largest obstacle to the Green Party reaching the 5% plateau required for federal funds.
Nader's probably in, and Paul Bruno is on the case, complete with a humorous picture that reminds me of a scene from Dave.
The Fox story is going on word from some Nader advisors. His official announcement of his intentions will be tomorrow morning, when he makes an appearance on . . . Meet the friggin Press???
Isn't that a microcosm of what's fundamentally wrong about Nader's candidacy?
Ralph will sit down with Tim Russert, the person who most exemplifies the disparity between how the So Called Liberal Media treats Democrats and Republicans (Timmy was MWO's Whore of the Year, by the way.). Either Nader is showing a blind-spot for this disparity, or he means to.
My sense -- and this is totally subjective, and relative to the experiences I've had among liberal student communities, such as within the USCA -- is that while the average potential Nader voter knows enough not to fully trust the United States media, particularly the television media, he/she might have forest-trees issues with those who uphold non-corporate journalistic standards, even while operating under the blanket designation of "the media". Helen Thomas asking a question at a White House briefing is very, very different from Jim Angle, or even David "Stretch" Gregory doing so. Being interviewed by Aaron Brown is, in fact, rather different from being interviewed by Tim Russert, or heck, Bill O'Reilly. So why isn't Ralph announcing his intentions on ABC's This Week, hosted by a much more even-handed interviewer, George Stephanopoulos? (Oh wait, I know why: Ralph supported the Republican-led impeachment of President Clinton)
Maybe this is a consequence of your average SB liberal or Berkeley co-oper not regularly watching cable news, which is, no doubt, a very valid and respectable life choice. Maybe this is a case of blogger triumphalism: A lot of college-age bloggers are really into this sort of thing. But regardless of his soon-to-be-announced intentions, Ralph's talking to Tim Russert about the relative congruency of the two parties in America sends a message to me, but I don't know if some of the people who might constitute his voting base will receive the same message.
But let's make as much good of a bad situation as possible: As long as Russert's gonna be the one asking the questions, could he please, please put together one of his happy little charts, outlining Duverger's Law?
Of course, I feel sad for the political party whose vote will be split by Nader's candidacy. Funny, how Ralph Nader may be positioning himself to become the largest obstacle to the Green Party reaching the 5% plateau required for federal funds.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home