big goverment or bigger, bankrupt government...,
| Main |
why that "high minded discussion of geopolitics" turns up missing in 2004:
this is an easy one - because it was missing in 2003, 2002, and 2001.
And the candidates are staying on message - the press can fuck off and the candidates can respond only to prescreened questions from the ghoulish undead citizens who've sworn their loyalty oaths:
As far as I can tell, Bush hasn't actually answered a single question from a reporter since the several interviews he did in late August, just before the Republican National Convention. That's more than two weeks ago. At least twice in the past week, reporters have resorted to shouting questions, and he's ignored them.
And quoted from the Chicago Tribune in the first link:
...Kerry travels across the country on a 757 airplane packed with staff, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers and cameramen. The candidate sits at the front of the plane while the media stay in the back. Usually, reporters can get a glimpse of his gray mane when he stands in the aisle chatting with staff. Occasionally, he throws around a football on the airport tarmac, sometimes inviting a reporter to join in. But ask him a question and Kerry shakes his head, puts up his hand and walks away with a small smile.
National Press Corps be damned, apparently, yet Kerry sits down for an interview with Imus. Why? Is it because Imus is sometimes capable of adult conversations? Is that why Junior won't go on? How am I to reconcile my mutual disgust for both the NPC and the campaigns? And look at Kerry go in that interview, almost like he knows what he's talking about. Almost like a thinking, flesh and blood human.
And a politician! So you know it's really cynical BS. We know what Kerry's goals are, because they're the same goals as everybody else: he's surely thinking about Iraq like Josh Marshall is thinking about Iraq: "democratic, stable, and pro-western" - a list pf mutually exclusive goals, all of which are thoroughly undermined by the mere presence of US troops... and Negroponte. And by "pro-western" they don't mean "friendly to the US", they mean, "carrying out US foriegn policy", in the same vein as the present administration the precendence of the listed goals runs in reverse order, presumably so that you're too busy getting high off euphimisms about freedom and democracy to notice that they're not.
:: posted by buermann @ 2004-09-15 10:50:22 CST |