FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

If that won't make Doc come back and post, nothing will.

I love how folks point to one former AP political reporter who isn't a liberal shill, and offer that as proof of diversity among the media.

Read the article. It does offer both sides. Not many folks out there have even tried to do that.

 

Why would you want Doc to come back? That always leads to a sure padlock on
the thread.

 

It's pretty well-balanced. I don't know, if you're an independent thinker, if it's particularly devastating.

What the online age has shown -- and what it will continue to show until we've all calmed the fuck down a little on the Internet -- is that it's a lot harder to govern, regardless of party, when there are folks dedicated daily to blasting out a message on Web sites, twitter, facebook, email, reddit, message boards, anywhere to support their cause. Everyone's a source. Everyone's a spy. Everyone's clamoring about the world ending, the presidency collapsing, you name it.

I'm against military action in Syria, personally. But Reagan agreed to military decisions in the 1980s that would make one's head spin today. The 1980s were the last, true "great" decade for the CIA until a short period after 9/11, and because folks are numbskulls to history, it's forgotten. Those things couldn't have been done today.

The next prez, whoever he/she is, for whichever party, had better have a team of folks who work only on understanding what's being said in online media, and they had better formulate a friendly strategy to deal with it.

 

There's no money in balance. Most political Web sites have such a pathetic business model that they're forced to be slaves to imbalance.

 

I was just about to say the same thing. It's not "devastating," though it certainly tries to be in the lede.

But, hold on! In the third graf:

If I were still in the business, any news story that had a sentence like this, or any reference to "the score," would be spiked on first sight.

 

I read the Fournier piece and much like he said, it is far easier to catalog what he thinks is the worst.

You'll also note the use of an unnamed source to bash the Syria plan, for balance or something.

Fournier also makes the critical error of trying to play all the sides as being reasonable.

A fair chunk of the Republican delegation is simply opposed to Obama, no matter what. It is good for their business as they play to their base, raise tons of money and keep an even kookier person from running against them in the primary.

As for the Politico headline writers, it would just be easier to go schoolyard and call Obama a pussy and be done with it.

 

Was Lhota the subway kitten killer on the front of the Post a few weeks ago?

 

That's just what the liberal Machine wants you to think.

 

I just wanted to type "subway kitten killer".

 

To show how lopsided the electorate is in NYC, Lhota won the Republican primary, with 52% of the vote, yet he received less votes than Anthony Weiner, who came in fifth place in the Democrat primary, with less than 5% of the vote.

If you look at the electoral map, there are a bunch districts -- look in upper Manhattan and the Bronx -- where there were a handful, or fewer, Republican primary voters, including a number with no voters.

 

Maybe they should build a National Park there.