Oh, Well, Then. Silly Us.
By Mitch Berg
While Tom Shales at his best is an adequate (if past-his-shelf-date) TV critic, when he swerves into politics he distinguishes himself by being an even balder-faced flak than Lori Sturdevant or Frank Rich.
His “review” of the Pennsylvania debate focuses – like the rest of the nutroots – on the shock and awe they feel over actually seeing Democrats questioned.
But this bit here caught my attention:
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to “take one statement and beat it to death,” he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. “Charlie, I’ve discussed this,” he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum.
Oh.
Well, then.
Never mind!
(Note to all you anti-war people; Bush “has discussed” the war, “ad infinitum”. Just shut up and speak when spoken to!)
This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people “clinging” to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.
“It’s not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won’t be the last,” said Obama, with refreshing candor.
Ah. Well, that’s that, then! He “misstated” his contempt for the vast majority of the American people!
Sorry to impose, Tom!
The networks’ trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on “the issues.”
Contempt for over half the voters – including, I hasted to add, me, a gun-toting Christian from a small rural town – is an issue.
By your leave, anyway.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I love how he has since tried to twist his words to say that he was only embracing the small-town values of “faith, family and hunting” when in the same breath he suggests that the list of values includes “hatred for those not like themselves, or for immigrants.” Come, now, Senator, do you share ALL of these values, or none of them?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I’m sure he’s sharing whatever value happens to be of value to the person he is sharing said value with at that given moment in time.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Anyone manage to find Shales outraged review of the Republican debate a few months ago where they had all those stupid questions from Youtube? Was it the one with the neutral Chris Mathews? I bet Shales really blew off a lot of steam in that review!!!