Why isn’t the response as simple as “yes my position has evolved over the years. That is quite a bit different from my opponent’s approach of flipping his position in exchange for cash. Not only is that practice incredibly corrupt but it is downright dangerous to all our safety and freedom in light of the fact that he is facing court ordered fines to the tune of roughly a half a billion dollars. My opponent’s position on any policy is quite literally for sale”
Off-topic: @Brian, I think that Trump's P2025 shakeup is evidence that Republicans operate with the sort of mindset you advocated Dems to have last week: To wit, to constantly rotate out pols when they've accumulated too much "heat".
As proof, I offer the following: Does anyone seriously doubt that the (now-former) head of P2025 will be able to find a job SOMEWHERE else in Conservatism, Inc.? No, of course not, because although they adhere to a ruthless logic of "next man up", they also take care of their own -- he'll be right back into the fray in no time, and this will be little more than an extended vacation and/or a temporary demotion.
Brian, perhaps the best way to understand this is that Dems need to think of politics like hockey. Even the greatest player who ever played, the man whose name doesn't even need to be mentioned because everyone knows EXACTLY who you're referring to as "The Great One", still had to play in shifts. He had to catch his breath off the ice for the majority of minutes of every game, even while meriting more minutes per game than most other players who have graced the ice.
In the 24/7 news environment with a right-wing propaganda machine constantly spewing sticky, toxic hate-ooze all over our players, politics is a game best played in shifts like hockey. For instance, even if Pete doesn't get picked as VP, there's absolutely no sane reason not to get him out there as the chief surrogate... but then if he overheats, to rotate him right back out. Even with the massive surge of Cocomentum, this election will be won as a team.
Well said, David, and a great idea. We do have a very good bench who can capably articulate positions, and also, as we've especially seen Pete do, "take it to'em"!
Brian's (well-said) point might dovetail with Jay Rosen's observation about how much reporting tries to convey the reporter's "savvy." Thus, the sub-text of media's harsh-on-Kamala/soft-on-Trump approach will be, "Yeah, shut up, we know what a liar Trump is. Everybody knows. So why bother holding him to account? No one will believe anything he says anyway. So we're going to aim our trenchant questions and savvy skepticism at the only candidate whose words mean anything."
So tired of the ridiculous double standard and the fact that we have to continually fight against it, whatever happened to the idea of fair and unbiased coverage? The media isn’t even trying to hide the fact that they prefer Trump in office for whatever reason, he sells more papers or whatever. But this time around he could also shut any of them down or even throw them in jail, wonder how they’d feel about him then.
What's going on is, the corporate media lost half their viewers and readers after Trump left office. The intergalactic widgetmakers who own them demand they return to "profitability," so they can sell them to the first rube who comes along. As Jeff Zucker famously observed when he was criticized for the CNN coverage ofTrump rallies in 2016, "Trump brings high ratings." That is all they care about. The Executive Editor of the NYT said in an interview that "it'snot our job to defend democracy" and said democracy was just another "issue," like inflation.
"... one approach would be for reporters to over-police Harris for policy consistency across a span of many years, while continuing to yawn at the thorough corruption of the Trump agenda."
Thanks for your prediction. You are on firm ground. Now, here's my prediction. A few commentators will decry this double standard in real time, but very few will call out specific reporters/pundits and publications by name. I know that "shame" is rarely recognized as a motivating force these days, but perhaps a more intense light on the purveyors of this double standard will cause them to modify their behavior. (I can hear laughter at my naiveté.)
Did the New York Times ever run a story on Trump’s “you won’t have to vote again” speech? I didn’t see it reported in the 48 hours after it happened.
The Los Angeles Times never touched it but they did have a page one, above the fold story headlined “Not All Black Woman Voting For Harris”. Still waiting on the not all white men voting for Trump story.
2020 was pre Dobbs, so nothing about the 2020 election is germane to 2024. Also there's no institutions capable of saving us, our only recourse is our vote.
seems all too likely a scenario. possibly the fact that Dems seem to have found a voice at last in pushing back against inadequate and dishonest coverage that privileges Trump and had some success, forcing the "just vote this time, you won't have to again, my beautiful Christians" story into prominence after the big outlets first tried to subhed it, means we're prepared to do same if your surmise begins to play out. we'd better. all signs point to us gaining some swagger and spring in our step for the first time in ages. I hope we're prepared to keep it up. it could make the difference in who wins the general.
Most oil our journalists are worthless. They would interview Bull Connor to get his take on MLK, and ... tell you to decide after asking Connor fluff questions.
"For instance, I suspect Harris will not run on Medicare for all or a fracking ban this time around. And I thus suspect she’ll eventually have to explain her change of heart."
In case you haven't looked in comments sections lately, the Berners are already sharpening their knives on these two items.
Why isn’t the response as simple as “yes my position has evolved over the years. That is quite a bit different from my opponent’s approach of flipping his position in exchange for cash. Not only is that practice incredibly corrupt but it is downright dangerous to all our safety and freedom in light of the fact that he is facing court ordered fines to the tune of roughly a half a billion dollars. My opponent’s position on any policy is quite literally for sale”
She's already using that with the oil industry promise in return for a billion dollars.
Off-topic: @Brian, I think that Trump's P2025 shakeup is evidence that Republicans operate with the sort of mindset you advocated Dems to have last week: To wit, to constantly rotate out pols when they've accumulated too much "heat".
As proof, I offer the following: Does anyone seriously doubt that the (now-former) head of P2025 will be able to find a job SOMEWHERE else in Conservatism, Inc.? No, of course not, because although they adhere to a ruthless logic of "next man up", they also take care of their own -- he'll be right back into the fray in no time, and this will be little more than an extended vacation and/or a temporary demotion.
Brian, perhaps the best way to understand this is that Dems need to think of politics like hockey. Even the greatest player who ever played, the man whose name doesn't even need to be mentioned because everyone knows EXACTLY who you're referring to as "The Great One", still had to play in shifts. He had to catch his breath off the ice for the majority of minutes of every game, even while meriting more minutes per game than most other players who have graced the ice.
In the 24/7 news environment with a right-wing propaganda machine constantly spewing sticky, toxic hate-ooze all over our players, politics is a game best played in shifts like hockey. For instance, even if Pete doesn't get picked as VP, there's absolutely no sane reason not to get him out there as the chief surrogate... but then if he overheats, to rotate him right back out. Even with the massive surge of Cocomentum, this election will be won as a team.
Well said, David, and a great idea. We do have a very good bench who can capably articulate positions, and also, as we've especially seen Pete do, "take it to'em"!
Brian's (well-said) point might dovetail with Jay Rosen's observation about how much reporting tries to convey the reporter's "savvy." Thus, the sub-text of media's harsh-on-Kamala/soft-on-Trump approach will be, "Yeah, shut up, we know what a liar Trump is. Everybody knows. So why bother holding him to account? No one will believe anything he says anyway. So we're going to aim our trenchant questions and savvy skepticism at the only candidate whose words mean anything."
Which, I'm, like, fuck all y'all.
What else do you expect from the over-educated, under-intelligent, otherwise-unemployable trust fund babies of the Press Corpse?
So tired of the ridiculous double standard and the fact that we have to continually fight against it, whatever happened to the idea of fair and unbiased coverage? The media isn’t even trying to hide the fact that they prefer Trump in office for whatever reason, he sells more papers or whatever. But this time around he could also shut any of them down or even throw them in jail, wonder how they’d feel about him then.
What's going on is, the corporate media lost half their viewers and readers after Trump left office. The intergalactic widgetmakers who own them demand they return to "profitability," so they can sell them to the first rube who comes along. As Jeff Zucker famously observed when he was criticized for the CNN coverage ofTrump rallies in 2016, "Trump brings high ratings." That is all they care about. The Executive Editor of the NYT said in an interview that "it'snot our job to defend democracy" and said democracy was just another "issue," like inflation.
They'd still be licking his taint.
Good analysis.
"... one approach would be for reporters to over-police Harris for policy consistency across a span of many years, while continuing to yawn at the thorough corruption of the Trump agenda."
Yup.
Thanks for your prediction. You are on firm ground. Now, here's my prediction. A few commentators will decry this double standard in real time, but very few will call out specific reporters/pundits and publications by name. I know that "shame" is rarely recognized as a motivating force these days, but perhaps a more intense light on the purveyors of this double standard will cause them to modify their behavior. (I can hear laughter at my naiveté.)
If that worked, Thomas Friedman wouldn't be Thomas Friedman.
Did the New York Times ever run a story on Trump’s “you won’t have to vote again” speech? I didn’t see it reported in the 48 hours after it happened.
The Los Angeles Times never touched it but they did have a page one, above the fold story headlined “Not All Black Woman Voting For Harris”. Still waiting on the not all white men voting for Trump story.
They did, in passing, as an "update" to their "continuing coverage." With no commentary on its meaning.
“Fight, fight, fight,” as Trump likes to say. Only for the Democrats, it’s a metaphor.
When it should be a rule. When informed there's a gunfight coming, Democrats organize their 90-page position papers and order a nice cheese plate.
2020 was pre Dobbs, so nothing about the 2020 election is germane to 2024. Also there's no institutions capable of saving us, our only recourse is our vote.
seems all too likely a scenario. possibly the fact that Dems seem to have found a voice at last in pushing back against inadequate and dishonest coverage that privileges Trump and had some success, forcing the "just vote this time, you won't have to again, my beautiful Christians" story into prominence after the big outlets first tried to subhed it, means we're prepared to do same if your surmise begins to play out. we'd better. all signs point to us gaining some swagger and spring in our step for the first time in ages. I hope we're prepared to keep it up. it could make the difference in who wins the general.
Most oil our journalists are worthless. They would interview Bull Connor to get his take on MLK, and ... tell you to decide after asking Connor fluff questions.
"For instance, I suspect Harris will not run on Medicare for all or a fracking ban this time around. And I thus suspect she’ll eventually have to explain her change of heart."
In case you haven't looked in comments sections lately, the Berners are already sharpening their knives on these two items.