Priorities

I see that the New York Times managed to publish a several hundred word article about Jesse Jackson’s dumb comments about Barack Obama, but still doesn’t seem to have mentioned the fact that the Republican presidential candidate thinks Social Security is a “disgrace.” Judging from the local news tonight, the Times’s news judgment is shared by almost everyone else in the media. It’s nice to see that our press corps is diligently keeping the American public informed on important issues so that we can make a wise choice between the two candidates.

Advertisements

8 responses to “Priorities

  1. An absolute disgrace.

  2. Is this pandering to the gossip-hungry readership? lack of savvy about candidates and thinking about their policies? ???

  3. Just pandering. Everyone loves a juicy psychodrama about the aging civil rights leaders who resents being rendered irrelevant by a new generation yadda yadda yadda. It is interesting, but you would think they could find room for both. Who needed the long article about how Obama has been travelling around the country a lot recently, and once mixed up Sioux Falls and Sioux City?

  4. I’ve been reading (for the first time in 40 years) An American Melodrama (The Presidential Campaign of 1968)
    which is 800 pages long, and thus you would think doesn’t leave anything out. There is almost NOTHING about the way the press covered the candidates. Nobody cared back then?

  5. At the moment, a quick glance at the Times website headlines would lead you to believe that Obama is disappointing his supporters, while McCain is Theodore Roosevelt redux.

  6. I read the transcript — or excerpts, maybe — of the interview Nagourney and Cooper did with McCain. Pretty pathetic. Lots of questions about his “political philosophy,” lots of questions about whether the press is biased towards Obama, lots of hot-button social issue questions (Should gays be able to adopt children? Should there be a ban on gay marriage? What about the teaching of intelligent design in schools?) but very few actual policy questions — no request for him to explain how social security works in 50 words or less, no question about how he plans to balance the budget in 4 years while extending and expanding the Bush tax cuts, no question about Iraq or national security, etc. etc. etc. Pretty sad — I’m surprised they aren’t embarrased to post the thing online.

  7. Whenever McCain is stumped, he leaves the decision to the states. Where did you find his comment about social security? What is supposed to be its disgrace, its very existence or its poor financial condition? It took two reporters to produce the McCain interview, and noting that he is not computer literate or that his wife chided him about forgetting Megan’s blog was deemed more important than the dismal situation of the economy or national or social security or health care.
    Today’s Times piece on the Iranian dissident has yet to be confirmed. They never learn.

  8. Hi Ruth, McCain’s full answer about social security being a “disgrace” can be found here. If you interpret his words literally, he was clearly saying that the way Social Security is funded (and the way it’s ALWAYS been funded) is an “absolute disgrace.” Of course his campaign says he was actually trying to say something different than what he said. McCain speaks in such a disjointed and inarticulate way that it’s often hard to know what he really thinks he is saying. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t understand how basics of Social Security is funded. Talking Points Memo points out here that McCain has said similar things before, which make it sound like he really doesn’t understand that Social Security has always been funded with revenues from current workers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s