16
Jan

The Pastor-in-Grief

Posted by: Wordsmith @ 11:19 pm in Politics

Visited 218 times, 1 so far today

“That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; NOT a 20 percent traitor.”
Ronald Reagan, quoted on KCBS radio in 1972 by Reagan’s gubernatorial chief of staff

Normally, I am apprehensive of participating in too much overt criticism of a potential GOP candidate. After all, I may end up having to defend the elected candidate in a general election.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee seem to be the exception to the “Reagan rule” of “My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy”. One is the Dennis Kucinich of the right; the other, the GOP version of Jimmy Carter.

09_mdf1310786.jpg
Wearing a Bill Clinton mask, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stands outside a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa January 1, 2008.
REUTERS/Andy Clark

I don’t know if the Reuters caption is in fact correct in labeling this man a Huckabee supporter. AP and Reuters have gotten captions wrong before with their pictures. But if he is a true-blue supporter, well…..what is it that they say about “a picture is worth a thousand words?”

This post spliced from my original.

Stephen Bainbridge:
Mike Huckabee may be a “different” kind of Republican. He’s also the wrong kind.

Previous recent FA posts on Huckabee:
Sing-a-long: Mike Huck-a-bee and Cle-men-cy
Reagan Conservatives Say: Huckabee Not One of Us!
Huckabee?
Huckabee Crosses a Line, and Wins a Caucus
Twisted Logic on Pakistan

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blogsvine
  • Bumpzee
  • del.icio.us
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

13 comments so far

TBinSTL
 1 

Oh LORD! Here’s one you are gonna LOVE!!

http://instapundit.com/archives2/014211.php

January 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Wordsmith
 2 

Thanks. I should have included this link as well, under “previous posts”. Curt had updated Mike’s post with that video.

January 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
jpm100
 3 

Only Liberals would believe an endorsement from pretend Bill Clinton was a compliment.

January 17th, 2008 at 3:18 am
jainphx
 4 

The battle to offset the MSM, is the most important fight,next to the WOT, that must be won.

January 17th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Philadelphia Steve
 5 

See if Mr. Huckabee will start answering questions about Flagship Global Health.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_weil&sid=aKZ64QcLTh1c

January 17th, 2008 at 6:42 am
bbartlog
 6 

I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that this guy is an actual supporter. Use the word ‘liberal’ twice and put on a Clinton mask when your guy is trying to win the Republican primary? Reuters is falling down on the job.

January 17th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Philadelphia Steve
 7 

Since they are both from Arkansas, the reporter may have just lumped Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee together.

In my opinion that about fits the level of detail most reporters bother to go to in researching their stories (applies to their coverage of both Right and Left, by the way).

January 17th, 2008 at 7:27 am
ChrisG
 8 

Steve, for once I agree with you. “Investigative Journalism”, which arguably became an endangered species long before any of us were born, rarely surfaces anymore. The initial wire report level of detail and the total lack of more than a passing review for reality’s sake are the hallmarks of far too much reporting. The axiom in the Army is that the first report is always wrong. The media does not follow that axiom as we have seen. Once a story is out, unless it is major, there is no further research.

However, the nose hair level of detail and in depth reporting for celebrities and their every move is almost the opposite. People who do not do their own investigative journalism probably know more about Brittany Spear’s life than who is running in either primary, what interest rate changes mean, or foreign affairs.

So for deep issues affecting the security and welfare of the United States we get shallow reporting while for shallow (or hollow) celebrities, we get in depth, detailed reporting. It does make one wonder what the purpose of the 24 hour “news” filled with 30 second stories is.

January 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Philadelphia Steve
 9 

Yes.

I have my personal opinion as to the cause. I recall reading (can’t remember where) that network news services have cut their budgets about 40% over the last decade.

Now, the on-camera talent is not getting any less, so the money is coming from the support (research) staff. We see that whether news anchor leads off a story by saying, “The Los Angeles Times reported today…” Or any other source.

What this essentially means is that that particular news organization has NO writers or researchers left. They are essentially reading the newspaper to us on the air!

This is usually followed by on camera interviews with “experts” about the topic. If the topic is controversial, the news will have two people on camera, one from “each side”.

Now, these individuals usually do not have to be paid (especially if they are political operatives), so it costs the network exactly $0 to put this “expertise” on the air.

Great for the bottom line, but rotten for news. How do we know which one is telling the truth, which is lying, or if they both are lying? Once upon a time the news organization would do some legwork and report themselves, with facts and sources.

Now they do nothing.

Celebrity items are usually easy to report as most of the high-profile targets have publicists who will write the story for them, or they get a reporter from one of the tabloids to spout off (in return for free camera time) about the topic.

It is all very cheap and all very superficial.

And it is not getting any better.

The Knight-Ridder chain sold the Philadelphia Inquirer last year. That paper, home of multiple Pulitzer Prizes was considered one of the preeminent reporting papers in the country, with many stories that were run over a period of weeks, resulting from months of research.

The first thing the new owners did was fire 25% of the reporting staff!

Now almost all the stories in the paper have the familiar (AP) in front of them, meaning this paper is just running wire copy any more.

Shallow, non-researched reporting is cheap and easy, and charlatans (of all stripes) know how to exploit it.

It’s just the rest of us who are the losers.

January 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 10 

As an add-on, if you want to see the cheapest, most superficial reporting the world has known, just tune in Hardball any day of the week.

Chris Mathews is the most vapid person who has ever breathed the air of a Georgetown coctail party: If there is a more superficial person on the face of the earty, then he is probably Brittany Speers’ spiritual advisor.

January 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
jainphx
 11 

Who are you and what have you done with steve.

January 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 12 

He’s being held prisoner by the PST (Paranoid Spamming Troll).

He will be released if you pay a ransom of two lava lamps, a Peter Max poster and three pints of Ben ‘n Jerry’s ice cream.

January 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
ChrisG
 13 

Sorry,

Ate all the ice cream. Lava lamps are just globs of goo at the bottom, and still wondering who Peter Max is.

But other than that, we should have you freed…. um sometime.

January 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam