Mud media

Mud media

: I had some fun on CNBC’s Capitol Report tonight. The peg was election rage: all the nastiness that Michelle Malkin listed today (can’t find a Post link) plus attacks on the other side.

I kept trying to find and take the high road on the show. I said we can’t judge the electorate by a few hotheads and lunatics. Nonetheless, I said, this election is more negative in the sense that people are voting against rather than voting for. Bush is no Reagan for the Republicans; Kerry is no Clinton for the Democrats. The host said that each side is trying to get votes out of fear of the other side. Right.

They tried to say it’s all about Iraq. I said that’s too simplistic. There are many more issues here.

I said the problem is that we’re treating each other as enemies when we have a real enemy to fight.

They tried to blame bloggers for the Bush-box-on-his-back story. I said we’re on major media right now and we’re wasting time talking about this crap instead of issues.

Have no idea how it came off; no tape of it at home. I’m not soliciting reviews (I know I talk fast…. but I did talk slower). In any case, it was a fun segment.

  • MWB

    Jeff, you are ignoring the fact that polls have shown Bush’s base is voting FOR him, while the majority of those who poll as Kerry voters say they are voting AGAINST Bush. It may be comforting to you in some way to suggest that most everyone is voting against, but it just isn’t true.

  • http://nocredentials.blogspot.com Rose Nunez

    Here’s the link to Michelle Malkin’s column:
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20041013.shtml

  • http://polemic.enduphere.com Neil

    I found your debate with Mr. Armstrong…interesting–the man truly is a lunatic. Apparently, bloggers are just people who fiddle over trivial issues such as whether or not Bush was wearing a wire; he obviously had no idea what he was talking about.

  • http://nocredentials.blogspot.com Rose Nunez

    Or, if you’re too wrung out from the debate to cut and paste, commenters, click here.

  • felixrayman

    Kerry is no Clinton for the Democrats
    The funny part is that in October of ’92, Clinton was no Clinton to the Democrats either. Most people forget that.

  • Gavin

    “I said the problem is that we’re treating each other as enemies when we have a real enemy to fight.”
    Preach it!
    Reply To: gdow -AT- purdue -DOT- edu

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    It’s true that a large number of people are voting against the shrub, because we’ve had 4 years of his administration. We have the largest deficit this country has ever known. We are at war with a nation that had a crazy in power but never attacked our country, like many other nations that may be next on our agenda of enemies. We can’t continue this nation building schemata.
    In the case of Kerry, we know he holds to a high standard of national defense, which includes direct and personal commitment. He has worked with others and kept to a standard that this country can accept, and can pay for. He doesn’t wear a cowboy hat – and I was born in Texas, unlike the shrub- he maintains a diplomatic standard that will keep this country on a high road of real accomplishment.

  • praktike

    Michelle “In Defense of Internment” is complaining about nastiness? The woman desperately hoping and praying that the federal government will institute ethnic profiling?
    Give me a break.

  • http://amomentwith.typepad.com/blog/ Easycure

    Ruth, you are out of touch with reality. How can you say Kerry holds a high standard of national defense when he has a record of voting against every defense measure he bothered to show up for?

  • Matthew Goggins

    Jeff:
    My wife, a life-long Democrat (yes, we have great discussions about politics, thank you very much!), and I are both voting for President Bush. That’s “for” as in for, as opposed to against that other fellow.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Thanks easycure, you did the opposite of the Defense Appropriations Committe, which refused administration spokesman David Chun’s attempt to pin the vote against millitary appropriations prior to 9/11 on Sen. Kerry. In accordance with the Cheney/Powell initiative, the whole committe voted in support of the administration’s attempt to cut down on defense appropriations. After that vote, the present president promoted further cuts. Then we were attacked, and this administration began to try covering up their former efforts.
    Sen. Kerry went into the defense of this country as a member of the armed services, and as a member of the opposition after he learned first hand that the war was contrary to our nation’s interests. And in the Senate he worked to strengthen this country’s real interests, military and civilian.
    I respect those who served in all those capacities.
    And I’m not sure ‘defense’ is the proper term for an offensive war.

  • ef

    ruth..
    you go girl !!!!

  • Dan Armstrong

    Yeah, you talked fast and sounded angry (especially when you repeatedly used the word “crap”).
    Not a bad thing necessarily – you were far more memorable than Armstrong, whose most memorable line was the made-up the statistic that 70% of election rage was related to Iraq. Anti-Clinton rage was a fixture of the right in the 1990s. What percentage of what was that due to, Mr. Armstrong?
    Most disturbing (and most predictable, unfortunately) was the show’s attempt to spin election rage as equally likely to come from Democrats or Republicans. The actions I’ve seen reported are done by Democrats and aimed at Republicans.
    It Roger Simon, I believe, who said: “Republicans think Democrats are mistaken; Democrats think Republicans are evil.” Living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I can vouch for that.

  • Ric Locke

    Aww, you guys are ‘way too sensitive. You need to look at some history. The election of 1860 would be a good place to start, but the contents of some of the arguments for and against Thomas Jefferson are also pertinent, as are the politics of the English crown long ago. You might also look up what the original meaning of the word “libel” was.
    This is normal. This is the way it is in most democracies. Lies, damned lies, and accusations flying all ’round; people trashing the other side’s offices; candidates getting mugged. We’ve had half a century in which we were, by and large, mostly in agreement, with that reinforced by the consolidation of the Press into a single point of view; and like anyone else we think what we’ve experienced in our lifetimes is “normal” and anything else is bad, unusual. It’s not. The rise of the internet and alternative ways of getting the word out has brought back the days of pamphlets and preaching, not to mention bullyboys, vote-buying, and voter intimidation.
    In fact, by historical standards what’s going on now barely qualifies as vigorous debate. Get over it. This is how it’s going to be from now on.
    Regards,
    Ric Locke