Would you rather see the candidates grilled by Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer or a snowman and a gun nut cradling his "baby," a semi-automatic weapon?
Close call, but isn't there an alternative? The question is prompted by Paul Krugman's column after this week's Democratic debate, claiming Barack Obama was "a sucker" for signing on to fears that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" that will go bankrupt before Baby Boomers can collect what's due them.
Most voters, it's fair to say, would like to know who's blowing smoke here--politicians or dueling economists--but we're not likely to find out from sound-bite answers to ignorant questions.
In our treasured but messy democracy, there is room for college girls to ask Hillary Clinton about diamonds and pearls but so far not for informed political scientists, historians and economists to ask knowledgeable questions that could show us who really understands the issues.
At the end of this month, CNN will give us Republican hopefuls being discomfited by cutesy YouTubers, a spectacle that will undoubtedly produce entertaining insights into how well the candidates handle social embarrassment.
But if we want to know what they know about issues that will affect our lives when one of them takes the oath, couldn't there be at least one debate in which they face those talking heads the networks trot out only on election night to give us perspective on what's been going on or at other times we only hear on PBS?
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but total ignorance, as we know only too well from recent experience, can be disastrous. Along with the snowman and Chris Matthews, can't we have at least one debate with questions from Krugman and his academic peers of various political persuasions?
We should be willing to take the risk of being bored to death to try to avoid being governed by morons.
Showing posts with label Wolf Blitzer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wolf Blitzer. Show all posts
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
A War We Might Just Win--or Maybe Not
After all the gabble today over the Times’ OpEd piece about “winning” in Iraq, it turns out to be a misunderstanding--or more accurately, a mis-titling.
This evening, co-author Kenneth Pollack told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: “Mike and I did not choose the title. We had nothing to do with it...we came back optimistic--but very guardedly optimistic...
”It's not necessarily the title Mike and I would have chosen for it. But when you write for the Times, the Times gets to choose the title...
”As we say in the piece, I don't know what victory really means. You know, if victory means that we're going to create a country like Switzerland, you know, Iraq is at least 50 or 60 years away from that.”
So a more accurate title, if the writers of the piece were to choose it, would have been “A War We Might Just Win in 50 Years.”
Oops.
Great reporter that he is, Wolf failed to ask Pollack what the original title was. It would have been nice to know.
This evening, co-author Kenneth Pollack told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: “Mike and I did not choose the title. We had nothing to do with it...we came back optimistic--but very guardedly optimistic...
”It's not necessarily the title Mike and I would have chosen for it. But when you write for the Times, the Times gets to choose the title...
”As we say in the piece, I don't know what victory really means. You know, if victory means that we're going to create a country like Switzerland, you know, Iraq is at least 50 or 60 years away from that.”
So a more accurate title, if the writers of the piece were to choose it, would have been “A War We Might Just Win in 50 Years.”
Oops.
Great reporter that he is, Wolf failed to ask Pollack what the original title was. It would have been nice to know.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Mighty Mouth Eats the Media
Michael Moore is like one of those huge cartoon creatures on Monty Python that would suddenly open its maw and swallow up the contents of city blocks. This week Wolf Blitzer, Sanjay Gupta and all of CNN are in the path of his giant jaws.
For a time, the Mouth with a baseball cap was funny and even marginally useful with his cutesy primers: Gun Control for Dummies, George Bush for Idiots and now Health Care for Those Who Haven’t Been Paying Attention.
His shtick of confronting the rich and powerful was amusing to a point but, now that he has expanded beyond a cottage industry, Moore is blurring the lines between self-promotion and being a total pain in America’s ass.
To promote “Sicko,” he has eaten his way through the State Department, Fred Thompson, Good Morning America and is now regurgitating CNN on his web site while chomping on “secret” memos from Blue Cross trembling in fear of his film.
Get it together, Michael. Others were against corporate greed, wanted gun control before you were born and tried to stop the war in Iraq, so get out of our faces and take it outside and start playing nice with the other rich kids. Being obnoxious while raking it in is not the only career choice.
For a time, the Mouth with a baseball cap was funny and even marginally useful with his cutesy primers: Gun Control for Dummies, George Bush for Idiots and now Health Care for Those Who Haven’t Been Paying Attention.
His shtick of confronting the rich and powerful was amusing to a point but, now that he has expanded beyond a cottage industry, Moore is blurring the lines between self-promotion and being a total pain in America’s ass.
To promote “Sicko,” he has eaten his way through the State Department, Fred Thompson, Good Morning America and is now regurgitating CNN on his web site while chomping on “secret” memos from Blue Cross trembling in fear of his film.
Get it together, Michael. Others were against corporate greed, wanted gun control before you were born and tried to stop the war in Iraq, so get out of our faces and take it outside and start playing nice with the other rich kids. Being obnoxious while raking it in is not the only career choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)