McCain’s day

OK, the first two-thirds of that speech: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

McCain’s just never going to be anywhere nearly as good an orator as Obama, and everyone knows that. I did actually agree with many of the cultural/political positions he laid out, which was good. It’s a reminder that even if the right disagrees with John McCain on several controversial issues, there’s still a lot of reasons for the right to prefer him to the collectivized Democratic Party candidates. I’ll never completely get over McCain-Feingold though.

His own telling of the Hanoi Hilton years was quite strong- better than Fred Thompson’s telling of it. I do think they need to give that story a rest, however. Then the very end with the whole Country First bit was also very strong. I loved the ending with McCain’s exhortations to “fight, fight!” right through the crowd’s cheers.

I missed Cindy McCain. After watching speeches for two weeks, I’ve become exhausted from listening to them, so I wanted to save myself for John McCain’s speech. I like Lindsay Graham, but he’s no speechifier. He doesn’t seem to have the gravitas to hold a crowd at all.

What was the deal with Keith Olbermann cutting off Tom Brokaw in order to apologize on behalf of MSNBC for showing the RNC’s 9/11 video? Apparently, according to Keith, no television network should ever show any events from that day. He didn’t even say that the problem was the Repub’s politicizing of it- an objection which I would understand, if not agree with- the problem was showing anything at all, assuming he meant what he said.

I know the lefty mindset on the matter is that 9/11 footage makes Americans angry and gets them into a “Let’s roll!” spirit and that everything must be done to avoid that. It’s just weird for a media person to be so blatant about it. Meanwhile, footage of dead bodies floating in Katrina flooding- no problem. The RNC video didn’t have anything nearly that graphic.

Trackback | Posted by Brian | Sep 5, 2008 12:06 pm | Permalink | Bookmark
Categories: National, Media, Politics, News

Posted by geedeck | Sep 5, 2008 4:38 pm

Regarding the 9/11 footage, you mistake the RNC using a national tragedy to pander versus news agencies reporting on the tragedy caused by failure of a government to act. But of course comparing apples to kitchen sinks to justify logic does seem to be a right wing requisite.

Posted by Brian | Sep 5, 2008 4:47 pm

geedeck, do you read my posts before you comment? I specifically drew a distinction between complaining about the political use of 9/11 footage and complaining about showing it at all. Olbermann’s complaint seemed to be about the latter.

And as a general matter, I don’t think “news agencies” have any more or less moral right to use this stuff.

Posted by geedeck | Sep 6, 2008 9:39 am

If you’re going to ask me rhetorical questions, I’ll ask did you even listen to Olbermann? Because you specifically neglected a nuance important to your entire point.

“If at this late date, any television network had, of its own accord, shown that much video tape and that much graphic video tape of 9/11…it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters”

“That much”

It’s one thing to show a few seconds of clip for news reporting purposes versus a 3 minute, emotionally charged montage. It’s the difference between using it for delivery the news, and simply making LETS ROLL propaganda using the death of others, and one of America’s greatest tragedies that happened on a Republican watch.

You’re right. A lot of people hate the LETS ROLL propaganda. Because there’s a time and place for it, and the Republican party and mouthpieces have abused and molested that to lower the level of national discourse, to dismiss reasonable concerns and to divide, not unite a nation.

Posted by Brian | Sep 6, 2008 5:02 pm

First let me point out that Olbermann’s stated objection, as you quoted, is not with any politicization of the footage, but just with showing it. As I said. If the key words are “that much,” then what’s the rule? 3 minutes too much, a few seconds OK? Seems arbitrary. He also says “at this late date.” What’s the expiration on showing it? 5 years? One still sees Pearl Harbor and Holocaust footage on TV- sometimes for more than in several-second durations. That OK?

Is it proper for Jewish groups or anti-genocide groups to present Holocaust footage with a view towards supporting their causes? Is it propaganda? If not, why not? And what’s the difference between that and 9/11 footage?

Posted by geedeck | Sep 7, 2008 8:03 am

Look, if you an’t see the difference between short information and long emotional presentations then yes just have the 3 minute commercial. Olbermann is ultimately just saying the use of it is kind of gross and unsavory. Cheapening something pretty serious. To me it says that some have less respect for the dead than I do.

And anti-genocide groups is your counter-point? Come the heck on. They’re charities for noble cause of a specific concern, not a highly charged political party rally. And the Jewish were a specifically targeted group that loss almost 9 to 11 million people through a, wait for it, genocide. I can’t even believe you would make the comparison. I will totally understand if you want to take those back.

You know this is all really kind of funny actually. I mean since the government has done it’s every effort to lock down as much photography and such of dead or wounded soldiers, I mean zero tolerance, not just informational. Well, I’m glad they can be really, really respectful, well at their choice of course.

Eh. In the end it’s just another ploy of the Double Standard Party.

5 comments on “McCain’s day”

Leave a comment

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Ohio

Akron

Bexley

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Grandview Heights

Hilliard

Marietta

Toledo

The Feed