Friday, October 14, 2005


You know, I don't ussually double post like this but jesus: Could Glenn McCoy be any more of a hack? Look, if you think that Bush is so awesome that he can do no wrong, fine. Ignore the wrong he does. But does this comic even make sense if you think about it? Yes, newscasters also use scripts. Newscaster's however, generally write their own scripts since they *do* report.


Just rename this thing to "Cal Democratic Blog". At least the Cal Patriot Blog is forthcoming with its intentions.
The opinions expressed on this blog or none but my own and Rebecca's. I am not acting in any capacity for some other party or group. If you are upset that I find the arguements made by liberals more compelling than the arguments made by conservatives than I suggest you make better conservative arguments.
I have nothign against liberals, in fact I find myself having very liberal/libertarian views on social issues. However, I think it's sort of absurd to defend pretty much everything the Democrats do and criticize everythign the Republicans do. Especially when you have a particularly liberal Republican like George Bush and a particularly conservative Democrat like Bill Clinton.
Bush is a liberal Republican? Bush has garnered lower aproval ratings from liberals than any president, Republican or Democratic, in recent memory. And yet he's supposed to be *more* liberal than regular Republicans? And liberals aprove of Clinton more than most other Democratic politicans and yet he's supposed to be particularly conservative? Please! Next you're going to tell me that Clinton's fiscal responsibilty is proof of his secret conservativness.

Honestly, do you even think about these things before you type them or do you just mash your hands on the keyboard and spell check it?

Bush, a liberal Republican... Oh man. I got to tell the guys at work that one. They won't believe me!
Um, dude, that was his point. Even though he's liberal, liberals still hate him because he's a Republican. And the other way on Clinton. That is, they're Democrats first, liberals second.
Beetle, if you really believe that Bush is liberal, and Clinton conservative, you have serious perception problems. You need to do some serious reality checking, and learn to separate propaganda from fact.
Okay, to focus on the cartoon for a sec... you're right about the cartoon, but wrong about why.

Yes, the criticism is off-point, but not because newscasters write their own scripts. Plenty--in fact probably most of them--don't, most of the time. That's why news broadcasts employ a staff of newswriters.

The point is that REGARDLESS of who writes the scripts, newscasts are SUPPOSED to be written--no one believes that they are spontaneous or improvised, nor would the newscasts be any better if they were made up on the spot. Nor do newscasters try to make you believe they are doing anything other than reading a teleprompter (except maybe for their forced asides).

However, questions posed by troops during a conference (a press conference? It doesn't say) would be assumed to be genuine, spontaenous, and thought up by said troops. Therefore, if they are purposely made to have the appearance of spontaneity when they are in fact scripted, then that is manipulative and deceptive.

It's not a matter of who wrote the scripts. If the troops wrote the questions themselves but were pre-screened to see who would be allowed to ask their questions, would that seem any better to you? The point is whether openness and spontaneity are SUGGESTED when they are not actually present.
Yes Kenny, you are correct about that. Even if the newscasts are written by someone else it still doesn't make it hypocritical. I was just kind of lazy when I typed it up.

As for BAD, you have postulated a world in which conservatives vote for liberals and liberals vote for conservatives just becuase of party affiliation. This would be concievable if Republican and Democratic presedential candidates are choosen at random. But they aren't. Conservatives pick the Republican candidate from a wide variety of primary candidates. Certainly party affiliation can't explain why conservatives picked Bush in the Primary. They were all conservatives! Similarly Bill Clinton: Liberals looked at all the options and picked him.

I'm sorry, but we'll have to add this to the pile of "half-baked BAD theories".
I take your well made points, Kenny. However, a more important one, I think, is that we expect the President to answer (and even more importantly perhaps, be able to answer) honestly and thoughtfully whatever questions are asked. He shouldn't need scripted answers, especially when talking to people he has ordered into harms way. I took that to be the main point of the cartoon.

As I heard the report yesterday, one of the White House handlers was recorded instructing the people in Iraq, who were to read the questions submitted by soldiers to the President, on what to do if a question turned out not to have been one they had prepared Bush to answer. As I recall, they were to ignore it, or rephrase it so that it became answerable by one of their prepared answers.
Thinker, I don't care for the discussion of whether Bush is conservative or the like. I was trying to explain the point of someone's comment.

TS, the same goes for you. But further, "conservatives" isn't some grand entity that can make decisions and act coherently. Republican politicians are usually conservatives, but they are also politicians. The Republican primary isn't going to be a bunch of conservatives picking the most conservative dude out there, it's going to be a bunch of conservatives guessing which of the folks who could possibly win (i.e. acts like a politician) is the most conservative. So not only is there guesswork involved as to whether the candidate is actually conservative, there's also guesswork as to how political realities will affect the candidates actions.

Further, primaries are elections. If a candidate is charismatic enough, it doesn't really matter if he's conservative or not.

(I don't know where you get the idea that primaries select from a wide variety of candidates.)
Beetle wrote, "I don't know where you get the idea that primaries select from a wide variety of candidates."

In races for open seats, there usually are a wide spectrum of candidates in major party primaries.

If you don't believe me, check the list of Republican candidates for US Senate in the March 2004 primary, the list of Republican candidates for Governor in the 2002 primary, or the list of Democratic candidates for Governor in the 1998 primary.
Post a Comment