Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image MORE BuzzFlash INTERVIEWS WORLD MEDIA WATCH P.M. CARPENTER MAUREEN FARRELL BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZ SOUTHERN STYLE CARTOONS THE ANGRY LIBERAL EDITORIALS CONTRIBUTORS MAILBAG PERSPECTIVES ANALYSIS NEWS ALERTS LINK ARCHIVES SEARCH ABOUT FAQ

How the New York Times Insinuates a Story Into a Pro-Bush Spin

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

Oh, Buzz:

As happy as I am to see Bush's approval ratings slipping (meaning more Americans are waking up and not smelling the coffee because they can no longer afford it), I'm getting nervous. The first time Bush's ratings were in the dumper (check out the chronology at www.pollingreport.com), magically September 11 happened to propel him back to the top of the scale (I try not to give in to the temptation of conspiracy theory, but it's so hard to resist given all the lies the lying liars have told and continue to tell...). The second time, he declared war on Iraq. Once again, his ratings soared. Well, the numbers are down again. Scary.

Now for the loathing. Did anyone else read the NY Times article by Andrew Nagourney about "worried Democrats" fretting over not having a strong enough candidate to contend with Bush's treasure trove [LINK]. Could that so-called "journalism" have had a more biased spin? Twice Nagourney points out that Howard Dean has no foreign policy experience. As I recall, Bush came in with no background in diplomacy, and from what I can tell, he hasn't done much to rectify the situation. Also, Dean is described as "a physician and former Vermont governor." Um, wouldn't it have been more accurate to write "Dean, a former physician who gave up his medical practice to enter public service, which led to a record five terms as Vermont governor"? And, predictably, the article took no note of Dean's record of centrist politics in Vermont, instead opting to characterize him as leftist.

But Dean aside, I am SO SICK of hearing about how much money Bush is raising!!! Who cares? The last time I checked (and Ashcroft may have changed things, admittedly), it's still one vote per person, no matter how much money he or she has given to a candidate, and frankly, as a voter, I'm much more interested in Bush's record (yes, I realize he'll have more money for grandstanding and paid TV ads). If the Dems just allow themselves to lower the bar and actually indulge in a little negative campaigning (I call it telling the truth), there is absolutely no way they can't win (unless Bush, a la the first paragraph, whips out another "shock and awe" blast right before the election). I'm not suggesting discussing his past as a drunk draft dodger, just his administration's abysmal record regarding the economy, the environment, civil rights, judicial nominations, foreign policy, military support, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention the ever-lengthening list of LIES that have now irrefutably been proven to be untrue even by the mainstream media.

Just had to vent.

A Buzzflash Reader

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY