This campaign ad paid for by Crossroads GPS
And kibbitzed.....................................................................................................by Brooke.
Bob and Brooke don't like 'Super PACs' which support Republicans and oppose Democrats. I got that. But I already knew it - these two are not exactly the least predictable pair in public radio. Bob and Brooke also have particular interest in drumming up support for candidate Elizabeth Warren, whose Senate bid is second only to President Obama's re-election bid in the beating hearts of a certain class of urban bourgeois. But I also could have guessed that without the above segment. Surprise me sometime, guys.
Meanwhile, if OTM wants to think counter-intuitively about the real world of political information, ABC News, a subsidiary of a corporation, did what can only be called a hit piece just before the South Carolina primary on Newt Gingrich - an interview with Gingrich's ex-wife. The piece didn't have much in it about 'policy', focusing instead on fairly intimate details of the failed Gingrich marriage. It is reminiscent of The Chicago Tribune's crusade to unseal the divorce records of Jack and Jeri Ryan in 2004, so that the paper could reveal to the high-minded some similar information about Senate candidate Jack. Ryan dropped out, paving the way for the election of Barack Obama.
My point is that I'm intrigued at the level of self-delusion going on at OTM and elsewhere. Ads by Crossroads GPS, etc., are routinely denounced. But stuff produced by the mainstream media that is much slimier in content (the ad above didn't exactly discuss Warren's sex life) is 'journalism'. What we have here, I think, is something noticeable by us outsiders, but not by people in the MSM - the idea that they have, or should have, free expression rights not available to non-media people or organizations. Sometimes this sentiment is defended on the grounds that the established media should be a 'filter' to ascertain Truth and so forth. Bringing no self-interest into the process, of course.
If anyone thinks the MSM is more high-minded in its political information than non-MSM sources, consider along with the above cases The New York Times' scantily-sourced front-pager alleging an extra-marital affair by John McCain during the 2008 campaign - and then imagine if a political rival had produced the same allegation in an advertising spot. It isn't the message that matters to OTM or other achingly predicable MSM sources. It is who is delivering the message.
"Who signed that bill into law"? President Bush at the urging of Pelosi and Obama and other Democrats.So political compromise is bad...when it's not good? Really?Maybe that's something for the current House Republicans to remember when they are urged to compromise with their "good faith" Democrat colleagues. It will be greatly appreciated by Democrats when Republican compromise is used as an opportunistic cudgel against conservatives in the next election.....now that the whole "civility" craze is like, so last year and no longer useful.
It is a bureau that "protect consumers" because...the President says it does...and darn it we believe him...because he took an oath to protect us...or the rather the US Constitution...which he kind of had to ignore to appoint people without Congressional approval...but...but....it was to protect us....from those evil corporations....no not the ones contributing to his campaign....they are the "good" one percent...like Elizabeth Warren.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
On The Media is funded, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation.