Saturday, February 25, 2012

Brancaccio's take on the election.

I can't particularly fault the conclusion:
Yep. You heard it here first. That’s the lead I expect to see eight months from now unless the Republicans can get their act together.
Quickly.
That, once again, the GOP campaign at the national level has devolved to what we used to call (before it became so politically incorrect) a Chinese firedrill, is par for our political course, although lately, Obama has been doing his very best to violate the First Law of Politics ("When your opponent(s) are determined to commit political suicide, your job is to quietly stand by and let them.")  the candidates running for the presidency are as sorry a lot as I ever imagined... and with every idiocy they utter... or have uttered... we become increasingly likely to lose.

A blind rock ape could see that in a minute.

No, that's not the problem here. 

The problem is, once again, that Mr. Brancaccio is doing another puff piece on himself, rife with claims of his false non-partisanship:
So institutionally, we’re not locked into one party or the other. We make a choice based on whom we think would be best for the country.
When I write this column I believe in being an equal opportunity examiner. Unlike most bloggers, you’ll see me on both ends of the political spectrum.
That is a rather well-proven untruth.

As I have, on occasion shown, in the last presidential election cycle, Brancaccio and his paper endorsed democrats and nothing but democrats for every open seat in Clark County, from the president on down.

Democrats all.

Odd, then, that in that circumstance, only democrats were, in his eyes, "what was best for the country."

The well-known white wash of former State Representative Jim Jacks (D-49) expelled from the legislature for alcohol-fueled abuse of female staffers, totally covered up by Brancaccio.

The complete and ongoing cover up of the conflicts of interest of democrat County Commissioners Steve Stuart and Marc Boldt (Boldt, of course, ran as a Republican... much like Tim Leavitt ran opposed to tolls... but he has long since left the GOP) come to mind...

Contrast those actions with Mr. Brancaccio's... and that of many others working for him... incessantly attacking State Senator Don Benton (R-17) and his attacks on other Republicans... Peter Van Nortwick... Brent Boger... or me, for that matter... I simply cannot recall any effort by Mr. Brancaccio to engage in such rampant character assassination and hypocrisy towards anyone with a "D" after their name.

It is, of course, easy to claim that you're an "equal opportunity examiner" when you're the one controlling the ink.

But an "equal opportunity examiner" would not institute a double standard such as the one in place in the daily newspaper.  An "equal opportunity examiner" would apply the same standards, the same requirements, the same respect for all people in the political realm.

The irony of editorials complaining about what state government is doing when many of those running it "benefited" from this newspaper's endorsement... and most of them running it are democrat... is something beyond a mere coincidence... unless your name is Lou Brancaccio.

Unlike our daily newspaper, THIS blog DOES do its very best to hold everyone accountable, regardless of their party affiliation.  And as a result, this blog earns Mr. Brancaccio's scorn.

Let's examine what Brancaccio calls "facts."
• Obama is ├╝berliberal and the Republicans are ├╝berconservative. But if you stack them up — side by side — the Republicans feel more like a fringe. They “feel” further out to the right than Obama feels out to the left.
Sure.  Obama kills a project (The Keystone Pipeline) that taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for; that would move the ball forward towards that energy independence Obama was babbling about during his fictional presidential campaign, a project that even the unions want... and he does it for his radical environmental fringe left vote... but Republicans "feel" (File this one under weird: Brancaccio's "feelings" equate to "facts") more like a fringe.
It seems to me that the Republican "fringe" as defined by Brancaccio seems to be much more concerned about something called "the economy" than an Obama who is busy spending future generations into bankruptcy.
• Who appears to look more presidential? Hey, don’t dismiss this point. It’s important to the masses. And, again, Obama does.
Well, yeah... if an "├╝berliberal" president is who you want in the job, as Brancaccio unarguably does (How often has he taken Obama to task.... for anything?) then of course he "looks presidential."  But then, so did Hitler when he took over Germany.

As such, "looks" pale in comparison to the substance of the matter.

Of course, I also freely admit that we have the government... at every level... we deserve.
• Who comes across as more caring about us common folk? People believe, for example, that we should tax millionaires more.
Well, in between the weekly White House parties, Michele's millions of dollars in vacations, his waste of millions and his disregard of governance so he can campaign on our time... much like, come to think of it, when he was a US Senator who missed many, many votes.

Not to mention that billions he's given many of those millionaires he (and you) claim he wants to tax... can you say "Solyndra?"  I knew you could.
• In the end, Republicans appear to be way off message. Talking about abortion and religion — important to be sure — is not what most of us want to hear. It’s the economy, stupid.
This much is true.  After the dust settles and the last man is standing, the GOP will start talking about the wreck Obama has made of our country and our foreign policy, and the democrats will talk about anything else, amping up the class warfare meme with the help of people like Mr. Brancaccio...  so that it really won't matter.

Of course, many in the GOP are just as complicit in this mess as Obama... as someone else pointed out once, the reality is this: if Congress didn't want a deficit, then we wouldn't have one.

Just sayin'.

But for Brancaccio to suggest that he is driven by the purest of altruism in his political choices when he supports almost every tax and fee increase we've seen, as he supports the massive, multi-billion dollar waste of the CRC without a vote, when he fails in his journalistic duty to investigate the illegal actions of those carrying his newspaper's water... (The few articles on the billing skulduggery by David Evans and Associates, etc, notwithstanding... but when's the last time we heard anything about that?)

Well, that tends to paint a somewhat different picture.

Once again, I've enjoyed our little chat, Mr. Brancaccio.  Have a swell week.

1 comment:

Jack said...

I find it very hypocritical for Brancaccio to talk about "what most of us want to hear", since The Columbian does it's best to ignore what the community "wants". How would anyone at The Columbian know what "we want to hear"? They're just a bunch of Leftie Elitists.

Another thing, Brancaccio tries to treat politics as a "two-sided issue" when it is anything but. You have the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, and then the rest of the country, and that looks like "three sides" to me.

Democrats are mind-numbed robots - most of them always vote the "party line". Not so with Republicans, because most of the people who vote with the Republican "lines" (when they are "acceptable") are Independents.

The Republican Establishment does not represent the Conservatives or the Independents, it only represents the East Coast Republican Elitist snobs, who are nothing more than a bunch of RINOS in reality.

It's easy to see that Brancaccios "column" is just an attempt to "re-direct" the community's attention to slamming the Republicans whilst shielding the actions of the incompetent boob currently in the White House.

You see Lou, it's not just "the Economy, stupid" but also the obvious wreckage that the Socialist puke in the White House is making of this nation that you're trying so hard to "de-fuse" and ignore.

That's what America "really wants to hear" talked about, and that's precisely what you're trying so hard to "avoid".