Friday, November 02, 2012

Shill...or Hack?

Conor Friedersdorf nails it with this:

America is filled with people who think its okay to lie, bullshit, or otherwise misrepresent the truth in order to advance the electoral prospects of a politician or the cause of a governing coalition. Let's call them shills. Other people aren't necessarily aware that they're misrepresenting the truth, but their work is so shaped by what would advance the causes of a candidate or governing coalition that it's often indistinguishable from the shills. We'll call them hacks. In a better world, journalists would be sworn enemies of shills and hacks, and the best are. Unfortunately, the press, especially the political press, has more than its share of shills and hacks.
It came to mind when I read this nonsense from Michael Medved.

In a sense, the recent media mantra about Chris Christie “rescuing” or “saving” the Obama campaign reflects the same sense of desperation about the president’s prospects. Why would a confident, successful chief executive who has masterfully concluded his triumphant term ever require rescue from the boisterous governor of New Jersey?
I can't tell if Medved is being a hack or just a shill.  Much has been made of Chris Christie's embrace of Obama, parsing the electoral prospects.  What does this mean for the election?

I dunno...probably nothing.  But I think it's interested that Medved portrays Obama as the desperate one and Christie as the savior.  It's cute and everything, but really??

Look at this photo:
Considering what you've seen on the news about how Sandy rearranged the state of New Jersey, do you think it's accurate to characterize the interaction between these two men as a desperate Obama coming to Christie for election help?  Is that's what's happening in this picture?

I submit that Christie is desperate for Obama's help and for more important reasons than electoral politics.

I do love this though:
Nevertheless, Republicans look and sound notably more energized and exuberant than their Democratic counterparts as they swagger with self-assurance toward the electoral finish line.
This seems to be true. There does seem to be a lot of swagger and self-assurance.   Yesterday I saw a Juggalo-sized. Romney window decal on a car.  But swagger and self-assurance can only take you so far.

Eventually you have to deliver the goods, and in this case..... it's the votes.  It appears that will not occur:

I suspect Republicans are going to swagger and self-assure themselves into a loss.  And they will have hack/shill Michael Medved cheering them along to their doom.  Good job, guys.

(And seriously, guys, the Bush years taught us that you need more than swagger.  Why is this lesson not sinking in?)

No comments: