Never let it be said that Bob Novak is an unbiased fellow. The conservative columnist, writing a short blurb at the Chicaco Sun-Times, makes the claim that Obama’s victory last night lacks any broad mandate for change.
Novak admits that the results were a landslide victory, but not enough to do much more than offer a push.
He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
OK. But Democrats picked up five Senate seats, lost none and still have a shot at one or two more.
That’s not filibuster-proof, but 54 Democrats — plus Bernie Sanders and maybe Joe Lieberman — is a stronger majority than 49. And while there is disagreement within the party, there maybe enough Republicans now willing to buck their party and fill in the blank.
Basically, my question is why we even bother listening to Novak at this point.
The conservative wing of the blogosphere has been buzzing about the decision on the part of the Obama campaign to cut off a Florida television station from access to the candidates and their wives. It is a foolish move on the campaign’s part, of course, but the conservative response certainly goes beyond the rational.
A typical comment comes from Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online, who called the campaign’s decision
A preview of things to come in Obamerica — play ball or you’re out.
This echoes a letter I received over the weekend (it’ll run in Thursday’s paper):
An now Joe Biden receives some questions he is uncomfortable with, and the Obama campaign pulls all further interview from the station — WFTV in Florida? Is this an example of things to come and what we should expect from an Obama presidency — that we shall not dare question anything our president or vice president do? Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?
Again, the Obama folks were wrong to cancel Jill Biden’s appearance, but for conservatives and Republicans who have been chattering about liberal bias — and who applauded decisions by the McCain campaign to shield Sarah Palin from the press and who canceled an interview on Larry King’s show because of touch questioning of a McCain advisor by CNN’s Campbell Brown:
This afternoon, anchorman Wolf Blitzer announced on air that McCain’s planned interview with Larry King tonight had been canceled by the campaign. Blitzer said McCain aides complained that Brown had gone “over the line” in her grilling of Bounds.
McCain campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella later explained the cancellation with this sharply worded statement:
“After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.”
The thing I find so striking about this is that the rhetoric being used by the McCain campaign — the faux outrage, etc. — is no different than that offered by my liberal colleagues. That the GOP has ginned it up this time is no surprise, nor is it a shock that they were silent when McCain shut CNN down. the same can be said about Obama and the left.
In any case, there is another angle on this that goes beyond the Biden interview and raises questions about WFTV anchor Barbara West. Watch the video of the WFTV-Biden exchange, an interview framed around McCain talking points.
Now, watch her interview with McCain from about a week earlier, which was done by the same WFTV anchor and followed the same basic script.
I wouldn’t characterise it so much as a softball interview as I would pitching him batting practice — or free television ad time on a news show.
The lesson in all of this, I think, is that we need to see these little campaign outrages for what they are — nonsense that will be forgotten once the campaign is over.
I just don’t see either of these candidates as being the reincarnation of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush when it comes to the press. Both have a history of being open and available and both are likely to revert to past history once the election passes.
Chris Matthews may be America’s funniest comedian. I swear, this guy makes me laugh out loud with his unintentional and downright weird connections. Tonight, for instance, he compared Barack Obama and John McCain to Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd — Obama was Bugs, scooting around, getting under the old hunter’s skin. Just plain weird.
The ladies of “The View” confronted John McCain today for lying in recent attack ads, pressed him on abortion and questioned his choice of Sarah Palin.
In arguably his toughest interview yet, co-host Joy Behar asked McCain, “There are ads running from your campaign… Now we know that those two ads are untrue, they are lies. And yet, you at the end of it say you approve these messages. Do you really approve these?”
And the serious media — and latenight comedians — make fun of this show (That includes me, to be honest)? I’m hoping that Charles Gibson, Brian Williams and the rest were watching and take note.
At what point does MSNBC realize that Pat Buchanan adds nothing to its political coverage and that, if they want a conservative that adds to the debate, they probably should bring in David Brooks or someone with a more intellectual approach to the discussion?
Hank Kalet 