The Anchoress points out the absolute hypocrisy of the Washington set — the DC Media Elite — in her piece about a cocktail party for the coming out of the drooler Chris “Tingles” Matthews’ paean to the most famous schtupper of them all — Jack Kennedy (or would that be his brother Chappaquiddick Teddy? – hmmm, close contest there…)
Begin by noticing that Michelle Fields is covering a party for the launch of Chris Matthews’ latest book, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, and the fact that the lionized Kennedy was a known womanizer, and a guy who believed in um, lowering taxes.
They love the guy. Lots of slightly slurred hero-worship of a politician whose three year presidency and dramatic death began a romance between their generation and high drama that continues to this day, and probably has a great deal to do with an inexperienced, secretive, present-voting, elegant Rorschach test residing in the Oval Office, today, and the hyper-glamorization of OWS.
Fields first interview is with the legendary Bob Woodward, who — when asked about the big “someone said they heard someone else say something about Herman Cain and it’s sexy but nobody actually knows anything” story — declares that the subject “is a serious one”. More interesting to me: When asked whether he has any advice for Cain, Woodward says, “journalists shouldn’t give advice!”
A memo the journo-listers apparently never received.
Oh how they love JFK! He sparkles! He glitters, He glows! He’s their god. The very epitome of everything they worship and adore and protect.
Anchoress’s piece includes some good links to follow, one of which led me to a piece in the Spectator by Stacy McCain who has been gum-shoeing this story since Politico first breathed its halitosis’d breath into it.
McCain’s piece is a must read. Follow the links therein too.
“Five days!” yelled the veteran reporter on the phone. “Five days and what have we got? Nothing! What the [bleep] were they thinking about, running with a piece of [bleep] story like that?”
The excrement to which my friend referred was the 2,100-word article Politico published Sunday, the lead paragraph of which read: “During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.”
And of course, el Rushbo is on it.
“You need to be trying to put The Politico out of business. You know what you need to be saying, Mr. Cain? You need to point out that the Politico was created for one reason: So that the Washington Post wouldn’t have to tarnish its own reputation by doing this kind of stuff,” because everybody at The Politico, at least the founders, came from the Washington Post; and the Washington Post gets their little farm team over there at The Politico and they go out and they do all this questionable journalist stuff on occasion. Whereas the Washington Post, they’d think, “Ah, I don’t want to do it this way with our banner and our name at the top of this kind of stuff.” Say stuff like that! Hire somebody to go out there and talk about what sluts these women are.”
The media is mystified and absolutely apoplectic that Herman Cain’s poll numbers are holding. You can bet these overstuffed, arrogant media types are desperate to hammer down his numbers to ruin his campaign, and will continue to do so or die trying.
So, tell me again, who’s doing the lynching???
Andrea, Tom Woods would like to have a few words with you.
“‘I Support Cain’ Means ‘The Country’s Fine Just As It Is’ by Tom Woods”
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/i-support-cain-means-the-countrys-fine-just-as-it-is/
“A Suffolk University poll of Florida Republicans finds 25% in support of Mitt Romney and 24% supporting Herman Cain. In other words, these voters believe the country is about 4 percent off track but basically all right. For all their talk about how bad Obama is, apparently things aren’t that bad if they want to replace him with a safe establishment man like Romney or Cain (former head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve).
Under Romney it’s obvious nothing will change. Anyone can see that.
Under Cain it’s only slightly less obvious. His big proposal is a revenue-neutral tax shifting. He has no plans to cut anything (and please, spare me the he’ll-cut-the-rate-of-growth-of-spending stuff). He supported Romney in 2008. He supported TARP — he had no idea it would be used to “pick winners and losers”! — which means on the key economic issue of our time, which Reagan budget director David Stockman calls “the single greatest economic-policy abomination since the 1930s, or perhaps ever,” Cain chose the Establishment over the people. He lectured “free-market purists” for opposing it.
You can imagine how much “change” we can expect from a guy like that — the whole establishment lines up on one side (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the cable news commentators, John McCain, Barack Obama) and the American people on the other, and Cain goes with the establishment. But he’ll be a big maverick next time that happens, right? Sure.
Not to mention he thought there was nothing wrong with the economy on September 1, 2008. How can he fix something he couldn’t perceive — and actually ridiculed other people for pointing out? How is this in any way defensible?
He is such a lightweight on the economy that he calls his economic adviser onto the stage to answer even simple questions.
His foreign policy is indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s. Both subscribe to the entirely conventional bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, which has yielded Americans one budget-busting boondoggle after another. (Turns out the people in Washington the Tea Party rails against do not suddenly become infallible and super-effective when they turn to foreign policy — though why this should be surprising or unexpected I have never been able to understand.)”