s skippy the bush kangaroo: no gop front runner yet, as long as you don't actually count the delegates

skippy the bush kangaroo

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

no gop front runner yet, as long as you don't actually count the delegates

the mmm is in love w/john mccain't. how else can one explain that mccain't dismal fourth place finish in iowa, w/13% of the vote, was hailed as a comeback, while clinton's third place/29% finish was labeled as her doom?

but even worse is the mmm's contant propping up of mccain't's campaign in spite of his laughable third place status in the over-all race.

to wit: the cw nowadays (or, as it changes so fast, perhaps nowaminutes), is that there is no front runner in the gop race as of yet:

christian science monitor: missing 2008: a front-runner

financial times: republican frontrunner yet to emerge

dallas morning news: no front runners going into s. carolina

new jersey jewish news: a crowded gop field awaits a front runner

(yes, we know: as goes the new jersey jewish news, so goes the nation.)

the funny thing about this insistance that "nobody's ahead," is that the actual delegate count begs to differ. cnn's election center 2008 has romney with a comfortable 30 pledged delegates to huckabee's 17. john mccain't trails with a lackluster 7.

and the total count (including both pledged and unpledged delegates) has romney with an even more commanding lead, having 52 to huckabee's 22 and mccain't's 15.

oh sure, there are the national polls in which mccain't is leading. to which we say, hey, aren't those the same national polls that used to tout rudy "can't beat ron paul" guiliani as the front runner?

but still, there's "no front runner" in the gop race, according to the mmm. that's their story and they're sticking to it.

we shake our heads in dismay. how much slimpler it would be to actually "report" the "facts," then to continually twist the truth, trying to cram it into their pre-approved narrative. if the national media were to try actual journalism, then maybe they wouldn't have been amazed by hillary clinton's capture of a large part of the 17% of undecided voters in new hampshire (whom everyone that read the polls knew about, but apparently discounted because it didn't fit with the "ding dong the witch is dead" meme).

we are no fans of mitt romney. we admit that if someone held a gun to our heads and said "vote repubbblican," would probably rather pull the lever for mccain't than romney (actually we would probably rather pass a gall stone while having root canal than vote for romney).

but, our subjective feelings about the two men aside, could it be possible for the facts to have more emphasis in news?

naw...that's just crazy talk.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by skippy at 6:21 PM |


Good points, all, Skippy. I recently wrote a post on "That Fragrant Horse Race Coverage," actually. But you're right that the media standards are highly malleable, especially when they want to favor or trash someone.
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 11:38 AM PST  
If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose a Republican, I'd say "Go ahead and shoot."
commented by Blogger Johnny Pez, 11:50 PM PST  

Add a comment