17 October 2004

Trying to keep focus

Over the past month or so, there have been many (many) stupid news stories about the presidential candidates. Well, I thought they were stupid, and I avoided adding to the noise. Was I wrong?

The latest diversion is lesbian-daughtergate. What's the full list?

  • Swift Boat veterans,
  • The forged Bush National Guard memo,
  • The Bush debate bulge,
  • Mention of the Cheney's lesbian daughter

There were many others that I just don't remember but that got considerable buzz. Did I need to keep track of these? Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that they were stupid. No matter their eventual veracity, stories and opinions, if they have considerable popular traction, must get distributed throughout media-land in order for their importance or lack of to be decided. And admittedly, only the first two of these were treated as truly Big News. However, there were many smaller items that created enough background radiation to tilt the ratio to 80/20 (80 being the crap percentage). Should I have been paying attention (if only to wait for their eventual outcome)?

It's tough to say.

If you take in too many useless details, you might miss the focal point of the image. I'm maybe too cautious in that way--at least some of the time.

The Swift Boat veterans were obviously useless (w/r/t fact) rabble-rousers. Kerry volunteered for and fought in the war, and although he wasn't Sgt. Rock, he saved lives--as did many others in the war. Looking for shades of difference one way or the other is useless. Making him out to be a lying turncoat is deceitful. If his record is important to you as a voter, then you'll take note. Otherwise, you'll ignore it.

The Bush memo was equally unneccessary. Bush got out of serving because he came from a wealthy family--as did many others. Those others, however, are not president today. If his record and the obvious absenses in his record are unimportant to you as a voter ...

Was Bush getting messages from Rove during the debates? Who knows. What's important is what he's saying. Someone had mentioned to me that debating skill is unimportant in a president. I disagree. If someone cannot express and defend the basic beliefs and intentions of their administration, they cannot have a clear view of what they believe in and are probably being manipulated by oligarchs. Again, if that's not your conclusion, then ignore it.

Has Mary Cheney been manipulated because she's a lesbian? Yes. On both sides. Who did it first? Does it really matter?

[ posted by sstrader on 17 October 2004 at 12:01:28 PM in Politics ]