Kerry as the Boss: Always More Questions

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26boss1.html?hp

<snip>

For 15 minutes in Milwaukee the other day, Senator John Kerry pummeled his staff with questions about an attack on President Bush, planned for later that morning, that accused the White House of hiding a huge Medicare premium increase.

Talking into a speakerphone in his hotel suite, sitting at a table scattered with the morning newspapers, Mr. Kerry instructed aides in Washington to track down the information he said he needed before he could appear on camera. What could have slowed down the premium increase? How much of it was caused by the addition of a prescription drug benefit? What would the increase cost the average Medicare recipient?

Mr. Kerry got the answers after aides said they spent the morning on the telephone and the Internet, but few of those facts found their way into his blistering attack.

The morning Medicare call was typical of the way Mr. Kerry, a four-term senator with comparatively little management experience, has run his campaign. And, his associates say, it offered a glimpse of an executive style he would almost surely bring to the White House.

"comparatively little management experience".. WTF does that mean?? I think 4 terms as Senator, work as a prosecutor, and managing a bunch of military personnel in Vietnam would qualify? Who writes that shit?

This article could have been pretty interesting, showing a man with actual curiousity, as opposed to Bush who has been called extremely incurious, to the point of being called 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people'..

Tanked every company he touched. But he did it often.

When I got so I could ask myself (and answer) all those questions before I sat down with him or her, it's amazing how much fun the job got.

Who, according to O'Neill, would just sit there with a blank expression on his face, like a wooden puppet when being briefed. Bush asked no questions whatsoever.

Disclaimer: My remark was not meant to demean puppets, who have more of a soul than Bush.

I've had it with this damnable dog turd. They can lie any lie and get away with it. It's time to stop and shut this piece of shit down!

It's time to boycott and picket anyone that advertises in this piece of shit

"Do they have bibles and exercise equipment?" (the China spyplane incident).

and then they go on to explain the DOWNSIDE? HAH HAH HAH, Adam and Jodi. The Framers didn't write it in, but I count intellegence, knowledge, and curiosity as a self-evident requirement of the job for which he's applying.

NO DOWNSIDE, you reportereenys.

These two get extensive and regular coverage in the Daily Howler as examples of media ineptitude and laziness. Just go there and enter either one of their names and you get entries like this:

"There is no correction in today’s paper of Adam Nagourney’s amazing “misquotation” of Clark...

and

"SPEAKING OF MEATHEADS: Bonus points for Adam Nagourney, who was willing to pen this ludicrous item in his report on Gore’s speech"

and, for Wilgoren, there's this:

"Wilgoren and Pickler played Minnie Pearl—and threw propaganda at Kerry"

and this:

"Caveat lector. THE BUTLER DOES IT! Wilgoren profiles Kerry’s “valet.” Any chance that she’s really this clueless? ... How absurd is Wilgoren’s piece?"

Just go to http://www.dailyhowler.com and try it yourself. You'll be amazed...but then, sadly, you probably won't be...

Bush has management experience, compared to Kerry's meagre 20 years in the senate. WHAT. A. CROCK.

If we lose this election, this kind of crap is why. Because these reporters are determined to keep anybody with an actul brain and some savvy out of the white house.

via Rendell :grr: that his speeches are 12 to 16 minutes too long for Rendell's taste! For FOUR paragraphs! Talk about USELESS process stories. Now will they count the flubs and mispronounciations in Bush's last few speeches and give it FOUR paragraphs? (which is really a bit more germaine, considering the job for which they vy is an IMPORTANT one that requires an element of diction- can you imagine trying to interpret something mush mouth says into another language?)

The media these days is comprised of some of the laziest fuckheads around. If I researched a project as sloppily as some of these people I'd be fired. Where's the accountability?

disguised as in depth reporting.
The subtext of the article, though, is "Would you trust this man to win the war on terror? Just look at how scattered and disorganized he is!!"
The New York Times has had a hair across its ass since Whitewater. Then they savaged Gore on a daily basis with this type of nonesense. It astounds me that repugs see this newspaper as the epitome of the "liberal media."
:mad:

What happened? Is the bottom line now the top question?