Member Rara Avis
Of course, he put it together for his own political puffery but it was a fact that all of these people used the word the same day. If you want to say that was coincidence, or they used it because Matthews had introduced it a month before, ok, but to hear that many people use it at the same time seems a bit out of the ordinary to me.
You skimmed my post, right, Mike? That's my fault, I'm sure, for not making it more interesting.
First, Matthews didn't introduce the word a month before. He used it SIX months before, almost seven, maybe as the first person in that campaign to use the word, but certainly not the first to "introduce" a new word into American politics. The word gravitas has long been used to describe politicians. It still is, Mike, even if you're not hearing it.
Second, Matthews wasn't the ONLY person to use the word prior to Limbaugh's discovery of it. Far from it, as evidenced by the report out of Bush's own campaign. It was an issue, Mike, even if you weren’t hearing it.
Third, no, I wouldn't call it a coincidence at all. Both the word and the issue had been in the news for almost seven months before Bush took a giant step, by announcing Cheney as his running mate, to quell the persistent -- and no doubt valid -- accusation that he lacked gravitas. Every candidate tries to balance the ticket, and every reporter on the night of the announcement, tries to talk about how it was balanced. It was a calculated move by the Republicans, with an absolutely predictable result. It wasn't a coincidence, it wasn't in the least bit surprising, and it sure as heck wasn't a media conspiracy.
It was just Rush Limbaugh being Rush Limbaugh. And you and many more followed him right down the garden path.
A good point was made this weekend.
What? Can it be true? The Main Stream Media (I still don't know what that term means) saying something bad about a Democratic president? LOL. Will wonders never cease?
The principal job of the Fourth Estate, Mike, is to constantly poke the status quo with a big stick. The hope is that an independent and free press can help keep our politicians honest. I'm not sure that works any more (readership apathy and spin doctors have grown side by side each other), but it's probably still a valid idea, I think. Someone in the press is going to criticize Obama every step of the way. Just as they did with Bush. Yea, I know you think Bush got it a lot worse. You've got to admit, though, Bush made it very easy to criticize him.
As to the points being made, I think you're probably mixing apples and oranges. And you're mixing them in a thread about bananas?
The radio address was almost certainly calculated for some psycho-babble stuff I wouldn't understand (Bob might think he does), but no doubt took into account a lot of stuff the President doesn't tell me about. It was probably meant to be a soothing, look-there's-no-panic-in-America type of thing. I don't know. It does, however, remind me of similar complaints just days ago that the administration wasn't being vocal enough against Kadafi, complaints that might not have taken into account the Americans that were still, at that time, trapped in Libya and sitting ducks for retaliation. I certainly listen to such criticisms, but usually take them with a grain of salt.
The golf game was, I think, a different issue entirely, though I suppose it too might just as easily have been calculated for the same look-there's-no-panic-in-America image. Don't know. On the whole, though, I don't personally begrudge any leader either the time he needs to sleep or the time he needs to unwind. That's exactly the kind of micro-managing I always tried to avoid with my own people.
The only thing that really mattered to me were the results.
If it were Bush on the golf course, the press would have a feeding frenzy.
Which raises the more serious question of exactly who would choke on the pretzel this time?
Sorry, Mike. Like I said earlier, Bush made criticizing him SO easy.