Analyzing the Political Analysts - The Missourian: Opinion

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Analyzing the Political Analysts

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 5:00 pm

Since the advent of television coverage of national political conventions, the commentators summarize the speeches. They tell us what we just heard, assuming a good portion of the vast audiences didn’t understand what the speakers said. To many viewers, this was an insult to their intelligence.

These experts have become more biased. They are adept at putting different spins on what was said. The same can be said for the political columnists who report their interpretations. Like the TV luminaries, the columnists have obvious political leanings. Some of their conclusions can be interesting although at times a stretch is clear.

The pundits didn’t hit hard movie star Clint Eastwood, who was billed as a surprise speaker prior to Gov. Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech. The aging Eastwood scored a few political points for the Republicans, but for the most part he failed to “make anyone’s day.” The kind words said about his performance perhaps was in respect to his screen accomplishments. We felt sorry for him. He was miscast.

The young Republican politicians who spoke were impressive and give promise to the party that it has a galaxy of bright stars who will be heard from in the future. Columnist Dana Milbank, whose column appears now and then in The Missourian, found considerable fault in these rising GOP stars. In a column published in the Weekend Missourian, he accused these young congressmen, governors, senators, etc., of promoting themselves more than Romney since they didn’t mention Romney often enough in their speeches.  Milbank wrote that they were “playing Brutus.”

He’s probably right when he wrote that politicians aren’t the most loyal lot.

We have always admired Tom Brokaw of NBC, but his performance as an analyst during the GOP convention was below the high standards he once commanded. Brian Williams did a good job, was fair and saved the day for NBC.

We’ve also heard from people that they were disappointed in Wolf Blitzer’s performance on CNN.

Columnist Kathleen Parker pumped several columns during the convention. In one she stated that the big problem that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have is that they are running against themselves. She questioned how you can win an election “when you are trying to distance yourself from... yourself?” She wrote that the two Republicans are “trying hard to be anything but who they are.

In a column right after Romney spoke, she said he did reveal a clearer picture of who he is. That column is on this page. She wrote that Romney is “too modest to toot his own horn.” Check the column. It’s worth reading.

The Associated Press pointed out that Romney in his acceptance speech did not mention Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, Afghanistan and illegal immigration.

Now we will listen to the Democrats. They will be on the defensive, defending Obama’s record. He can’t use “change” this time to win over voters. He failed at that, along with improving the economy and creating jobs. We don’t believe he can instill hope in Americans like he did four years ago.

/opinion

Jobs