From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 12:23:07 PST
I read that Slate article, and the WP article it cites. Then, that night,
I saw that Jimmy Carter was talking with Jay Leno. Leno mentioned how he
had done jokes about the alleged vandalism.
Then Leno said [paraphrasing] "Why would they do that, that vandalism?
It's sad." Carter replied [paraphrasing] "I don't approve of it."
Well, then it must have happened. Even Jimmy Carter condemned it.
Of course, 76-year-old Carter's running around on a book tour these days,
and he doesn't have a staff of writers checking the newswires, as The
Tonight Show does. I'm not surprised he didn't catch the followups.
Perhaps The Tonight Show will come up with a balancing joke. e.g.,
"The White House is taking back most of their claims of vandalism
by the Democrats as they moved out. No, that's true. There *were*
some 'W's removed from keyboards, and some silly signs were put up,
but the White House admits now that no doors were glued shut.
(chuckle, chuckle) That's true, there was no gluing. (pause)
Yeah, it turns out the confusion was caused by those silly signs.
The Democrats switched the 'push' and 'pull' signs on the doors, and
Bush was 'pull'ing on the Oval Office door for about twenty minutes."
I'm sure their professionals could come up with something better.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> In the absence of proof, why did the White House press corps advance the
> sabotage claims? 1) The Bushies insist on talking on a not-for-attribution
> basis if they talk at all, and this allowed them to embellish the scope of
> Prankgate's "destruction" without suffering any blowback. 2) For all the
> pomp and pageantry of inauguration week, there wasn't much news for the
> press corps to report. So, mindful of who their masters will be for the next
> four years, they accepted the Bushies' blind accounts. 3) Reporters are
> suckers for stories that conform to their prejudices: It stood to reason
> that the Clinton crew would make a graceless exit and that the grown-ups
> from Texas would rise above it. 4) By Jan. 20 the ultra-efficient Clinton
> spin machine had been unplugged and there was nobody to provide an
> alternative account.
> Yep, the media is definitely under the control of the liberals ;-)
> - Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 04:25:45 PST