Is Patrick Ruffini Really This Clueless?

3:25 am EST October 24th, 2007 | News | 3 Comments

In an otherwise kind of interesting post about Republican interaction with the media (Patrick makes the tired claim they’re in the pocket of the left without conveniently forgetting how the press pushed GOP narratives against Clinton, Gore, and Kerry and in the run-up to the Iraq War to mention a few choice moments. He also ignores the quick and easy pipeline from blogs and Drudge to Limbaugh to Fox and to the mainstream press that’s been chronicled numerous times at this site I’m familiar with.) Patrick Ruffini (former Bush/Cheney staffter) says:

And the Bobby Jindal story is also a litmus test. The fact that an Illinois state senator with few accomplishments got fawning coverage when he first ran, while the younger Jindal’s storied accomplishments and unique narrative are A17 news speaks volumes.

Bobby Jindal ran essentially unopposed in a race almost everyone expected him to win. The previous Democratic governor was fatally flawed and the marquee Democratic challenger (John Breaux) decided not to run. Barack Obama is a U.S. senator – the only black man out of 100, and the only legitimate black candidate for president in either party in a generation.

Only a fool would think that the media should cover them equally, or that the Jindal story is remotely as compelling as Obama. Perhaps the Republican party could scrounge around for a black member of congress on their side of the aisle to run for president. Oh, wait, there aren’t any black members of congress on the Republican side.

There’s a news story.

(By the way, to answer my question, no, Patrick isn’t this clueless. He’s being stupid on purpose in order to further the mythology. Again, the guy worked for Bush in ’04, it’s like breathing air for those guys!)

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

3 Responses to “Is Patrick Ruffini Really This Clueless?”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    October 24, 2007 at 9:11 am

    Bobby Jindal ran essentially unopposed in a race almost everyone expected him to win.

    Ditto Obama in 2004. Didn’t stop the fawning (and near omnipresent, during a presidential contest no less!) coverage. What, you put Alan Keyes in the “formidable” category? I don’t.

    The previous Democratic governor was fatally flawed

    Not so fast my friend. According to the MSM narrative, Katrina was Bush’s fault and poor old Kathleen Blanco was left twisting in the proverbial (and literal) winds as cruel heartless W. jetted off to play guitar in San Diego and Condeleeza bought shoes.

    “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” You do remember that, right? Now that the people have spoken via the ballot, you knew all along that Blanco was “fatally flawed”. Why didn’t you speak up before?!?

    The first gubernatorial election post-Katrina *IS* a big deal, even if Jindal (who’s been campaigning for this ever since his loss in ’03) had a gi-normous lead in the polls. And the MSMers are trying to bury the news because it doesn’t fit the “Republicans are as popular as Botulism” storyline they’re trying to foist upon the public.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    October 24, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    Gimme a break. Yeah of course Obama was expected to win, but the discussion is about his presidential run. Are there a lot of other black senators running for president? No. Katrina was a failure at the local and national level – and I’ve said so numerous times, but the buck stops with the president. Furthermore, you’re pretending as if Ray Nagin didn’t win re-election.

  3. megamoze says:
    October 24, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    According to the right, Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Youtube has a liberal bias. Chuck Hagel is a flaming liberal. Basically, anything that doesn’t go exactly the way they want it to is called “liberal.”

    And you’re never going to convince them otherwise, Oliver, not with all the facts in the world.