Super Tuesday is now over. Despite a considerable showing in several states, Obama did not beat Clinton. She will be our next president and will preside over one of the worst economic periods in our nation's history in at least 30 years. This will not be her fault entirely, but the fault of the system that has produced her and all of the other candidates who would share the same fate if they became president.
On the GOP side, Republicans supposedly fed up with Bush, the War, and the turn of the GOP from conservative principles, have voted in John McCain in overwhelming numbers apparently unaware that "maverick" is the media's euphemism for unprincipled flip-flopper for candidates that they like. It wasn't predominantly democrats lighting up the Capital Hill switchboards to opposed McCain-Kennedy, it was more than likely Republicans and probably a fair share of independents. Now they have overwhelming supported the candidate that will grant that amnesty as soon as he enters office. The same thing with the war. People opposed to Bush's handling of the Iraq War and who want the U.S. to bring its troops back voted overwhelmingly for McCain, the candidate who promised to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Those who are fed up with the Bush administration in general overwhelmingly voted for him even though he is the inheritor of the Bush's election team and finance managers.
This has all been the media building up McCain to look like an outsider, maverick, and someone who can bring the much abused term "change". Someone who has been a Washington insider for over 20 years, is 71 years old, has worked in government essentially all his life, and who is being joined in large numbers by part of the Bush team is not going to be an agent for change. If McCain is elected, we will be entering the 3rd term of the George W. Bush administration. The media which built him up will soon start tearing him down so that Hillary can become our next president.
How conservatives can take by the GOP is beyond me at this point.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and the Media
Most Americans do not really pay attention to politics. They view it like the weather and so avoid doing any critical thinking about the candidates they back. The election does not involve issues. It involves personality and buzzwords like "change" and "leadership". If anyone wonders why politics seems to become so bitter the answer is really two-fold. The first is that politics isn't any more bitter than it has been before. The second is that it only seems more bitter because everything involves more personal attacks than actual policy disputes. This is all a result of both parties have very little distinction in their agendas. When that happens, the only way to distinguish yourself is through personality which means that negative advertising as to go after personality and not policy.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
Friday, February 1, 2008
CNN and media bias
"With former First Lady Nancy Reagan looking on, Paul disagreed with President Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice, while Huckabee and McCain declined to say whether they would have tapped her for a spot on the high court.
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)