http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0AqYH6MSos&feature=player_embedded
How many times can you ask about Iraq (as if Afghanistan and Libya haven't happened)? Immigration "reform," and all the candidates answered how many times that they are against the Dream Act, yet, the Telemundo guy kept asking, "just a follow-up" to promote his view, education, these and other favored leftist causes. Did the commentators realize they were talking to Republicans? How about the dolt who asked, `What does it indicate that the audience clapped when asked about the [severe in Texas] death penalty?' He wants to imply the audience is made up of barbarians; the fact of the matter is that people overwhelmingly favor a severe application of the death penalty, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Why don't these commentators know that?
The leftist media is promoting Romney and Perry, nominating them as they did last night, front and center. This is for two main reasons; they favor Romney because they see him as `presidential' meaning he has the looks (since Kennedy, Kerry, Obummer, et. al.), a primary leftist criteria during the nomination process. Romney is obviously an empty suit, like Obummer, so the left can deal with him; likewise, the left media likes Perry because then you can have conflict among Republicans, just as Gingrich called them out on.
Then, you place Bachmann, who the left dismisses, on one side, and then Paul, on the other, because he is provocative. These two foils will highlight the imagined conflict between Republicans, the TEA party perspective, and the libertarian, respectively. The others are dismissed completely. Cain can not be taken seriously because the left wing media can not understand an intelligent, articulate African-American business man who belongs to the TEA party. In the leftist perspective, Cain is a throwback to the racists of the past as in Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin. Huntsmann is another empty suit and a progressive Republican, also looking presidential, but he has polled so poorly he is insignificant. Gingrich of course is a committed ideologue and the left does not want to take him seriously, and Sanctorum fits in that category as well. Thus, the further away from the impression the left would like viewers to have, promoted candidate--Romney--and conflict ridden--Perry, you are going to get short shrift. The left does not encourage debate and discussion and it is little wonder that the debaters appeared to have little to offer or anything new.
The silent candidate is the news media itself. The media wants to leave a viewer with the impression that the Republican challengers to the Obummer have nothing interesting to say, offer, or have any solutions to the severe problems facing our country. The media is the critical factor in the presentation of ideas. The debate, if you can call it that, confirms Marshall McLuhan, "The Medium is the Message."
The genuine battle is the difficulty of presenting fairly complex principles and ideas in the medium of television. The ones with ideas and principles are Sanctorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, and Cain. Respectively, voters will choose between them depending on their inclinations. The more Romney talks the dumber he sounds: he's an Obama clone. Of the principled group, Bachmann is the only credible candidate in terms of electability, although she is going to be Palinized relentlessly in the lamestream media; Paul is certainly a principled individual but his age will work against him, age discrimination is acceptable in the media and too big a factor for him to overcome (progressive Republican McCain suffered the same fate). Paul's primary effort is simply based on his libertarian ideals which attract many people to his cause once they hear him. Note how MSNBC rigged the Post-debate poll results to suppress the popularity and appeal of Paul:
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/09/08/msnbc-rigs-post-debate-poll-results-to-suppress-ron-paul-media-bias/
At this point the primary will be between Bachmann, who will be hounded relentlessly and tarnished repeatedly and so will appear "dirty" and suspect, which, if you think about it, is ironic since she is such a squeaky clean candidate she is almost a Canadian. On the other hand, Republicans will look towards the stealth candidate Perry, who has flip-flopped before on issues dear to those who maintain rightist or conservative principles, introduced an Islamic curriculum in Texas, and could really be suspect; and yet, he will be portrayed in the media as enough of a challenger to Obummer, pitting the Texan Bush-sound alike against the media hero, Obummer. Perry is enough of a compromise that Republicans, progressive and conservative could vote for him; at the same time, progressives could hold their noses and still work with him if he won in 2012.
Its a Bachmann vote if you actually think a dedicated and competent person is worthwhile; its a Perry vote if you figure this is about the best that can be expected out of the Republican party. Perry is going to have the lamestream media promoting him so the media can sell the Bush-like challenger vs. our Anointed One spin.
Posts
