Reamed again

Once again, the media picked the Republican candidate they liked then turned on him as soon as he got the nomination. Conservative Republican voters have been reamed by the media so often they should think about getting a sex change operation. Still, I have to ask why is Romney in trouble for telling the truth when Hussein never gets in trouble for lying like hell about everything?

Romney does not have to steady his campaign to appease the parasite class and their media mouthpieces. They would not vote for him if he swore a loyalty oath on the Communist Manifesto. Romney knows the way of it; so I can only hope he does not wimp-out. Just for once, I’d like to see a Republican turn on the media and proclaim the views most Americans hold about big government and the welfare state. Lo and behold, Bill O’Reilly even got it right last night:

The only mistake in O’Reilly’s talking points memo came from Romney who said that 47% of the people vote for Hussein. That’s nowhere near true because approximately 50% of eligible voters do not vote.

Romney should be guided by the standing ovation Gingrich got when he laid into media inquisitors in one of the debates. Newt’s heated response had to do with a question about his divorce; nevertheless, the American people are fed up with a lying, biased, press. If Romney is not another Republican wimp he will take Gingrich’s standing O and run with it on serious issues.

Alas, Republican candidates never seem to learn: Lions roar and voters love them for it, while sheep get sheared and voters hate them for it.

Finally, the president is thought of as the one guy in Washington who represents all Americans. That’s never been true. It’s become so bad in domestic issues Hussein makes no bones about him representing the parasite class only. In plain English Hussein is against a majority of Americans.

Throughout most of the last century Democrats divided this country for political gain. Their weapons were class warfare, racism, illegal immigration, multiculturalism, and propaganda. Romney must be adamant about representing those Americans Hussein is against. If his stand offends the people who won’t vote for him anyway —— SO WHAT!

 

If conservatives have a real character flaw it is that they pay WAAAAY too much attention to what the MSM thinks.

Conservatives should ignore the MSM for three reasons
1. The media is sold out to the Dems
2. Nobodu believes the media any more
3. The MSM is dying as we watch

Moral of the story: Forget what the media says.

 

Every election cycle the same old tired song is sung by the hard core Conservatives: "The media/Liberals/the Democratic National Committee chose the Republican nominee!"

It's so predictable. It's so sadly funny.

Conservatives have still yet to realize that they themselves are to blame. Why? Because they are a minority in a minority party. This year the Conservatives had a wide slate of potential candidates who could pass their narrow rigid and hyper-partisan litmus test. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Li'l Ricky Santorum and Rick "Oops!" Perry were ready and available to accept the GOP nomination.

But they all proved to be inept, clumsy, inarticulate campaigners worthy of the Conservative mold they sprung from.

Sing the song, Conservatives! Sing it loud, sing it proud. And in four years when we reset the 2016 campaign, clear your voices for another chorus. Your brand of politics has deep yet extremely narrow appeal.

Sure, you're loud. You have many effective mouthpieces trumpetting your policies. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity et al have audiences with mouths watering and minds focused on the simplistic, stark and un-nuanced message of greed and selfishness. But that message falls on more ears repelled than enthralled.

 

Now if your assuming that the media is picking Presidential nominees you must ask yourself what their vested interest is in picking one over the other.

Please enlighten us why the media wants Romney so bad.

 

To Taxcutter: What the media thinks is not important. It is the malleable millions who believe whatever the media tells them. Contrary to your #2, this old adage is doubly true of television “I only know what I read in the papers.”

To River Rat: Your talking points are sillier than the usual ones liberals offer.

The media never picks the easiest Republican for the Democrat to beat. The media always picks the Republican candidate that is an acceptable substitute for the Democrat. The media did not pick Ronald Reagan and look what happened.

Parenthetically, which planet does your guy live on?

Obama responds to Romney 'writing off big chunks of the country' on Letterman before partying with Jay-Z and Beyoncé
President said his Republican rival was wrong and that half of Americans were not 'victims'
Obama spoke to Letterman before attending $40,000-a-head fundraiser at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Manhattan

By Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED: 19:14 EST, 18 September 2012 | UPDATED: 05:52 EST, 19 September 2012

President Obama accused Mitt Romney of 'writing off big chunks of the country' and rebuked his rival's claims that nearly half of all Americans believe they are 'victims' entitled to sponge off the government.

One the Late Show with David Letterman, Obama added that anyone seeking the presidency ought to be for 'everyone, not just for some' and talked about the hard work of single mothers and auto workers.

Obama quickly jumped on the opportunity to condemn his Republican rival's remarks on national TV as he visited New York for a glittering fundraiser hosted by A-list stars Beyoncé and Jay-Z.

The President was responding to a secretly taped video of the Republican presidential nominee which showed Romney describing '47 per cent of the people' as Obama supporters who depend on government and believe they are victims.

'My expectation is that if you want to be president, you have to work for everyone, not just for some,' the president said on the talk show, which aired tonight.

He added: 'What I think people want to be sure of is you are not writing off big chunks of the country because the way our democracy works.'

It was Obama's first response to the Romney video, which roiled the Republican's campaign and put him on the defensive over his views about nearly half the nation. Friends in high places: Beyoncé and Jay-Z, pictured earlier this month, hosted an exclusive fundraiser for Obama

After his television appearance, Obama spoke at a fundraising reception hosted by the music power couple at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Manhattan.

Tickets for the event cost $40,000 each, and the Obama campaign estimated that there were about 100 people in attendance.

The President stood on a small riser addressing an audience of men in business suits and women in evening wear, including Beyoncé's DJ sister Solange, sitting on upholstered benches in the dimly-lit club.

Beyoncé, named the world's most beautiful woman by People magazine this year, introduced the president and then sat with her husband, a hip-hop musician who has sold tens of millions of records, in the front row, looking up at Obama as he spoke.

Obama joked about the success of his hostess, comparing her charisma to that of his wife Michelle.

'Jay knows what my life is like,' he said. 'We both have daughters and our wives are more popular than we are.'

New York state is considered a safe win for Obama in the November 6 election, but the President reminded his listeners he is likely to face a barrage of negative ads in what remains a tight election.

'We've got people writing ten million-dollar checks just to see if they can beat me,' he said. 'The other side is full of passion and they are working very hard to beat us.'

Obama spoke earlier to a reception with approximately 200 people at the luxurious Waldorf Astoria hotel. Tickets for the event started at $12,500 per family.

He recalled a friend in Chicago telling him: '... being friends with a politician is like perpetually having a kid in college - because every few months, you've got to write this big check. Well, the good news is I'm graduating. So this is my last race.'

Meanwhile Romney struggled to steady his reeling White House campaign after a secretly recorded video showed him dismissing Obama's supporters - almost half the country's voters - as victims who are too dependent on government.

In the footage, taken during a May fundraiser and posted online on Monday, Romney said it is not his job 'to worry about those people'.

He was referring to what he called Obama's locked-in supporters who believe they are 'entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.'

In response to the film, Obama told Letterman on Tuesday that when he traveled around the country he never meets anyone 'who doesn’t believe in the American dream.'

‘There are not a lot of people out there who think they’re victims,' he said. 'There are not a lot of people who think they’re entitled to something.'

The president also said he did not know what Romney was even referring to with his '47 per cent reference.'

He said that when he won office four years ago, 47 per cent was the amount of voters who went for his opponent, Republican Senator John McCain.

'(Those people) didn’t vote for me and what I said on election night was: ''Even though you didn’t vote for me, I hear your voices, and I’m going to work as hard as I can to be your president,''' Obama said.

Obama, who, according to current polling, has a slight edge over Romney, said the American people work hard and just want politicians of both parties to work together to solve problems.

'One thing I've learned as president,' Obama said, 'is that you represent the entire country.'

In the Letterman interview, he said people understand that the presidential candidates will make mistakes on the campaign trail.

Letterman reminded the president of his own slip up during the 2008 campaign, when audio from one of his own private fundraisers caught him saying that some residents of depressed rural areas get bitter and 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them'.

But Obama noted that he immediately apologized for the statement, unlike Romney who has defended his comments, labeling the remarks 'inelegant' but reflective of his views.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...responds-Letterman-parties-Jay-Z-Beyonce.html

 

To kenrichaed: You are confusing the media choice for candidate with who they want in the White House. See my response to River Rat in #5 permalink.

 

Not at all. The media, as an institution, does not decide on a Presidential candidate and then tailor coverage to help that individual get into office as the OP suggests, no matter what the reason. You would have to show how this is advantageous to them as an interest group and there isn't an acceptable answer for that.

If I am a reporter what is my motivation for researching one candidate over the other. Does it stem from personal beliefs, direct orders from my superiors, or something other than that. Am I being told by my editors not to write about certain candidates and if so what is the reason behind that? Do I submit articles about Ron Paul that the editor throws into the trash bin and doesn't read past the title? If so, why is the editor doing that, what's his motivation.

If your contending that the media is picking candidates, for whatever reason, you must explain why you believe they would do that. There is no logical reason for them to do so. Why would the media prefer Romney to be an acceptable replacement for Obama?

You must have causality to claim an effect. You guys are just saying the media is picking candidates (effect) without explaining why they would do that and what they would gain. (causality)

 

To kenrichaed: Reporters do as they are told by the people who sign their paychecks.

Global government is the editorial motivation. That motivation is expressed by NOT REPORTING:

New York Times Publishes Hit Piece Against US Constitution As FBI Demonizes Everyday Americans As Possible Terrorists
The Intel Hub News Brief
February 7, 2012

http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/07/n...es-everyday-americans-as-possible-terrorists/

Rockefeller thanked print press for a media blackout that has been in effect for SIX DECADES. Since the early 1950s television became the dominant source of news and information. In all of those years TV has shown itself to be just as traitorous as print. It is only because of the Internet that Americans are slowly learning what is being done to their country. Note that international bankers were among the major beneficiaries of bailouts —— bailouts the MSM said were necessary to prevent a worldwide financial catastrophe.

Basically, the answer to your concerns is this: The media will torpedo any candidate they think will defend America’s sovereignty. Obviously, media wants an overt supporter of global government (the International community) in the White House. Without exception Democrats meet that requirement.

Finally, income and career are key components in an industry whose political monopoly is disappearing after more than a century of control:

 

Now your delving into conspiracies to support your argument which is always a losing stategy not grounded in reality.

If you want to believe the New World Order, being run by the Bilderberg Group is issuing orders to the leaders of media organizations telling them which candidate to cover then that's your perogitive but one in which I choose to avoid.

 

To kenrichaed: Global government is not a conspiracy theory.

It seems that my lot in life is enlightening every liberal ostrich that shouts conspiracy theory because they can’t defend their positions. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot for the Clintons came out of the closet in a 1992 Time Magazine article:

Talbot is now president of the Brookings Institute. He’s not the only global government advocate in high places who would hand America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

And before shouting conspiracy you might read this thread for a better understanding of the people you are siding with:

And this followup:

 

And the alternative?

 

Actually, like all silly theories it fails the simple logic test. If the media were part of a grand leftist strategy to choose the GOP candidate, then they would not have chosen the most moderate candidate. Romney, for all his faults, was the one most likely to beat Obama. The media would have picked the most bat shiite crazy candidate possible. Someone like Michelle Bachmann would literally have no chance at all of beating Obama. They would have put her in, thereby guaranteeing Obama's re-election.

 

If this were a poker game, the MSM would be "All-In" for the Dems, and a Authoritarian State were they keep their position as the societies primary information source by Government Mandate, not by consumer choice.


The American MSM is becoming Pravda.


The 2012 election will be a nexus or turning point in American History. By 2016, America will have turned away from a Authoritarian Statist future, or they reins of power will be so tightly held that only the slow rot of internal corruption and diminished to below basic sustanance levels of commodities will weaken the state to the point that it can be reformed.


If we don't stop the Statists in 2012, my Grandchildren will die under their brutal rule.

-

 

I like that you're using the term "parasite class". It's about time that the right-wing throws off their cloak of civility and show the true contempt that they have for most US citizens. A contempt that was readily demonstrated in Romney speech to what he thought was a private audience of like-minded individuals.

The funny thing? There is still a significant number of these "parasites" that were supporting Romney. It's hard, after the past few decades of Republican trickle-down economics and the wealth gap that it has produced, to fathom why these people would think that the right-wing has their best interests at heart. I can only assume that they are one-issue voters who have fallen for the right-wing's constant use of social wedges.

Hopefully these "parasites" will wise up and vote in their best interests.

 

65% of the American Public is White.


Obama has made it clear that in his Socialist Re-distributionist America, Whites will not "Qualify" to recieve even the "Pain Pill", much less a reasonable standard of living and care.


For White Americans, It DOES NOT MATTER if Obama actually follows through for once, as a Leftie Elite, and actually gives the lower and middle classes a fair share of the Government Planned Economy wealth, because they won't recieve any of it.


If the 65% of the American Public which is White wants to "Vote their Interests", the first thing they have to do is get rid of the current Ethinic Nationalist group of Democrats who would lock them out by skin color alone.


If White Americans gave Romney just 75% of their vote, Obama is Gone!

 

I suppose it's easier to dismiss than repudiate. It cuts down on all that pesky reasoning and thinking.