Refudiate Media Attacks
Back in 2008, following Obama’s less than compelling reaction on the campaign trail to Russia invading neighboring Georgia, Sarah Palin remarked that Ukraine could be next. The left attacked her, mocked her, called her comments “strange” and “far-fetched”.
Today, the scenario is very real. Russia’s puppet parliament just voted unanimously to approve military action against Ukraine. This after paramilitary forces, likely of Russian origin and backing, have already seized government buildings and airports within the Crimean region of Ukraine.
Which means, all those fawning, sycophantic, Obama-protecting liberals… all those self-righteous, self-described “experts” on foreign policy… all those talking heads on the television were WRONG.
Sarah Palin was right, folks.
I wonder which of those supposed experts has the guts to admit it.
It’s been several years since I watched The Simpsons on a regular basis — mainly because the show became far too Leftist for my tastes. Even the Halloween episodes are largely mean-spirited and unfunny now (and those used to be the highlights of the year). It’s impressive the show’s still on the air and I do get nostalgic about it because I remember being in grade school and seeing the first Simpsons animated shorts air after commercial breaks on The Tracey Ullman Show (back when Tracey Ullman herself was funny, supermodels ruled the world, Pepsi was crystal clear, and 2012 seemed like a lifetime away in a very distant and unimaginable future).
On January 8th, 2012, The Simpsons aired the 10th episode of its 23rd season, entitled “Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson” – where Matt Groening and his crew malign the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Christians, conservatives, and Republicans. One of the biggest mistakes the GOP makes is to ignore Hollywood, especially in an election year. Though The Simpsons is now watched only by dozens of people (and, perhaps, an equal number of circus animals) and is no longer as culturally relevant as it was back in the days when teenaged boys struggled to decide whether their sideburns would be Dylan or Brandon-esque, it’s still a useful window into what The Tolerant Left thinks is important to lampoon about conservatives. Because it takes so long to animate an episode, The Simpsons’ jokes are stale and most references are dated…but it’s still clear The Tolerant Left despises and fears the Tea Party and works overtime in its attempts to malign it.
This should be a clarion call to the GOP: what The Tolerant Left fears most it mocks…and whatever it mocks is the thing Republicans need to embrace harder and do much more of because Leftists forever telegraph their greatest points of weakness.
Here’s a summary with screengrabs of “Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson” so you can know what attacks The Simpsons directed against Tea Party Americans without ever having to watch the episode for yourself (in case you never wanted to subject yourself to 22 minutes of your life you can’t ever get back):
Read the rest of this entry »
Hat tip to Indy for sharing.
This would be an excellent piece to share with your Lefty friends on Facebook.
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship–makes it clear that he’s in favor of free trade, cultural exchange, freedom of travel, and other forms of friendship with other nations.
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
The Democrat-Controlled-Media’s bias against GOP candidates who can beat Barack Hussein Obama is getting more apparent every day.
The most blatant recent example was the CBS/National Journal debate in South Carolina, where GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul was allowed to speak for only 89 seconds during the televised hour of the debate, receiving just one question. And Michelle Bachmann’s campaign was inadvertently copied on an email from CBS “News” prior to the debate, in which CBS “News” Political Director John Dickerson admitted that Michelle Bachmann “is not going to get many questions” in the debate (though she did get far more time than GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul).
This effort at media manipulation was so transparent that it became a story unto itself. The best exposé was probably this editorial in the New York Sun.
“A controversy has erupted over the fact that in the CBS debate on foreign policy Congressman Ron Paul got only 90 seconds….We’re not with Dr. Paul on all of his liberty campaign; as a general matter, he’s far too loath to levy the war on terror. But we have covered him on and off for more than 30 years and have come, even when we disagree with him, to respect him, particularly for his tendency to reach deep into the Constitution. He has done this on foreign policy in several important ways, starting with a bill he introduced in Congress within days of the outbreak of the war that erupted on September 11, 2001.
The bill was the first bid in generations to unleash one of the most important of the constitutional war powers, the letter of marque and reprisal, which is an instrument for bringing private parties into the war. The thinking that went into Dr. Paul’s bill deserves a hearing in any debate in which the GOP contenders are going to be grilled on foreign policy….”
The media blackout was even the topic of discussion the next morning on Fox News:
In an appearance with Greta van Susteren on Fox News, GOP Frontrunner Sarah Palin notes that Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have all been the subject of media blackouts. And she also encourages GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul to keep educating Americans about economic issues:
I have a fantasy that involves Sarah Palin running as Ron Paul’s VP…because the Democrat-Controlled media would tear itself apart in an effort to destroy the ticket.
On the one hand, the Democrat-Controlled Media’s strategy to marginalize Ron Paul’s campaign demands that they downplay the huge crowds he draws at events, the fact that GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul is polling in the top 2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, the constant wins at straw polls, the fact that he’s #3 in fundraising among GOP candidates, and the #1 recipient of donations from active duty military.
However, we all know that the Democrat-Controlled Media is obsessively fascinated with Sarah Palin (remember the bus tour?), and is bent on destroying her. How could they give Sarah Palin enough coverage to destroy her, on the one hand, while simultaneously maintaining radio silence about the top of the ticket on the other?
The more I think about it, the more I love the idea of a Ron Paul/Sarah Palin ticket…
News came down a few minutes ago that the trustees of Penn State University fired head football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier effective immediately.
I haven’t followed this story closely, so I just became aware of the fact that Joe Paterno KNEW that his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, had been CAUGHT RAPING A 10-YEAR OLD BOY IN 2002 AND YET CONTINUED TO WORK ALONGSIDE HIM IN THE PENN STATE FOOTBALL PROGRAM FOR NINE MORE YEARS.
I am about to throw up.
I also just found out that the person who WALKED IN ON Jerry Sandusky RAPING A 10-YEAR OLD BOY, one Mike McQueary, not only DID NOT RESCUE THE BOY AND BEAT JERRY SANDUSKY TO DEATH at the time, but IS CURRENTLY RECEIVERS COACH FOR THE TEAM!
This “man,” Mike McQueary [seriously? That's his name?], DIDN’T EVEN CALL THE POLICE to report the rape. As reported on FoxNews.com,
“The 84-year-old Paterno has been besieged by criticism since Sandusky was charged over the weekend with sexually abusing eight young boys between 1994 and 2009. Athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz have been charged with failing to notify authorities after an eyewitness reported a 2002 assault. [...]
Though Paterno is not accused of any wrongdoing, he has been questioned over his apparent failure to follow up on a report of the 2002 incident, in which Sandusky allegedly sodomized a 10-year-old boy in the showers at the team’s football complex. A witness, Mike McQueary, is currently receivers coach for the team but was a graduate assistant at the time.
McQueary told Paterno about the incident the next day, and the coach notified Curley and Schultz, who in turn notified Penn State president Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz have been charged with perjury and failure to report the incident to authorities, as required by state law.
I would like to point out that this story includes all the elements that the sexual harassment smear campaign against Herman Cain does not.
- An eyewitness.
- Sexual contact.
- A very long paper trail.
The only thing that appears to be missing is the one thing the Herman Cain smear campaign has in abundance: OUTRAGE.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE???
Last night, ESPN broadcast video of a student rally at the home of Joe Paterno. They RALLIED in front of his house, shouting words of encouragement to him.
Presumably the residents and students of State College, PA were more aware of the situation than I was. Some, if not all, of these people must have known that this Jerry Sandusky had been protected by Penn State’s coaching staff and administrators, including Paterno.
But the people of State College PA and the students in front of Joe Pa’s house were more concerned with FOOTBALL than with CHILDREN BEING RAPED.
This is what a sex scandal looks like.
And the fact that the Democrat-Controlled Media has spent more time in the past three days reporting on Herman Cain than on Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno…that’s a scandal all its own.
This election will be / is a scorched-earth campaign. The Dems will burn down every building in America if they believe that it will help them win the election.
Manufacturing “witnesses” is easy… Judas was bought and paid for.
The “October Surprise” tactics are coming out early.
Stupid rock-ribbed conservatives… The Bush DUI story on the eve of the election almost cost him the Presidency. That DUI was a long-time earlier, and Bush had repented, sobered up, and become a devout Christian, but because the knee-jerk reaction of the moral majority, they didn’t vote for the hypocrite Bush, when their Christianity should have DEMANDED that they accept his long-standing repentance and so vote for Bush.
If today’s Republicans can’t see that the lying-cheating-stealing
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media are doing everything they can to scuttle anyone who may threaten Obama’s 2nd term, then they deserve to be defeated and have Obama oversee the final destruction of their remnant of America.
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media are LIARS. Liberal Dems are happy to help them destroy candidates. The Cocktail Party Reps are in bed with them, too.
The Cocktail Party is to the Democrat Party like the Washington Generals are to The Harlem Globetrotters; they make a good living by always losing to the “home team” after making it look like they tried hard.
Gloria Allred showed up in the last days of the 2010 California election to throw an illegal-alien maid under the bus to service her beloved Democrat Party. It may have contributed to the Republican loss.
Now Allred is showing up with accusers who have no court case, not even CIVIL courts, so where is the money? Somebody is giving out $B$I$IG$ to lots of people to make it happen.
OWS? It’s a stage magician’s distraction to get people’s eyes off Obama and the Dems so they can operate more freely. Now ask yourself where the $M$O$NE$Y$ for the gourmet catering in all those cities is coming from? Somehow, the
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media is not curious about it.
How do all these Cain accusers find the money to do things like fly to California and be in press conferences with Allred? Who is paying the freight?
If the Republicans allow themselves to be tricked into swallowing the lies of the
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media and the Dems, that Cain, or any candidate, is bad / immoral / what ever, then the Reps deserve to lose everything, and be taxed 100% while Dems get paid government money in several more rounds of Porkulous.
Decide who you want to believe:
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media who always is surprised at the high unemployment numbers (3 years running) but predict a good outlook next month, only to be surprised by the disappointing unemployment numbers again, but next month will be better
(2) your own eyes.
Like a jealous teenager, the
PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media and the Dems will do and say anything to ruin a candidate who the Reps may like that could beat Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Don’t be stupid!
Don’t fall for it.
In the past five days, the Democrat-controlled media has given GOP Frontrunner Herman Cain more scrutiny than they have given Barack Hussein Obama over the past five years, much of which is disgustingly, overtly bigoted.
Since there is a paucity of actual, you know, facts to report, or alleged sexual harassment victims to interview, the DCM has taken to speculating, then interviewing each other about their speculations.
Their gleeful personal destruction of a conservative black man hasn’t given them much time to, you know, report any news.
So when GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul won his 15th straw poll vote of the 2012 election season this week, the only media outlet to report it was a local radio station in Central Illinois. A total of 426 students from ISU, Heartland Community College, Lincoln College-Normal, and Illinois Wesleyan University participated, 93% of whom plan to vote in the general election.
If local college students had their way, the 2012 race would be between President Barack Obama and Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. [...]
The GOP part of the poll was won by Paul, a Texas Republican, who took 35 percent of the vote. Next were former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (19 percent) and businessman Herman Cain (16 percent).
ISU professor Steve Hunt said it’s no surprise. He said Paul’s message – from economics to an antiwar foreign policy – resonates with young voters.
“He talks about issues that they’re concerned about, whether it’s student loan debt that they’re facing, the cost of college, the issues with unemployment,” Hunt said. “But he also talks about, generally, the idea that government shouldn’t be in your business.”
Back in the day, when Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, straw polls were seen as an important early indication of support for a candidate from the most politically active members of a community or political party. After all, to vote in a straw poll, you first have to find out about the poll. Since they’re not highly publicized, you have to be pretty plugged in to politics to hear about one. Then, you actually have to leave the house (sometimes in bad weather), and pay money to participate. It requires a much higher degree of commitment and involvement that merely voting in a primary (which is free and highly publicized.)
But once GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul started winning straw polls, they suddenly lost all significance as far as the Democrat-controlled media is concerned. When Ron Paul wins a straw poll, it’s “rigged” or “fixed,” or the ballot box was “stuffed.”
You see, winning a straw poll is only newsworthy when Mittens Romneycare or Barack Hussein Obama does it. Otherwise, it’s a “fluke.”
So when GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul won his 15th straw poll this week, the Democrat-controlled media decided that reporting 12-year-old rumors about an uppity black conservative was more important than reporting actual, current facts about Ron Paul.
Perhaps this is why a Gallup poll, released last week, found that 55 percent of Americans surveyed have little or no trust of the journalists who report the news, and 60 percent of Americans see a noticeable bias in their news coverage.
Ron Paul, Herman Cain Trounce Mitt Romney and Rick Perry at Values Voters Summit. Media Reaction: Crickets
As a freelance journalist and public relations expert, I’m here to point out media bias so Hillbuzzers everywhere can learn to recognize it, and protect themselves from being made into Eeyores by manipulation by the government-controlled media.
If you are not an educated consumer of media coverage, you’re in danger of mistaking it for the truth, instead of opinion disguised as fact.
Today’s lesson comes courtesy the Values Voters Summit that took place over the weekend. This sixth-annual event, organized by the Family Research Council, includes training sessions for conservative activists; speeches by politicians who are (or are pretending to be) conservatives; and a presidential straw poll.
The Values Voters Summit is recognized by the government-controlled media as a leading indicator of conservative voter opinion, unless, of course, the media-annointed, hand-picked, “it’s their turn” candidates get their butts kicked in the straw poll. If anyone but this year’s media-declared candidates win, the event is “fixed.”
Here are the results:
Ron Paul – 37 percent
Herman Cain – 23 percent
Rick Santorum – 16 percent
Rick Perry – 8 percent
Michele Bachmann – 8 percent
Mitt Romney – 4 percent
Newt Gingrich – 3 percent
Undecided – 1 percent
Jon Huntsman – 0 percent
Yes, Jon “I Look Just Like Mitt” Huntsman lost to “Undecided.”
So, where’s the bias?
This story from ABC News gives us some great material to analyze.
The headline is, “Ron Paul Wins 2011 Values Voter Straw Poll, Herman Cain Takes Second Place.” So you might expect the story to be about Ron Paul and Herman Cain.
Well, you’d be half-right.
Remember, the Washington press corps votes 98% Democrat. They are essentially in the employ of the Obama Regime. They thing they’re “normal” and they think you–the patriotic, tax-paying, gun-owning, church-going, responsible Americans–are a reactionary, right-wing, bigoted raaaaaacist fanatics. You have to evaluate all government-controlled media coverage in that context.
The story is 572 words long. The first paragraph of 24 words is about Ron Paul:
The Texas congressman and presidential candidate who remains in the single digits in most national polls emerged as the choice of 37 percent of those who cast ballots at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. [bias emphasized]
But interestingly, the paragraph also subliminally tells you, the conservative voter, to ignore the results of this straw poll of conservatives, because Ron Paul “remains in the single digits in most national polls.” Which national polls? Of whom? Voters? Likely voters? Adults? Other members of the government-controlled media? Mittens Romney’s campaign staff? The Obama Regime? We’ll never know, because the ABC News reporter thinks we’re too stupid and gullible to ask.
Why is Ron Paul in single digits, when he gets consistently high rankings from Conservative watchdog groups like the National Taxpayers Union? Could it be because of biased coverage like this? Could it be because hand-picked “frontrunner” RINO candidates get hundreds of times more media coverage?
Single-digit poll results don’t stop the government-controlled media from telling you, the conservative voter, that Jon Huntsman is a “frontrunner.”
And single digit poll results don’t stop the government-controlled media from telling you, the conservative voter, in this same story that “Current GOP front-runner Mitt Romney…wound up near the bottom of the pack with 4 percent.”
How can a “journalist” write a sentence like that with a straight face?
How many more straw polls will Mittens Romneycare, Rick “I Heart Illegals” Perry and Jon “RINO” Hunstman have to lose before the government-controlled media stops putting the word “frontrunner” in front of their names? (It’s a trick question–they will never stop.)
In this 572-word story, which is ostensibly about Ron Paul winning the Values Voters Straw Poll, Ron Paul only gets 79 words of coverage, and two of those references are dismissive and negative.
Even though ABC news sent an intrepid reporter into the crowd to “take the temperature of the cultural conservative voters,” and more than one out of every three participants voted for Ron Paul, she apparently couldn’t locate a single Ron Paul voter to interview. Hmmm.
Herman Cain is the big winner in this story. He gets 196 words, all positive. And ABC News managed to hunt down and quote two Cain voters for the article.
With a third-place (16%) finish, you’d expect that the brain trust at ABC News would want to talk to or about Rick Santorum. Nope!
Instead, ABC news chose to boost Rick Perry, who gets 166 words of coverage (more than twice as much coverage as Ron Paul, the winner, and just slightly less than Herman Cain, the second-place finisher) despite earning an embarrassing 8% of the votes. All of Rick Perry’s coverage is positive.
So, conservative voters, here are the messages ABC News wants you to take away from this story:
- You’re stupid if you vote for Ron Paul. You should ignore him like we do!
You’re only slightly less stupid if you vote for Herman Cain.
Mitt Romney is the frontrunner. Because we say so.
Rick Perry is the serious candidate. Because we say so.
Here are a couple more illustrations of media bias around this news story:
First, a Google search engine results screen capture for the search phrase “Ron Paul Values Voters.” This search brings up TWENTY-SIX news stories in the first group of results, most of which don’t include the actual news–he WON! The most prominent story in the second group of results says that the event was “fixed.”
A search on “Herman Cain Values Voters” brings up FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-ONE news stories in the first group of results.
Big loser Mittens Romneycare, who only beat “Undecided” by 3%, scored ONE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-THREE news stories about this event. That’s seventeen times more news coverage than the winner. I didn’t read them all, but I assume that each contains the word “frontrunner.”
Is it any wonder that you don’t consider Herman Cain or Ron Paul as a “serious” candidate? Do you even know what their positions are? Or have you already let the government-controlled media make your decision for you?
Every time you read a newspaper, you’re being manipulated. Every time you watch the TV news, you’re being manipulated. The story I’ve linked above contains several subliminal editorial comments designed to push you toward Obama-Regime-approved candidates Mittens Romneycare and Rick Gardisil Perry, and away from the two candidates who were the overwhelming choice of the conservative activists who paid to get in to the Values Voters Summit.
Your job is to research the candidates yourself, without the media filters. Learn to recognize that words like “frontrunner” are meant to brainwash you.
Get up off the sofa.
Put down the Pepsi.
Turn off the TV.
And do the legwork required to be an informed voter.
Michael “The Hutt” Moore, Lefty propagandist, has endorsed a GOP candidate. For what, we’re not sure, since Moore typically votes significantly to the left of his idol, Nazi propagandist filmmaker and Hitler devotee Leni Riefenstahl.
Anyway, in an appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight, Moore burbled between swallowing whole live frogs,
“There’s only one that has sanity operating inside of him and that’s Jon Huntsman. Brrrrraaaaaccckkk! When they asked ‘who here believes in science?’ He’s like, the only one to raise his hand! Brrrrrrppp. Here he was, a Mormon and the governor of Utah..slluuurp…and he got a civil union law passed that’s not passed in many states that are not Utah. Haa…haaa…haaa…haa…haaaaaaaa! *cough*”
For those of you keeping track at home, there are at least 56 states that are not Utah, according to Jabba’s favorite president, Barack Hussein “Madrassa-Educated, but Not a Muslim” Obama.
This endorsement from a Leftist propagandist virtually guarantees that Huntsman will be dubbed the new “GOP Frontrunner” by Government-Controlled Media.