Posts Tagged ‘88% of editors and journalists vote Democrat
Despite getting 25% of the airtime during the debate, and more questions than anyone else (which is odd, since he’s tied for second place in the polls, behind Gingrich), Mittens Romneycare did not have a good performance in Saturday night’s debate…at least, not according to Jon Stewart.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Indecision 2012 – ABC News GOP Debate|
And here’s the really, really stupid unforced error-the $10,000 bet. Pay attention: this segment shows EXACTLY how the DNC-controlled media is going to tear down Mittens, Newt and Perry:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Indecision 2012 – ABC News GOP Debate – Mitt Romney’s Bet|
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 anti-Ron Paul hate mail has skyrocketed of late, which has encouraged Kevin DuJan and I to start a regular weekly Ron Paul segment on the Hillbuzz and Mrs. Fox show on Blog Talk Radio. More details to come.
Until then, here are some videos from a black guy who is fed up with the Democrat-controlled media’s attacks on Ron Paul and charges of raaaaaacism. It’s a video from a black man to other black people. The money quote is:
“Ron Paul is more ‘pro-black Americans’ than Barack Obama”
Whoa, Nellie! The times, they are a-changin’.
I would encourage anyone in the Anti-Obama Coalition to watch this video. There is a lot of AUTHENTIC hope in this two-part video…not the “hopeychange” bill of goods that Barack Hussein Obama (who is not a Muslim, and, technically, not even black, but is totally a Marxist) sold to the black electorate in 2008. The end of the second video is really powerful.
NSFW Warning–the F-bomb is dropped several times, as is the N-bomb.
CNN’s lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer will be moderating tonight’s GOP Candidates Debate from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. (ET), broadcast live from Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.
The debate is presented by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and will focus on national security, foreign policy and the economy.
In addition to Blitzer, Foreign policy experts from AEI and The Heritage Foundation will pose questions to the candidates. Candidates invited to participate are:
- Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann
- Businessman Herman Cain
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
- Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman
- Texas Rep. Dr. Ron Paul
- Texas Gov. Rick Perry
- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum
Candidates shut out of the debate were Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, Former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer, and these other declared candidates: Political Consultant & Gay Rights Activist Fred Karger, Andy Martin , Flight Attendant Tom Miller, Jimmy McMillan, Matt Snyder, and Businessman Vern Wuensche.
More details from NewsOnNews.com:
Live coverage from DAR Constitution Hall will begin the day before the debate, on Monday, Nov. 21, and continue through the post-debate programming on the evening of Tuesday, Nov. 22 to include anchors Wolf Blitzer, John King and Erin Burnett. CNN political analysts and contributors Paul Begala, Gloria Borger, Donna Brazile, David Frum, David Gergen, Ari Fleischer, and Dana Loesch will participate in coverage from the nation’s capital.
That is one incredible assortment of Leftists. I wonder what questions our friends at CNN will cook up for the candidates? I can’t wait to see what our mole is able to scrounge up for us.
UPDATE: A few observations…I can’t transcribe the debate, so I’m just going to jot some notes.
Newt Gingrich just got booed. Bizarre. Polite applause for everyone. Ron Paul may have had a bit more enthusiasm…but in general, this is going to be a Cocktail Party GOP crowd (it was invitation-only.)
8:32 p.m. I’m working late tonight and can only listen in with one ear. I’m disappointed that so many of these candidates are willing to shred the Bill of Rights. It’s chilling that so many of them think it’s fine that Barack Obama can, by himself, order the assassination of American citizens.
I think it’s an important discussion, of course. But foreign policy and national security will be something of a moot point once China calls our note and the economy collapses.
It’s (surprise) turning into the Mittens Romneycare and Jon Huntsman show. And what’s weird is that Huntsman is parroting Ron Paul’s positions. HMMMM.
Rick Santorum just looked into the camera and said, “I agree with Ron Paul.” I expect that he was anticipating some cheers from the Ron Paul folks…there was awkward polite clapping, because we Ron Paul folks are not so easily played. Awkward.
And as usual…mentioning Mittens gets Mittens a free 5-minute speech; mentioning Ron Paul gets you…uhm, thrown to a commercial break.
Please feel free to comment on the debate. I will have to watch the rest on replay…I have to get back to work. Unlike the Occupoopers, I don’t think anyone owes me a living.
As the media bias commentator here on HillBuzz, I try to help voters understand how media bias works, how to recognize it, and how to tell if your opinions actually belong to you, or if you’re just repeating a meme planted in your head by the Democrat-Controlled Media.
I tend to use the Ron Paul campaign coverage to illustrate this, because bias against his campaign is the most obvious. (Ron Paul is third in fundraising, has won more straw polls than all other GOP candidates, #1 in donations from active duty military, and is polling #2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, and yet, is dead last in media coverage.)
There are two broad categories of media bias: sins of commission and sins of omission. Both are equally effective, but they’re used differently against different GOP candidates.
If a candidate’s closet is stuffed full of skeletons, or even just rumors of skeletons, the Democrat-Controlled Media will go over those skeletons with a microscope, and blast “news” of those skeletons into the ears of GOP voters with bullhorns 24/7 (See Herman Cain).
If a candidate is skeleton-free, and has a powerful message, the Democrat-Controlled Media simply pretends they don’t exist (see Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.)
The most recent example of this kind of exclusionary bias was delivered to us via CBS “News” last week. As has been widely reported, Ron Paul was asked only one question, and got only 89 seconds of airtime, during the one-hour televised portion of the debate. Michelle Bachmann received several more questions, but was rudely cut off during several answers, whereas other candidates (Mitt Romney, Rick Perry) were allowed to speak as long as they cared to. And Gary Johnson was excluded from the debate altogether, despite polling numbers that are similar to those of Rick Santorum, who was included.
This obvious bias has inspired Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign to file official complaints with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). His complaint styles the CBS debate as an “illegal campaign contribution”–essentially, an under-the-table in-kind donation to the candidates who were included in the debate and got the most air time. As reported on TheHill.com,
Johnson’s complaint charges that debate sponsor CBS significantly contributed to the candidates who were allowed to participate in the debate, “directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of [Johnson], whom CBS evidently disfavors.” [...]
Saturday’s debate, co-hosted by CBS and National Journal, was the first debate to air on broadcast television. According to Johnson’s complaint, “the public owns the airways over which CBS broadcasts, and the public deserves to be free from bias — favoring some candidates over others — as well as illegal support of certain presidential candidates on national network television.”
Given the fact that CBS “News” Political Director John Dickerson knew in advance that Michelle Bachmann wouldn’t get many questions, it does tend to confirm Gary Johnson’s charge that the CBS debate was stage-managed to favor certain candidates over others.
This is just the latest and most obvious effort by the Democrat-Controlled Media to nominate Mitt Romney. As CNN’s Howard Kurtz notes in this segment after the Iowa Straw Poll, “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race.”
In a development that is sending chills down Cocktail Party GOP spines, GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul has skyrocketed in a Bloomburg poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers and is now polling in second place, just behind Herman Cain.
Herman Cain: 24.5%
Ron Paul: 20.4%
Mitt Romney: 16.3%
Can’t Decide: 8.1%
Rick Perry: 7.9%
Michele Bachmann: 7.6%
Newt Gingrich: 4.8%
Rick Santorum: 4.7%
Jon Huntsman: 0.0%
(Yes, “Can’t Decide” and “Other” are out-polling Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman, and Perry is trailing “Can’t Decide.”)
Mittens Romneycare–the Cocktail Party GOP, It’s His Turn, John McCain II, Establishment candidate for president–has been accorded “frontrunner” status by the Democrat-Controlled Media since roughly 2006. And despite relentless media repetition of this meme, Mittens has never earned more than 25% in an serious poll of likely GOP voters.
The Democrat-Controlled Media styles the “horserace” in terms of Romneycare vs. Everyone Else. And yet, the only likely GOP voter who seems to believe that Mittens Romneycare will win the Iowa Caucuses is Mittens Romneycare. That’s why he has done virtually no campaigning on the ground in Iowa, and why he doesn’t do press availabilities. He’s entitled to win, he thinks, and he has the Democrat-Controlled Media behind him. Why waste all the money his crony capitalist buddies have pumped into his campaign by, you know, campaigning?
The Bloomburg poll has confirmed Ron Paul’s frontrunner status in Iowa, but he was boosted into the Top 2 by a massive grassroots campaign operation in the Hawkeye State, where presidential politics is retail politics. And the Bloomburg poll notes that Ron Paul’s campaign leads in terms of the all-important voter contact quotient, “with about two thirds of respondents saying they’ve heard from his campaign.” That means a Ron Paul volunteer has already either door-knocked or called 67% of the likely GOP and Independent voters surveyed, seven weeks before the Caucuses. Ron Paul’s campaign has also purchased more television time in Iowa that all other GOP candidates. And Ron Paul’s supporters are the most committed to their candidate, according to the poll. As Bloomburg notes,
There’s good news in the poll for Paul, 76, a Texas congressman who has attracted ardent supporters. Among likely caucus-goers who say their minds are made up, Paul leads with 32 percent, followed by Romney at 25 percent and Gingrich, a former House speaker, at 17 percent.
Among Paul supporters who backed him in the 2008 caucuses, 69 percent are still with him now.
Poll participant Sarah Stang, 78, a retired teacher who lives in Osage, Iowa, said she switched parties four years ago so she could vote for Paul.
“He doesn’t want to raise taxes on us middle- and low- income people,” she said, adding that she “loves” his challenges to the Federal Reserve. “They have way too much power. They should let the marketplace do what it’s supposed to,” she said.
In past years, Iowa GOP voters have given social issues like abortion and gay rights a great deal of weight, but this year, issues related to the economy were ranked as “critical” by a vast majority of respondents:
Government spending and reducing debt: 77%
The economy: 74%
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 28%
Gay marriage 25%
GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul is the only candidate besides Gary Johnson who has proposed massive cuts in federal government spending (he would cut $1 trillion his first year in office, and balance the budget in three years), and his economic credentials are impeccable, having predicted the collapse of the dollar, the housing bubble, the rise in gold prices, the credit downgrade and much more. Ron Paul was also voted most likely to halt illegal immigration, according to the poll.
Check out this video from Ron Paul’s campaign stop after the recent debate in Michigan. The local pub was packed with hundreds of supporters (see photo below–it’s like a rock concert after-party). Among the GOP field, only Sarah Palin rivals Ron Paul in generating this level of enthusiasm from supporters.
Ron Paul’s supporters are the most energized, organized, and determined in the Iowa ground game. They will trudge through three feet of snow to vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul owns the airwaves. Mittens and Herman Cain are MIA on both counts. And 58% of likely Caucus-goers surveyed said that they would rule out voting for a candidate who backed a health insurance mandate (which eliminates both Romneycare and Gingrich).
This is why some outliers in the Democrat-Controlled Media have been forced to ask, Is Paul the strongest candidate in Iowa?
Yes, Washington Post, yes he is. Ron Paul is the strongest candidate in Iowa. Thanks for noticing.
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…
With all the trouble with had with the site being inaccessible today, our mole at CBS didn’t get the questions to us until moments ago.
Moderator: As you all know, this debate will focus on foreign policy. So our purpose here today is to give the Democrat National Committee the damning sound bytes they need from Mitt Romney to make our very wise president, Barack Obama, look like a foreign policy genius in the commercials next year. Because I’m sure we can all agree, with the economy in shambles, the President’s personal killing of Moammar Ghaddafi and Osama bin Laden are the only bright spots in his tenure thus far.
So with that in mind, please answer the following questions in detail, in 15 seconds or less. You’ll have 15 seconds for rebuttals, unless you’re Michelle Bachmann, in which case we’ll cut you off after 10 seconds, or Ron Paul, whom we intend to ignore until after Rick Perry has made his his brain freeze gaffe du jour, or until the last 10 minutes, whichever is later.
And as usual, Mitt Romney may speak as long as he chooses, as the Frontrunner Handpicked By Us Presumptive GOP Nominee.
Michelle Bachmann: Is it true you can see Russia from your house? And, as a follow-up, isn’t it true that our friends in the Muslim world would see the election of a woman as a provocation, and isn’t that reason enough for you to drop out of the race?
Rick Perry: If a train leaves Islamabad at 3:45 a.m., traveling west at 55 kilometers per hour…Mr. Perry? Please wake up, Mr. Perry. We have to maintain the illusion that you’re top tier. Mr. Perry?
Mitt Romney: Is there anything you need from us? To whom should we be most dismissive? Did you get the box of Cuban cigars we dropped off in your dressing room? Fidel autographed them for you. Excellent…and the champagne? Was it bubbly enough for you? How about the caviar. Did you get the caviar? We got the beluga, as you requested. So, Mr. Romney…you look extra presidential tonight. Please share with us, in detail, the foreign policy failings of each one of your GOP opponents. Take all the time you need.
Jon Huntsman: You were appointed ambassador to China, our biggest creditor, by the president who has run up the USA’s largest national debt. Where do you get your suits tailored? Can you tell us how to say “sucker” in Chinese?
Rick Santorum: Frankly, you have no chance of winning.
Newt Gingrich: How would you build alliances with our allies, given the fact that you gave your wife cancer and then murdered her?
Herman Cain: Counting from 12:01 a.m. this morning, how long has it been since you forced yourself on a blonde white woman?
Ron Paul: You insist on repeating the findings of the 9/11 Commission, in which they say that terrorist attacks on the U.S. are “blowback” for decades of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of Muslim nations in the Middle East, such as the 1953 coup in Iran, in which the CIA helped overthrow Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister and install the Shah of Iran. Isn’t it true, Mr. Paul, that despite getting more campaign donations from active duty military than all other candidates put together, you actually hate America and secretly root for the terrorists? Hold that thought…we’re out of time.
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.
Yes, we have a mole at CNBC, and she managed to sneak a peek at an advance copy of tonight’s debate questions. (Check out the Debate Live Blog thread here.)
Here’s what our mole was able to memorize and send in:
Herman Cain: “As you know, Mr. Cain, CNBC is a financial news network, and tonight’s debate is focused on economic issues. You have decades of experience in the business world creating jobs and turning around failing companies. How did you find time to develop your 9-9-9 Plan in between your horrific and brutal repeated sexual assaults, sexual harassment, rapes, tortures, dismemberments and murders of blonde white women, young boys, and barnyard animals? Do you regret not killing more of your victims? Do you want to kill me now? Is my life in danger? Help! Police!”
Jon Huntsman: “Mr. Huntsman, the Obama Administration appointed you Ambassador to China, and you speak fluent Mandarin. I, for one, think you’re extremely reasonable, intelligent and moderate, for a Republican. What will you do, as President, to continue the Obama Administration’s trade policies and ensure that secret U.S. defense technology continues to flow to China so they keep buying our T-Bills?”
Rick Perry: “Did you get the 5-Hour Energy Drink we sent to your dressing room? What about the Red Bull? Like the rest of the mainstream media, we’ve given you far more news coverage than all the other candidates in the race, and we declared you the “Frontrunner” within moments of your announcing your candidacy. Why isn’t it working? Why aren’t you higher in the polls? What else can we do? It’s making us look bad that you’re behind GINGRICH, for God’s sake! WAKE UP! We’re trying to get you nominated!”
Herman Cain: “Have you sexually harassed any other women in the past few minutes? Would you sexually harass Michelle Bachmann? Or do you only go for blonde white women?”
Ron Paul: “You’re more of an expert in economics, monetary policy, and the Federal Reserve than anyone onstage. So we’re going to ask you about foreign policy. You’re one of only two veterans onstage tonight. You want the U.S. to stop policing the world and involving U.S. troops in foreign civil wars. In short, you want to bring home the troops. You get more campaign contributions from members of the military than all other candidates combined, including our gifted and articulate president, Mr. Barack Obama, who I met at the Correspondents Dinner last year, and frankly, he couldn’t have been nicer. He even signed an autograph for me. Apparently, the top three donors to your campaign are members of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy. Do you think this is because active duty military are lazy, or is it because they are cowards?”
Herman Cain: “We’re getting reports that a sixth anonymous woman who lives in David Axelrod’s apartment building and works for the Obama Administration has made vague and unsubstantiated claims about something you may have done or said that may have made her feel uncomfortable between 13 and 27 years ago. What are the details of this allegation? Don’t you agree, it’s the seriousness of the charge that is important?”
Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum: “Let’s be honest. This debate is about the economy, but frankly, we know all you GOP kooks agree that taxes are too high, business is over-regulated, and the government is broke. So we’re going to talk about social issues, because we know that’s the only thing that can alienate the libertarians. Since this is the only time we’re going to call on either of you, please take a minute to remind America how you would each imprison pregnant women to keep them from having abortions, and detail your plans to round up and kill all the gays.”
Newt Gingrich: “Despite our best efforts, you appear to be rising in the polls at the expense of one of our hand-picked candidates, Rick Perry. So we’d like to take a moment to remind the voters that you’re a cruel, heartless bastard who gave his wife cancer, put her in the hospital, had an affair with all of the nurses on duty in her hospital bed in front of her, bribed the surgeon to sew divorce papers into her body, then killed her and brought her back to life so you could kill her again, in front of your children. And it looks like we don’t have time for a response, so let’s move on to the only candidate in the field who looks Presidential, Mitt Romney, the celebrated and wise former governor of that thriving beacon of economic success, Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney: “First, Mr. Romney, I’d like to apologize for interrupting your campaign speech with short outbursts from these other so-called candidates. It won’t happen again. And thank you for sending over that autographed copy of your book with that “special bookmark.” Please take as much time as you need in the next hour to personally attack any other Republican candidate. Except Ron Paul, of course, because then the news stories would have to include the words ‘Ron Paul,’ and our destruction of his campaign depends upon us keeping his plans to save America a secret.
Here’s a very serious question for you, Mr. Romney. When the Herman Cain campaign blamed the campaign of your rival Rick Perry to giving us the story of his decades of horrific rapes and serial murders of defenseless blonde white women, were you satisfied with how quickly we got the word out? Is there anything else we can do to keep this story alive?
We’ve suppressed coverage of New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, just as you asked.
So, did you get the fruit basket we left in your dressing room? Is the lighting good for you? Would you like us to move the other candidates further off to the side?”