The Press Hates Republican Candidates. So Why do They Like Jon Huntsman?

Whenever the mainstream media starts backing a candidate I immediately get the impression there's something they're not telling us about him or her.

Think about candidates the media gets behind. Do you trust any of them? Bill and Hillary. John Kerry. Rahm Emmanuel. Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama.

You name a candidate they love, and I guarantee you they'll be proud leftists. So when the mainstream media start treating a Republican candidate nicely, I get nervous.

In 2000, the left-wing media were kind of okay with a John McCain presidency. They suggested he was the kind of moderate our party could benefit from listening too more often. They even brought up his name in 2004 as someone they wish they had the honor to run against. By 2008, when he actually was the Republican candidate, they excoriated him. Suddenly, he was now a hateful right-winger who was just Bush in new packaging.

This year, a few Republican presidential hopefuls have begun their campaigns, and for the most part, the media lambasted them. Herman Cain was a joke. Ron Paul was a bigger joke. Tim Pawlenty was a...wait, Tim who? Now they're savaging Michelle Bachman and it should be no surprise that even though she hasn't announced that she's running, the media prepared a few preemptive strikes against Sarah Palin, too. The only one they left alone was Newt Gingrich because the response from both the left and the right on Newt Gingrich's campaign was BWA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

In fact, early on, the only Republican hopeful that wasn't raked over the coals by the press (other than Gingrich) was Mitt Romney, who in 2008 when it began to look like he might be nominated, was subjected to the same treatment Cain and Bachmann are getting now. This time, however, it was pretty clear from the beginning that they really hope he does get the nomination because not only is he guaranteed to lose (like McCain), but if he wins, at least a real conservative won't be in the White House (the same hope they had with McCain).

But now Jon Huntsman's come along. Now, Jon Huntsman calling himself a conservative is kinda like Jack Black calling himself an olympic swimmer. There is not a single issue he agrees with conservatives on, and conservatives, let's face it, are the Republicans' base. Instead, Huntsman seems to want to reach out to independants. Quite frankly I'd love to see him run as an independant, because it's not unlikely he could siphon votes from the Obama campaign.

But instead, he's running as a Republican. Why? Do you know a Republican who would actually vote for him? Is there a single issue he agrees with conservatives on? He's pro-gay marriage. He believes in anthropogenic global warming. He's pro-choice. He wants to raise taxes. He believes in big government. How is this man running as a Republican?

More to the point, why does the media seem to like him? They pillory Republican candidates no matter who they are, don't they? They repeatedly slammed McCain, or, well, they did after he became the nominee. Until then they kinda liked him.

Ah, I think I get it now. Let's think like a leftist. Somebody's gonna be running against Obama, but who would we like it to be? Palin? Oh, god no. Pawlenty? He's weak, but we can't run the risk of him actually winning. Cain? No, if we have to call him an Uncle Tom on the national level it could reflect badly on us, plus we're gonna have a hard time making the racist charge stick to the other side if they run a black man. Bachmann? She's like a Sarah Palin only without the pregnant daughter and downs syndrome baby! Yuck! Romney? He'll be easy to defeat, so maybe. Huntsman? A Republican who agrees with us on everything and loves Obama? GET THAT MAN ON THE PHONE!

And now we come to the conspiracy theory. Here's the thing; Huntsman has to know he's not gonna win. He has to know that. Everyone knows that. So why's he running? He also loves Obama. He's stated publically many times how much he respects and admires the president. So why run against him?

I think it's pretty clear. Someone on the Left, possibly a group of someones, convinced him to do so. They specifically asked him to run a weak campaign for the Republican nomination wherein he would make a point of ignoring the conservative base and remaining "civil" the entire time. "I greatly respect and admire the president, and feel that he's done a remarkable job so far. I agree with him on all points. You will never hear me say anything bad about him. Uh...vote for me." In turn, the media would play him up as a candidate who could turn things around.

The next step: mobilize the liberal base through groups like Media Matters, MoveOn.org and what's left of ACORN and get the vote out in the Republican primaries! Get liberals to nominate Huntsman in droves! In other words, do what they did for McCain in 2008. And then? Trash him. Tear him down and make the world think he's another Bush, or another Palin, or Glenn Beck as a politician. Or, maybe, this time they don't really have to do that. After all, they actually don't have to worry about losing to him, and even if they do he's basically one of them.

Afterward, Obama may grant him an appointed position of power, like he did with Hillary. But heck, the only reward a guy like Huntsman needs is knowing Obama is back in office where he belongs.

Now, I do have some hope. Conservatives are mobilized right now in a way that we just weren't during the 2008 campaign. We let McCain get nominated through sheer apathy. Bush disappointed us almost as much as he did the left, so we really kinda sat that one out. We're not doing that this time. My only worry is that there is yet to be a candidate the true right is getting behind. Personally I think a Bachmann/Pawlenty ticket is the way to go, but her campaign just started and we need to see how she handles the hatchet job the left is already starting on her. She's got ten years on Sarah Palin, and more experience, so she might be ready for it.

At this point, I think that while Herman Cain is a great man with a lot of good ideas, he's just not presidential material. He has, unfortunately, been proving that foreign policy is his Achilles heel, and he may never actually get past it. I'd love to see him as a presidential advisor, but not as president himself. It's a shame because I really like the guy, and I was really hoping I could get behind him 100%. For a while he had me. I would be 100% behind Palin if she ran, were it not for Bachmann.

But while we figure out who we want to get behind, we gotta remain vigilant of the Huntsman campaign, and don't allow it to gain ground just because we can't decide who we like. We can't afford another 2008. Let's hope that the right mobilizes behind a genuine conservative candidate ASAP, or we might be facing Huntsman vs. Obama 2012. And I think we all know who'd win that fight.

What did I say!

Last week in the wake of the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, I challenged the lefty claims of Fox News viewers being "uninformed" by suggesting that poll questions and answers are reported based on the pollster's opinion of what the answer should be. It's one thing to ask "Which party controls the Senate?" but entirely another to ask "Is Obamacare going to fix the current issues with medicare?" The first question is one that has a definite wrong answer. The second is basically asking one to predict the future, and judging the answer right or wrong depending on whether it matches your prediction.

And now we have proof that the polls are asking that very kind of question.

Chris Wallace:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact looked into that statement, and on its Truth-O-Meter it rated Jon’s claim false. But the details are even more interesting. In a survey called “Misinformation in the 2010 Election,” people were asked a series of fact questions like which president signed tarp? But the poll also asked questions like this. “As you know, the American economy had a major downturn starting in the fall of 2008. Do you think that now the American economy is ‘a,’ starting to recover or ‘b,’ still getting worse?” "Starting to recover" was the so-called right answer. If you said, "still getting worse" you were officially misinformed. And if you questioned whether climate change is occurring or whether ObamaCare will add to deficit, you were also mistaken.

What did I say? Didn't I say exactly that?

Liberals say "You disagree with our completely un-verified stance that we will continue to cling to no matter the mountain of contradictory evidence, therefore you are uninformed."

Irony at its highest.

Concludes Wallace:

Then there was last year's Pew Poll which asked four fact questions like what job did Eric Holder have? It turns out Fox News scored better, not worse, than MSNBC, CNN, the network evening news and the network morning news. As for individual shows, 31 percent of “Hannity” viewers got all four questions correct. 29 percent for “O'Reilly.” And all the way down near the bottom viewers of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show" at 22 percent.

So folks, all that talk about you’re the most consistently misinformed viewers? I guess the joke is on Jon Stewart.

Media: By All Means, Continue to Deny Your Bias

Jon Stewart says the mainstream media, including his own shows, are not biased in favor of liberalism. It would appear a large portion of the population disagrees with him.

But Stewart, please continue to deny it. That goes double for you, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Laurence O'Donnell and others of your ilk. The more you deny it, the more you reveal yourselves as the liars you are. Soon the only people who will trust you will be those who already are as far to the Left as you.

For MSNBC, that's not much of a loss. But CNN? Can they even still call themselves "the most trusted name in news"? The loss of credibility they are suffering right now is humiliating, or should be. But they probably visit group therapy where they are taught to repeat the mantra "Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News..."

One more thing; I'm not the first to comment on this, but many have pointed out that Fox News isn't really as "fair and balanced" as they claim to be. Well, maybe not, but they do serve as the only TV news outlet that even discusses the views of the Right. All three alphabet networks, plus CNN, C-SPAN and MSDNC...I mean MSNBC are all dedicated to presenting just one side of the story.

Fox News and its "Uninformed" Viewers

Let me start by saying I don't generally watch Fox News. I tend to get my news online. I have watched it on occasion, though, and I've seen the Left go after them numerous times for "lying", which generally means "occasionally getting its facts wrong", which could be said about any news network.

However, Jon Stewart recently braved actually being interviewed by Fox News's Chris Wallace, where he brazenly sat there and defended himself and the mainstream media, claiming that neither was biased. In his case, he's a comedian first, which excuses everything he says, in his mind and the minds of liberals. He accuses the mainstream media of tending toward "sensationalism and laziness", not bias. Right.

Anyhoo, among the more outrageous statements he made was the claim that "In the polls" Fox News viewers are consistently found to be the least informed. Folks, I've never put too much stock in polls, but Stewart doesn't even cite any actual poll results. He just says "in the polls" and we're supposed to just believe him that the polls say what he says they say. Had I been Wallace, I would have asked "What polls? Who conducted them? What sort of samplings did they take? Did they balance those who watch Fox News exclusively with those who watch both Fox and, say, CNN? What kind of questions were asked to reach the conclusion that a person polled is uninformed?" And so on and so on.

See, you can make poll results skew however you want to, depending on the kinds of questions asked. When polling about how informed viewers are, there's all kinds of ways to play with the data.

For example: if the poll asks "Do you believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat and that something must be done about it right now?", the question isn't what defines an "uninformed" viewer, and neither for that matter is the answer. It's whether the pollster agrees with that answer. If I answered "no" (and I would), CNN or MSNBC would call me an uninformed viewer, despite the existence of the East Anglia emails and all they imply.

Another example: "Do you believe President Obama's health care plan will improve our current health care situation or make it worse?" Again, depending on what the Pollster believes, either response could mark the replier as "informed" or "uninformed".

That's just one way data can be played with. There are dozens more. Depending on who I worked for, there are numerous ways I can make viewers of my News network the smartest, most informed people in America.

If CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Harvard or Stanford or any other "respected" University, Time Magazine, etc. conduct these polls, you gotta ask yourself: "What would these leftist institutions consider uninformed?" The answer, as should be obvious, is "Those who don't believe their side of the story."

It's one thing to suggest that someone is "uninformed" because he believes there's proof we didn't actually land on the moon, or that he's "uninformed" because he genuinely believes the earth is flat. But those aren't the questions I'm sure these pollsters ask.

Here are some things Leftists believe:

George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her house.

Rush Limbaugh is the originator of the phrase "Barack the Magic Negro."

9/11 was an inside job.

Response to the Bush administration by the media and left-wing politicians was moderate.

Response to the Obama administration by Fox News and right-wing politicians is inflamatory and dangerous.

The Tea Parties have displayed openly racist signs and slogans.

Tea Partiers shouted racial slurs at the members of the Congressional Black Caucus during the healthcare debates.

Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was "slow" and the Federal government under Bush's watch is entirely responsible for that tragedy.

See? And this is just the tip of the provably false things they believe and report every day.

Stewart's remarks harken back to what I said in a previous post where I objected to a noted author simply stating "Fox News is lying to you", and expecting that we would believe he was right simply because it's Fox News.

To a leftist like Jon Stewart, "uninformed" simply means "not a leftist."

EDIT: Turns out even the supposedly objective (but left-leaning) website PolitiFact disagrees with Stewart. Stewart's claim is that "in every poll" Fox News viewers are "consistently" rated the least informed. This is not true at all. The polls in general are decidedly mixed, with a few actually showing CNN and MSNBC viewers as being significantly less informed, or at least less up-to-date in their knowledge, than Fox News viewers.

If They Were Republicans: Anthony Weiner

A new feature I'm introducing on this blog is a monthly (hopefully) segment called "If They Were Republicans. It's a look at how prominent Democrats and liberals are treated by the press, Leftist politicians, and leftists in general and how that would change if the Democrat in question had been of the opposite political persuasion, and nothing else was different; not the circumstances, not the individual's actions--nothing but what political stance they espouse.

Because he's topical now and likely won't be in a month's time, this first edition of ITWR will focus on: Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Now, for those of you who just arrived from the next galaxy over, I'll explain a little bit about what Congressman Weiner did, and what happened afterward. Basically, in the wee small hours of the morning late in May, a photo appeared on Weiner's twitter feed of a man wearing only grey briefs with a noticable erection. It was uploaded from Weiner's yfrog account and appeared to be meant for a 21-year-old female college student, but apparently the congressman had prematurely shot the upload out and forgot to make the message private. A right-wing website, breitbart.com, saw the incident immediately and ran with it.

On the morning of June 1, Weiner rose early to spit back at Breitbart and others now reporting on the story, claiming his twitter and yfrog accounts were "hacked", that his hands were full doing the job he was paid to do, and that he saw no reason to expose himself to the press any further. However, the congressman's attempts at deflection were woefully limp, and the story continued to grow bigger and longer. While some in the press got on top of this story and rode with it, others came...to Weiner's defense, most notoriously old college pal Jon Stewart and the ladies of the View, who were no doubt impressed by the size of Weiner's credibility.

After a few more women came forward stating that Weiner had also sent them inappropriate photos over the years, Weiner was forced to poke his head out his office door where he was busily tackling his long, hard workload, and admit that indeed he had sent the tweet, and there had been no hacking, and could this story now acheive its climax.

I myself was surprised at how long this story could sustain itself, expecting that the press would handle Weiner with velvet gloves, as they did Bill Clinton, and any other left-wang--WING! I said WING!--politician caught with their pants down. Weiner also evidently believed the press would stroke his ego and swallow any lie he came up with. As far as I'm concerned, however, they did. It was fairly clear most of the journalists covering this story were in Weiner's tent. Just look at what guys like Stewart, Jimmy Fallon and David Letterman tried to pass off as "jokes". "It was Weiner's weiner," commented Fallon, who should have followed up with "What has four wheels and flies?" Come on, a Member of Congress named Weiner showing his caucus on twitter? The jokes practically make themselves.

As far as the news coverage surrounding this scandal, well, it couldn't have been more limp. Howard Kurtz of CNN's "Reliable Sources" refused to even touch Weiner's story, saying that it "appears to be faked", a remark that later came back and went off in his face. Others like Salon's Joan Walsh suggested that Andrew Breitbart was the real villain, here, for daring to break the story in the first place. Even Ed Schultz had to admit that wasn't true.

Now, oddly enough, Reuters falsely labeled Weiner a Republican in their headline on the story, either confused or willfully trying to paint him as if he could not possibly belong to the "good" party. However, one has to wonder what would have happened had Weiner actually been a Republican?

First of all, breitbart.com would still have carried the story, but so would CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, CBS, NBC, and pretty much any other news outlet that could get their hands on the Weiner piece. The press would not have worried about whether or not the story was possibly "faked", and absolutely would not have bought Weiner's "hacked" lie, nor his later "prank" description. They would immediately begin digging for more, and would have turned up all those other women on their own, without waiting for them to come forward. Olbermann, assuming he still has a TV show, would label him "The Worst Person in the World" and demand his resignation. Janeane Garofalo would probably suggest he should be arrested, as opposed to being elected "Mayor of New York". The ladies from the View would have a field day with this story.

Also, they would never shut up about it. Until he resigned (which, if he were a Republican he would likely do the day after the first photo was leaked), there would be endless round-the-clock coverage and Weiner's weiner would receive more exposure than anyone would possibly want, and after his resignation, we would see him referred to and remarked upon any time the Left wanted to deflect us from a scandal on their side. Don't believe me? Well how long do you think it will be until we stop hearing about the "scandals" surrounding men like Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Foley, Chris Lee, etc.?

I could see the collective members of the so-called "mainstream" media referring to any Right-wing politician who can keep it in his pants described as "pulling a Weiner" from this point forward. But, unfortunately, we'll never hear that about Anthony Weiner the Democrat, because, well, he's of a leftist bent, so the press dutifully reported on Weiner's flaccid apology and let him go right back to his job.