...Liberals respond to a tragedy by suggesting, nay, demanding, a new law that not only would not have prevented the tragedy, but may well lead to more.
Let me tell you something, people. I hate politicizing a tragedy. I HATE it. It strikes me as sub-human. When I look at the pictures of those students and teachers who were gunned down by a maniac in Connecticut, my reaction was tears. Liberals, apparently, loved it, and immediately thought about how to use this to further their ends.
It happens all the time. It happened after the Jared Loughner shooting. It happened after the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting. It happened after the Utah shooting. It happened after the shooting of people waiting in line on the day The Dark Knight Rises opened. It happened after the Jovan Belcher murder suicide. And this time, after I wiped the tears from my face, I wondered how long it would be before some idiot liberals started demanding stricter gun laws.
Now, here's the odd thing; argued emotionally, it makes sense to want to take guns off the street because of a tragedy. Hell, it makes sense to want to see all guns in the world destroyed. I confess; I don't like guns. I've never owned one, and I've certainly never shot one other than once as a teen shooting my grandpa's hunting rifle under tightly controlled circumstances, including the fact that I never pointed said gun at anything that moved. Even in those circumstances, I was a little afraid. I had pure respect and terror for the raw power of the object in my hands to end a life.
I can understand how someone who feels that way might want to take all guns off the street. But their thinking never goes beyond that. Those who mean well literally stop with "remove guns", believing that this will prevent gun violence. Being against gun violence is something anyone with a conscience simply must be, and it's easy to fall into the fallacy of believing that being against gun violence must also mean that you're against gun ownership.
The problem is that meaning well isn't the same as producing good results. The simple, practical, bare fact is that removing guns from the street will not reduce gun violence, and in fact will make things worse.
It's become an oft-repeated phrase that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Because the phrase is repeated so often, it's easy for liberals to dismiss it as an out-dated "old wives' tale" or something like that. But it's true. Gun violence is ALWAYS caused by people who have no regard for the law (any many had mental issues as well). And until the day comes when there's an outbreak of gun violence at a police convention, NRA meeting or gun show, you simply cannot say that gun violence is caused by people who love guns. In fact, some of the most gun-responsible people, some of those who know gun safety inside and out, are the very people I just named.
In the imagination of liberals, the more people who are allowed to own guns, the more there will be accidental shootings, or people who have always been gun-happy will simply get more so, and turn into full-fledged maniacs. They imagine a world where EVERYBODY has a gun, and therefore EVERYBODY IS SHOOTING EVERYBODY ELSE!! And these are just the ones that mean well!
The problem? Reality shows different. The areas of the United States where gun control is loosest, where nearly any citizen can be armed anywhere they choose to be, are without fail the areas where gun violence is lowest. Imagine that; a large number of gun owners does not equal a large number of trigger-happy freaks shooting each other.
For that matter, I'm not an old man but within my lifetime, gun ownership has fallen per capita, gun laws have gotten more and more strict, and yet gun violence has risen. How could that be possible, if the liberal take on this had even a grain of truth?
The fact is, gun violence has risen because criminals who would use guns for crime or violence feel more free to do so knowing that there is a very tiny chance the person they're attacking will be able to defend themselves. Hanging up a sign that says "This is a Gun Free Zone" is tantamount to telling criminals "Come here and shoot us all you like!" A person who would use a gun to hurt someone else is NOT a person who's going to care that there's a sign up.
Of course, this doesn't stop liberals from having their fantasies. I recall an episode of Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman (has there ever been a more liberal show) wherein Dr. Quinn's adopted son is elected sheriff of their town, and in the same episode an outlaw ends up shooting the town's bartender. Because of this ONE SHOOTING (I should remind everyone that this show takes place in the old west), the town votes to outlaw guns. Yup. In this case, they don't even let the sheriff himself have one. Realistic writing, there.
But it gets worse. This outlaw comes back, and is met by the sheriff in the town square. The sheriff says guns aren't allowed in their town, and that he has to turn his over, or leave. The criminal threatens to shoot him dead, and the sheriff tells him he can try, if he likes, but then he'll have to go through the entire town to do so. Seeing the angry looks of the townsfolk, who are each and every one of them inside houses, looking out of windows, the criminal mutters something like "You win this round" and then turns around and leaves!
WTF?! In real life, this criminal would mow down the sheriff and then pick off anyone who left those houses, one by one. It would be fish in a barrel. But to the liberals who run that show, that's how they envision a world where no one is allowed to have a gun; that their "moral high ground" will win. No, unfortunately it won't.
The fact is that if a criminal has a gun, and knows you don't, he won't hesitate to use it on you should he feel he needs to. Conversely, the more he believes you might have a gun, the less likely he is to risk attacking you, knowing you could shoot him just as easily.
Now, I know people are going to bring up the Trayvon Martin case, specifically that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. They see this as another case of a trigger-happy gun-owner murdering a defenseless boy. The problem is that according to EVERYONE who witnessed the event, Martin WAS the attacker, and likely attacked because he was a cocky young thug who was sure that Zimmerman either didn't have a gun or didn't have the guts to use it if he did. And he likely thought that due to the anti-gun messages he likely heard everywhere. Martin, again, according to witnesses, rushed Zimmerman, threw him to the ground, straddled him, and started banging his head against the pavement, and punching him in the face, all while yelling "You're going to die today". Zimmerman managed to reach his gun and fired in self-defense. If he had not been armed, Zimmerman would be dead, and Trayvon Martin would be a murderer (likely never caught or convicted).
But what do liberals advocate in the wake of such a thing? Make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to get guns. NOT make it easier to defend themselves against people who would break the law; make it harder to do so. Why? Why do they never understand that this is where it simply must lead?
They can't even answer the question on the most basic level; how do you expect to enforce gun laws on people who don't follow the law? What makes you expect that laws against guns would actually take guns off the street? Do they also feel that laws prohibiting cocaine and heroin have successfully made those drugs impossible to get hold of?
But they don't ask those questions. All they want to talk about is how best to get rid of guns. All they can do is spit questions back at us: "Why do you NEED a gun?" "What types of firearms do you think SHOULD be banned? Automatic? Semi-automatic?" They don't want to dialogue about it; they just can't get off the train of thought that guns simply MUST be banned, and that will reduce gun violence.
Now, I've said a lot about people like this who mean well. Many of them probably do just want to end gun violence. They've latched onto a completely wrong-headed method of doing so, but at least their hearts are in the right place. But there's another level to this. When politicians start talking about banning guns, everyone should be very, very worried.
There are politicians out there who are seriously proposing anti-gun legislation. They don't want stricter gun laws; they want to outlaw guns. Oh, not for the police or military, obviously. Just private citizens. Which means, not only will criminals still have guns, but the government will now be the only ones who have fire-power to back up their stance.
Do you know what you call it when the only people who can carry guns are those directly authorized by the government to do so?
A dictatorship.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Destroy and Replace the Media. Now.
The so-called "mainstream" media is a huge problem in America. In fact, it's THE problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He's just a symptom. If we could somehow prove that Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense (he's guilty of several) or that the election was won by voter fraud (I'm near certain it was), it wouldn't matter. Obama would face no consequences because A) his party is behind him 110% and B) the media will cover for him and blame Republicans like nobody's business.
The narrative in the United States is driven not by politicians, not by activists, not by protestors. It is driven by the media; print media, online media, televised media, big-screen media, music media, you name it. And I mean both "serious" news/journalism and entertainment. Every day, in some way or another, we are bombarded my liberal messages. Even if we're just watching TV, every TV show has a political angle, even those that would seem innocuous.
They're a huge part of the problem and we need to replace them. But in this post I'm gonna focus on tactics used primarily by today's "news" media. They claim to be objective (Except MSNBC, but most people don't really take them seriously). They claim they're just reporting the stories that "matter", that are "news-worthy". Of course, it is they, not the public, that decides what's "news-worthy." If Bush had been president when Benghazi happened, it would be the word on everyone's lips. However, hardly anyone knows about it, or even what we know happened, because the media won't talk about it. The same stories that the media wouldn't shut up about during Bush's term can't be touched by the same media during Obama's term. "Bush's war" killed some innocents in the crossfire? Horrific war crimes! Obama's drone strikes are killing innocents? Oh, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs; there's no story there. Bush "ignored" a briefing that could have prevented 9/11 (even though it could not have)? Bush is the real terrorist! Obama ignored repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi, numerous reports of terrorist activity there, and then acted as if the terrorist strike was a "spontaneous uprising" spurred by a little-seen, silly little youtube video? No story there, either, apparently.
But by now, when it comes to how Republicans are covered by the media, we all know their major tricks. They call us racists. They disparage our motives. They question our party history, apparently confusing historic Democrats for historic Republicans. Then they talk about how older Republicans of yesteryear were the true moderates, and that they wouldn't have been allowed in the party today.
But they have also begun (or could have been doing for years) lobbing a bunch of accusations or tactics against Republicans, especially those campaigning for some office or other, that just plain shouldn't work, but apparently do. These include accusations that aren't scandalous at all (or wouldn't be if it was a Democrat), or accusations of wrong-doing committed by a person not even connected to this politician. Here are just a few:
"You're rich." Code term meaning "You can't relate to the common man." The irony that most of Hollywood and the national music scene is pro-Democrat is apparently lost on any who would dare utter this ridiculous phrase. And just to show how out of touch the Democrats really are, I have heard actors, directors, singers, etc. utter those words about Republicans. Because Will Smith, Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand sure can relate to the common man. Yes, sir. Of course, even just on its face that phrase is asinine. Name a governor, senator or congressman whose income is "middle class" or average. Not only aren't there any, but seven of the top ten richest members of congress are...Democrats.
"You're white." Politics has been a Whites Only club for most of America's history--on BOTH sides. It's been within my lifetime that the face of politics is changing to include more than just one or two minorities here and there, and that's a great, wonderful thing. Or, it would be, if minority politicians didn't feel the need to play racial politics with literally every issue. Issues that have nothing at all to do with race now bring accusations of racial hatred...as long as it's a REPUBLICAN politician who's talking about them. Suddenly, talking about "Chicago", "apartments", "food stamps", "work ethic", "the constitution", et al, are racial "dog whistles". And now we've reached the point where simply being white is enough to get somebody demonizing you. Again, only if it's a Republican. Allen West lost to whiter-than-white-bread Patrick Murphy. Think even once Murphy was asked about his racial motivations for running against a black man, or that his skin color was even brought up? Nope. Now, how often were Romney and Ryan accused of racism for being white men who dared run against Obama? If you answered "every time their name was brought up in the MSM", well, duh.
"You're old." Again, like there aren't any old Democrats? For some reason, 70-year-old white man Joe Biden can, with a straight face, call the Republicans the party of old, white men. This man plans to run for president in 2016. He's said so. He'll be nearly 74 years old. That's older than John McCain was during his 2008 presidential campaign. You know, the one where the press couldn't stop bringing up his advanced age? I guarantee that even if Biden runs against a man young enough to be his son, no one in the press will bring up his age. Hell, Robert Byrd was in his 90's, and no one suggested he should give up his senate seat. Some even suggested he should run for president himself. Age only seems to matter if you're a Republican.
"You're a man." Yet again, an issue that only seems to come up when the politician or public figure in question is a Republican or conservative. It's all just a way to keep saying, even though no one really believes this, that the Republican Party is the party of "old white men." There are just as many women in the Republican Party as there are in the Democratic Party, but you'd never know it from media coverage. Any time a female Republican makes the news, the media act as if they've never seen one of these before. Despite the fact that they have to act like that several times a year.
"You're a devout christian." Ask most Democrats what religion they are, and the answer you'll get is some form of Christianity. No, I'm not suggesting that there are no atheists on their side, and in fact I think most of those who answer that they are Christians are lying in order to get votes, or answering with the name of the religion they were raised in that they haven't practiced in years. BUT! I would wager the same is true for a number of Republicans. Despite that, for some reason the religion of Republicans is a Big Deal. This is because it is true that more Republicans live their professed faith than Democrats, but by no means do they all, not to mention that Democrats are never called on how they aren't living their faith. Democrats who claim Christianity, whether they live it or not, are just fine. Republicans who do EXACTLY THE SAME are dangerous because they're "devout christians" who apparently wish to institute a theocracy and take us back to the "dark ages" (that only exist in liberal nightmares) where you can go to jail for not being a christian, or where women were kept in cages and raped by husbands who bought them, or something.
"Someone in your party said or did something bad. Repudiate it, or you're just as guilty as if you said or did it yourself." This guilt by association trick can apparently only be applied to Republicans. When Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock gave ill-advised, poorly phrased and, in Akin's case, just plain wrong statements regarding their views on rape, the media reacted with their typical selective outrage. The same media that glossed over Robert Byrd's "white n----rs" comment jumped on these two men for comments that were, ultimately, just badly put versions of the following idea: "Obviously rape is a horrible thing and we can understand why a woman who is put through that might not want to keep a child that could result from such an attack, but I feel that it is commendable for a woman to allow the child to be born, so that something good like a new life can grow from something horrible and criminal." Would that have been acceptable to the pro-choice crowd? Not on your life. Would it have made it easier to take their side? Unquestionably. However, because of how stupidly phrased the responses were, many began calling for them to drop out of the race. Quite a few people, even people I know personally, and who are usually smart, actually thought Romney didn't "condemn strongly enough" those statements. Apparently calling Akin directly and telling him to drop out (which Romney did) isn't enough of a condemnation. Of course, the media didn't care if Romney repudiated those comments or not. All they cared about was linking him to them, which they successfully did. Of course, when liberals rallied in support of Anthony "Shows Underage Girls His" Weiner, no one worried that not distancing themselves from him would hurt their own careers. When the media goes after a politician demanding he say or do something to condemn a member of his own party caught doing or saying something stupid, you can bet that politician is a Republican in the midst of a campaign, and you can guarantee that if he doesn't repudiate the other politician, or doesn't do so "strongly enough", which means whatever liberals want it to mean, they will claim that he's as guilty as if he had done it himself (ergo, Romney/Ryan were "pro-rape"). However, if they DO repudiate the person to the media's satisfaction, then:
"You repudiated what someone in your party said. Your party is hopelessly divided and cannot sustain itself." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"Someone in your party is corrupt, ergo your party is corrupt. Ergo you are corrupt. Prove us wrong." Sometimes the media takes it this far. If they can prove that a Republican, or even just a rich guy who donated to at least one Republican campaign at one time in his life (even if he also donated to Democrats), is corrupt, or dishonest, or whatever, then that one action taints the whole party--but only the Republican Party. Obama's complete campaign donor list remains a mystery. Who might we find on it if we were to ever see it? It's widely believed, even by many Democrats, that he received foreign campaign mony. But for some reason, if it is even suspected that a Republican candidate might have received foreign campaign contributions, instantly that person is called corrupt. Therefore, anyone in that party, including the man running for president, must also be corrupt. Then we are put in a position where we have to prove a negative. It's like the phrase "So, Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?" Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the media never puts leftist candidates in that position. Using the Anthony Weiner example again; no one in the media, at any time, asked Weiner to prove it wasn't him that sent those pictures. That would have been the first question he was asked, had he been Republican.
"Your campaign has gone negative, and is being unfair and hateful." I can see this one, actually. After all, Romney accused Obama of giving a woman cancer, of out-sourcing jobs, and of not paying his taxes. Paul Ryan accused Joe Biden of wanting to kill grannies, and later, while speaking with a feigned southern accent, told a group of African Americans that the Obama campaign "gonna put y'all back in chains!" The Romney campaign accused Obama of waging a "war on women" due to their stance on the religious freedom of groups who were anti-contraception...oh, wait. I accidentally switched the names. All those actions were committed by the Obama campaign against the Romney campaign. But which campaign was accused by the media of "going negative?" That's right; Romney's. Romney was up against one of the most angry, divisive, negative campaigns the USA has ever seen, but when he called the Obama campaign out about this behavior, the media called him, yes, angry, divisive and negative. Oh, the irony.
"You're a minority, but still a member of this party. This means you're out of touch with racial issues, and the country itself." Woe betide any woman or visible minority who dares be a Republican. This statement is an obvious attempt to shame such people away from the party, or at least the public eye. Again, irony of ironies, despite the fact that the Republican party has done nothing--not one thing--that could be considered racist, other than exist, which is bad enough, apparently, they are repeatedly accused of racism (and sexism). So how to explain why we have women and minorities in our party? These people have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, apparently, or just refuse to see the racial and gender issues plaguing this country, caused by evil Republicans. I've said lots about this before, and I won't go over it all again, but it just seems odd that no one has picked up on this; first they try and scare women and minorities away from us, then they accuse us of not doing enough to reach out to these groups. Even scarier; a lot of Republicans are falling for it.
"You've spent a ton of money on this campaign. You must be trying to buy the election." Politicians spend money to win elections. That's a fact, sure as water is wet. Obama out-spent McCain in 2008, and he won. But not one word was said about him "buying" the election. This time, despite how much attention was focused on Romney's campaign spending, not one outlet reported that, although it was a narrower margin, ultimately Obama spent more than Romney. So who really bought this election?
"You are playing politics with serious issues." This whole statement, from beginning to end, is surely facetious. Surely there's no one out there who truly believes the party most guilty of "playing politics" (which is another ambiguous term that means whatever the left wants it to mean) is the Republicans. Surely not. We're talking about a party who killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have improved international relations AND created jobs, because their green-energy backers might get mad.
"You are far too focused on social issues." This is hilarious, because Romney was accused of this just as much as Bush or any other right-wing politician ever was. What was the focus of the Romney campaign? Jobs and the economy. What was the focus of the Obama campaign? Well, winning, and at any cost, which included bombarding Romney and Ryan with repeated questions about their stances on rape, abortion, contraception or gay marriage. Neither man had much to say about them because they understood that America's economy was in the toilet and that was what was important. So who was focused on social issues?
"You have aligned yourself with protestors, which makes you dangerous and unstable." This is true if you're a Republican and have in any way been associated with the Tea Party. This is NOT true if you're a Democrat and have openly supported the Occupy movement.
The narrative in the United States is driven not by politicians, not by activists, not by protestors. It is driven by the media; print media, online media, televised media, big-screen media, music media, you name it. And I mean both "serious" news/journalism and entertainment. Every day, in some way or another, we are bombarded my liberal messages. Even if we're just watching TV, every TV show has a political angle, even those that would seem innocuous.
They're a huge part of the problem and we need to replace them. But in this post I'm gonna focus on tactics used primarily by today's "news" media. They claim to be objective (Except MSNBC, but most people don't really take them seriously). They claim they're just reporting the stories that "matter", that are "news-worthy". Of course, it is they, not the public, that decides what's "news-worthy." If Bush had been president when Benghazi happened, it would be the word on everyone's lips. However, hardly anyone knows about it, or even what we know happened, because the media won't talk about it. The same stories that the media wouldn't shut up about during Bush's term can't be touched by the same media during Obama's term. "Bush's war" killed some innocents in the crossfire? Horrific war crimes! Obama's drone strikes are killing innocents? Oh, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs; there's no story there. Bush "ignored" a briefing that could have prevented 9/11 (even though it could not have)? Bush is the real terrorist! Obama ignored repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi, numerous reports of terrorist activity there, and then acted as if the terrorist strike was a "spontaneous uprising" spurred by a little-seen, silly little youtube video? No story there, either, apparently.
But by now, when it comes to how Republicans are covered by the media, we all know their major tricks. They call us racists. They disparage our motives. They question our party history, apparently confusing historic Democrats for historic Republicans. Then they talk about how older Republicans of yesteryear were the true moderates, and that they wouldn't have been allowed in the party today.
But they have also begun (or could have been doing for years) lobbing a bunch of accusations or tactics against Republicans, especially those campaigning for some office or other, that just plain shouldn't work, but apparently do. These include accusations that aren't scandalous at all (or wouldn't be if it was a Democrat), or accusations of wrong-doing committed by a person not even connected to this politician. Here are just a few:
"You're rich." Code term meaning "You can't relate to the common man." The irony that most of Hollywood and the national music scene is pro-Democrat is apparently lost on any who would dare utter this ridiculous phrase. And just to show how out of touch the Democrats really are, I have heard actors, directors, singers, etc. utter those words about Republicans. Because Will Smith, Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand sure can relate to the common man. Yes, sir. Of course, even just on its face that phrase is asinine. Name a governor, senator or congressman whose income is "middle class" or average. Not only aren't there any, but seven of the top ten richest members of congress are...Democrats.
"You're white." Politics has been a Whites Only club for most of America's history--on BOTH sides. It's been within my lifetime that the face of politics is changing to include more than just one or two minorities here and there, and that's a great, wonderful thing. Or, it would be, if minority politicians didn't feel the need to play racial politics with literally every issue. Issues that have nothing at all to do with race now bring accusations of racial hatred...as long as it's a REPUBLICAN politician who's talking about them. Suddenly, talking about "Chicago", "apartments", "food stamps", "work ethic", "the constitution", et al, are racial "dog whistles". And now we've reached the point where simply being white is enough to get somebody demonizing you. Again, only if it's a Republican. Allen West lost to whiter-than-white-bread Patrick Murphy. Think even once Murphy was asked about his racial motivations for running against a black man, or that his skin color was even brought up? Nope. Now, how often were Romney and Ryan accused of racism for being white men who dared run against Obama? If you answered "every time their name was brought up in the MSM", well, duh.
"You're old." Again, like there aren't any old Democrats? For some reason, 70-year-old white man Joe Biden can, with a straight face, call the Republicans the party of old, white men. This man plans to run for president in 2016. He's said so. He'll be nearly 74 years old. That's older than John McCain was during his 2008 presidential campaign. You know, the one where the press couldn't stop bringing up his advanced age? I guarantee that even if Biden runs against a man young enough to be his son, no one in the press will bring up his age. Hell, Robert Byrd was in his 90's, and no one suggested he should give up his senate seat. Some even suggested he should run for president himself. Age only seems to matter if you're a Republican.
"You're a man." Yet again, an issue that only seems to come up when the politician or public figure in question is a Republican or conservative. It's all just a way to keep saying, even though no one really believes this, that the Republican Party is the party of "old white men." There are just as many women in the Republican Party as there are in the Democratic Party, but you'd never know it from media coverage. Any time a female Republican makes the news, the media act as if they've never seen one of these before. Despite the fact that they have to act like that several times a year.
"You're a devout christian." Ask most Democrats what religion they are, and the answer you'll get is some form of Christianity. No, I'm not suggesting that there are no atheists on their side, and in fact I think most of those who answer that they are Christians are lying in order to get votes, or answering with the name of the religion they were raised in that they haven't practiced in years. BUT! I would wager the same is true for a number of Republicans. Despite that, for some reason the religion of Republicans is a Big Deal. This is because it is true that more Republicans live their professed faith than Democrats, but by no means do they all, not to mention that Democrats are never called on how they aren't living their faith. Democrats who claim Christianity, whether they live it or not, are just fine. Republicans who do EXACTLY THE SAME are dangerous because they're "devout christians" who apparently wish to institute a theocracy and take us back to the "dark ages" (that only exist in liberal nightmares) where you can go to jail for not being a christian, or where women were kept in cages and raped by husbands who bought them, or something.
"Someone in your party said or did something bad. Repudiate it, or you're just as guilty as if you said or did it yourself." This guilt by association trick can apparently only be applied to Republicans. When Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock gave ill-advised, poorly phrased and, in Akin's case, just plain wrong statements regarding their views on rape, the media reacted with their typical selective outrage. The same media that glossed over Robert Byrd's "white n----rs" comment jumped on these two men for comments that were, ultimately, just badly put versions of the following idea: "Obviously rape is a horrible thing and we can understand why a woman who is put through that might not want to keep a child that could result from such an attack, but I feel that it is commendable for a woman to allow the child to be born, so that something good like a new life can grow from something horrible and criminal." Would that have been acceptable to the pro-choice crowd? Not on your life. Would it have made it easier to take their side? Unquestionably. However, because of how stupidly phrased the responses were, many began calling for them to drop out of the race. Quite a few people, even people I know personally, and who are usually smart, actually thought Romney didn't "condemn strongly enough" those statements. Apparently calling Akin directly and telling him to drop out (which Romney did) isn't enough of a condemnation. Of course, the media didn't care if Romney repudiated those comments or not. All they cared about was linking him to them, which they successfully did. Of course, when liberals rallied in support of Anthony "Shows Underage Girls His" Weiner, no one worried that not distancing themselves from him would hurt their own careers. When the media goes after a politician demanding he say or do something to condemn a member of his own party caught doing or saying something stupid, you can bet that politician is a Republican in the midst of a campaign, and you can guarantee that if he doesn't repudiate the other politician, or doesn't do so "strongly enough", which means whatever liberals want it to mean, they will claim that he's as guilty as if he had done it himself (ergo, Romney/Ryan were "pro-rape"). However, if they DO repudiate the person to the media's satisfaction, then:
"You repudiated what someone in your party said. Your party is hopelessly divided and cannot sustain itself." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"Someone in your party is corrupt, ergo your party is corrupt. Ergo you are corrupt. Prove us wrong." Sometimes the media takes it this far. If they can prove that a Republican, or even just a rich guy who donated to at least one Republican campaign at one time in his life (even if he also donated to Democrats), is corrupt, or dishonest, or whatever, then that one action taints the whole party--but only the Republican Party. Obama's complete campaign donor list remains a mystery. Who might we find on it if we were to ever see it? It's widely believed, even by many Democrats, that he received foreign campaign mony. But for some reason, if it is even suspected that a Republican candidate might have received foreign campaign contributions, instantly that person is called corrupt. Therefore, anyone in that party, including the man running for president, must also be corrupt. Then we are put in a position where we have to prove a negative. It's like the phrase "So, Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?" Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the media never puts leftist candidates in that position. Using the Anthony Weiner example again; no one in the media, at any time, asked Weiner to prove it wasn't him that sent those pictures. That would have been the first question he was asked, had he been Republican.
"Your campaign has gone negative, and is being unfair and hateful." I can see this one, actually. After all, Romney accused Obama of giving a woman cancer, of out-sourcing jobs, and of not paying his taxes. Paul Ryan accused Joe Biden of wanting to kill grannies, and later, while speaking with a feigned southern accent, told a group of African Americans that the Obama campaign "gonna put y'all back in chains!" The Romney campaign accused Obama of waging a "war on women" due to their stance on the religious freedom of groups who were anti-contraception...oh, wait. I accidentally switched the names. All those actions were committed by the Obama campaign against the Romney campaign. But which campaign was accused by the media of "going negative?" That's right; Romney's. Romney was up against one of the most angry, divisive, negative campaigns the USA has ever seen, but when he called the Obama campaign out about this behavior, the media called him, yes, angry, divisive and negative. Oh, the irony.
"You're a minority, but still a member of this party. This means you're out of touch with racial issues, and the country itself." Woe betide any woman or visible minority who dares be a Republican. This statement is an obvious attempt to shame such people away from the party, or at least the public eye. Again, irony of ironies, despite the fact that the Republican party has done nothing--not one thing--that could be considered racist, other than exist, which is bad enough, apparently, they are repeatedly accused of racism (and sexism). So how to explain why we have women and minorities in our party? These people have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, apparently, or just refuse to see the racial and gender issues plaguing this country, caused by evil Republicans. I've said lots about this before, and I won't go over it all again, but it just seems odd that no one has picked up on this; first they try and scare women and minorities away from us, then they accuse us of not doing enough to reach out to these groups. Even scarier; a lot of Republicans are falling for it.
"You've spent a ton of money on this campaign. You must be trying to buy the election." Politicians spend money to win elections. That's a fact, sure as water is wet. Obama out-spent McCain in 2008, and he won. But not one word was said about him "buying" the election. This time, despite how much attention was focused on Romney's campaign spending, not one outlet reported that, although it was a narrower margin, ultimately Obama spent more than Romney. So who really bought this election?
"You are playing politics with serious issues." This whole statement, from beginning to end, is surely facetious. Surely there's no one out there who truly believes the party most guilty of "playing politics" (which is another ambiguous term that means whatever the left wants it to mean) is the Republicans. Surely not. We're talking about a party who killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have improved international relations AND created jobs, because their green-energy backers might get mad.
"You are far too focused on social issues." This is hilarious, because Romney was accused of this just as much as Bush or any other right-wing politician ever was. What was the focus of the Romney campaign? Jobs and the economy. What was the focus of the Obama campaign? Well, winning, and at any cost, which included bombarding Romney and Ryan with repeated questions about their stances on rape, abortion, contraception or gay marriage. Neither man had much to say about them because they understood that America's economy was in the toilet and that was what was important. So who was focused on social issues?
"You have aligned yourself with protestors, which makes you dangerous and unstable." This is true if you're a Republican and have in any way been associated with the Tea Party. This is NOT true if you're a Democrat and have openly supported the Occupy movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)