Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was watching the Journal Editorial Report like I do every Saturday night and there was Dorothy Rabinowitz calling us little children for not backing Romney. It was deja vu from 2008 when Jack Kemp scolded us for not getting in line and backing McCain who we all knew was a RINO before the Republican Machine (which includes the NY/DC Republican media) "remade" his image to make him seem like a conservative. To his credit, Paul Gigot told her the reason we aren't is because Romney has been all over the place (polite way of saying flip-flopping) on values the grass roots types hold dear but she was having none of it. She did everything but wag her finger at the camera.
I'm telling you, the NY/DC urban Republican media elite are just as bad as the lefties in telling us our candidates are not electable unless it's their chosen candidate. Since Romney is like their 5th choice in princesses (after all of their other choices said "no") to take to the ball, they are all coming out of the woodwork for him now after looking the other way when their Number 1 picks were still on the table. I thought I'd puke when Ann Coulter announced she was for Romney all the way on Hannity's show.
Excellent observation. Except that all media talking heads are bought-and-paid-for shills, whether it's on MSNBC or Fox or from the HuffPost. They are told by their employers whom to support, and those whom they support have made promises to those employers for that support. It's still all about back-room deals, whether in DC or in the "news"room. They tried so hard to whip up enthusiasm about McCain, even though we all knew what he was, we all knew that the media had to be either lying or so naive that they didn't deserve to be on the air.
The thing to remember is simply this - as a whole, college students choose journalism as a field, not because they are potential Woodwards or Bernsteins, wanting to investigate and expose the truth to their readers or viewers, but mainly because a journalism degree does not require difficult study or application, nor any skills other than being able to read, write, and/or speak. You don't need to understand math of any sort, as you do for an engineering, economics, or applied science degree; you don't need to study long books of examples and remember them and their outcomes as you do for medicine or law. Since most 'liberal arts' degrees don't pay the bills, journalism is the only liberal arts degree that offers not only full time gainful employ - but with an agent you can actually get in a job where you can make millions.
This is why no television station or newspaper offers in-depth coverage of economic crises, political individuals, or revealing investigations of 'why'. In the world of "Who, what, when, where and why" only the first four are utlizied in their 30-second sound bytes. They insist that if they do anything more, they lose viewers or readers who "simply cannot understand it" - but the truth is that they do not comprehend it themselves, and don't wish to be revealed as totally ignorant fools in their own media. This is why emotionalism replaces facts, and yellow journalism has become a norm. You can lead the ignorant anywhere, and the journalistic world today is all about leading, not about informing.
Excellent observation. Except that all media talking heads are bought-and-paid-for shills, whether it's on MSNBC or Fox or from the HuffPost. They are told by their employers whom to support, and those whom they support have made promises to those employers for that support. It's still all about back-room deals, whether in DC or in the "news"room. They tried so hard to whip up enthusiasm about McCain, even though we all knew what he was, we all knew that the media had to be either lying or so naive that they didn't deserve to be on the air.
The thing to remember is simply this - as a whole, college students choose journalism as a field, not because they are potential Woodwards or Bernsteins, wanting to investigate and expose the truth to their readers or viewers, but mainly because a journalism degree does not require difficult study or application, nor any skills other than being able to read, write, and/or speak. You don't need to understand math of any sort, as you do for an engineering, economics, or applied science degree; you don't need to study long books of examples and remember them and their outcomes as you do for medicine or law. Since most 'liberal arts' degrees don't pay the bills, journalism is the only liberal arts degree that offers not only full time gainful employ - but with an agent you can actually get in a job where you can make millions.
This is why no television station or newspaper offers in-depth coverage of economic crises, political individuals, or revealing investigations of 'why'. In the world of "Who, what, when, where and why" only the first four are utlizied in their 30-second sound bytes. They insist that if they do anything more, they lose viewers or readers who "simply cannot understand it" - but the truth is that they do not comprehend it themselves, and don't wish to be revealed as totally ignorant fools in their own media. This is why emotionalism replaces facts, and yellow journalism has become a norm. You can lead the ignorant anywhere, and the journalistic world today is all about leading, not about informing.
I know they all need to go back to school on research and polling analysis and the reason that they didn't see economic trouble coming is because they don't know anything about economics. That's why they are glad they have a business channel -- so they don't have to know.
I still think the "analysts" some of the TV stations employ (like Bret Baier's or Chris Wallace's panels, or the regular guest they ask for analysis on the opinion shows) have no actual power in their job. Their power is derived from who they know/who they see on a regular basis as part of their work. Their inclination is to support someone on Capitol Hill or governors or big city mayors that they come in contact with in the NY to DC area corridor. The governor of Texas or New Mexico, for example, is a foreigner (but not Governor GW Bush because they knew his daddy from DC) but the ex-governor of NY (Pataki) is fine by them (even though outside of NY he is an unknown) and his trial balloon was floated as was Mayor Bloomberg's, of all people. Rudy Giuliani, another great hope for the New York media. Trump got a lot of play. George Allen (Va) was once their fair haired boy until he imploded a few years back. Ryan, Christie...all within that NY - DC area corridor.
They had to be dragged to Romney, otherwise, why not support him when he first declared his candidacy instead of wooing everybody else when he was right in front of them and running? Now he's their Fairy Princess comining to save us all from our "unelectable" candidates which they will make sure are unelectable by telling us every chance they get and pointing out flaws. Let's see how often they mention Romney's flip flops over the years or actually compare Romneycare to Obamacare. I bet they don't but they sure pointed out Romney's flip flops when McCain was their boyfriend. Now it's swept under the rug.
Herman Cain is not a New York businessman. That's the real problem they have with him. His not one of the group. They don't know him. They are seeing the polls, are frightened and are pounding on his so-called unelectability. When he was in single digits, they didn't care. He was just good TV. They keep reminding you how much cash he has and that his 9-9-9 plan is too simple (like in it's nice and simple for us rubes) only it turns out it's been around for awhile with prestigious economist support before he zeroed in on it. They don't like his campaign organization and repeatedly mention it...because we always pick our candidates based on how quickly they return calls from the media. He was in my state, Tennessee, this past weekend but they could not understand why he isn't in Iowa or New Hampshire. Didn't he check with them, first?
Rick Perry's problem is he is too Texas as if governing a low cost of living, right to work state that attracts jobs is somehow problematic for people in NY/DC. Maybe Texas has a lot of low paying jobs but it's because you can live more cheaply there than their expensive COL states. Besides have they bothered to take a look at who makes up the unemployed, these days? It isn't college graduates. What do they know about energy, anyway? It takes a scandal to get them to talk about energy because their understanding of it is right up there with economics. You know, Perry "swaggers." Let's call attention to his cowboy boots or that he owns a gun or that he prays or that his "funny accent" makes him sound dumb. Not living in a border state, they have all kinds of opinions on how illegal immigration should be handled but they can't see it from their house and don't let that stop them from being critical. And nobody points out that debating is not a Presidential activity. It's only an activity of a candidate.
Ron Paul scares the crappola out of them and they want to make sure you think he should scare the crappola out of you. Ron Paul actually does the business shows but the loudmouth opinion jockeys on the non-business shows who don't know squat about the federal reserve, business or the deficit know he knows more than they do.
I think they actually like Santorum seeing as how he used to be a regular guest on Fox News and he worked on Capitol Hill (near them). They keep telling us how well he does after every debate. I just think they know he's going nowhere and why waste their time...unless he has a sudden surge. Then I predict they'll be all over him like white on rice.
Michele Bachmann? On Capitol Hill but doesn't hang with them.
Gingrich? They should love him but they keep pounding home his "baggage" and the way he runs his campaign (because doncha know, we always vote for the guy with the best run campaign that answers the media's phone calls when they ring him up). Maybe because he's no longer on Capitol Hill and they can't derive any personal benefit by smooching him now, so they've soured on him.
She said what I have been thinking for several weeks now and I am not being paid to say or think anything. The Tea Party, as it is today, is a very destructive force to the GOP. They are probably going to cost us this election. They really are like spoiled children who don't like anything just to be obstinate. The problem is, the candidates they are getting on board with, are not any more 'conservative' than anyone else and they are not neccessarily the best candidates to do what needs to be done.
I know they all need to go back to school on research and polling analysis and the reason that they didn't see economic trouble coming is because they don't know anything about economics. That's why they are glad they have a business channel -- so they don't have to know.
I still think the "analysts" some of the TV stations employ (like Bret Baier's or Chris Wallace's panels, or the regular guest they ask for analysis on the opinion shows) have no actual power in their job. Their power is derived from who they know/who they see on a regular basis as part of their work. Their inclination is to support someone on Capitol Hill or governors or big city mayors that they come in contact with in the NY to DC area corridor. The governor of Texas or New Mexico, for example, is a foreigner (but not Governor GW Bush because they knew his daddy from DC) but the ex-governor of NY (Pataki) is fine by them (even though outside of NY he is an unknown) and his trial balloon was floated as was Mayor Bloomberg's, of all people. Rudy Giuliani, another great hope for the New York media. Trump got a lot of play. George Allen (Va) was once their fair haired boy until he imploded a few years back. Ryan, Christie...all within that NY - DC area corridor.
They had to be dragged to Romney, otherwise, why not support him when he first declared his candidacy instead of wooing everybody else when he was right in front of them and running? Now he's their Fairy Princess comining to save us all from our "unelectable" candidates which they will make sure are unelectable by telling us every chance they get and pointing out flaws. Let's see how often they mention Romney's flip flops over the years or actually compare Romneycare to Obamacare. I bet they don't but they sure pointed out Romney's flip flops when McCain was their boyfriend. Now it's swept under the rug.
Herman Cain is not a New York businessman. That's the real problem they have with him. His not one of the group. They don't know him. They are seeing the polls, are frightened and are pounding on his so-called unelectability. When he was in single digits, they didn't care. He was just good TV. They keep reminding you how much cash he has and that his 9-9-9 plan is too simple (like in it's nice and simple for us rubes) only it turns out it's been around for awhile with prestigious economist support before he zeroed in on it. They don't like his campaign organization and repeatedly mention it...because we always pick our candidates based on how quickly they return calls from the media. He was in my state, Tennessee, this past weekend but they could not understand why he isn't in Iowa or New Hampshire. Didn't he check with them, first?
Rick Perry's problem is he is too Texas as if governing a low cost of living, right to work state that attracts jobs is somehow problematic for people in NY/DC. Maybe Texas has a lot of low paying jobs but it's because you can live more cheaply there than their expensive COL states. Besides have they bothered to take a look at who makes up the unemployed, these days? It isn't college graduates. What do they know about energy, anyway? It takes a scandal to get them to talk about energy because their understanding of it is right up there with economics. You know, Perry "swaggers." Let's call attention to his cowboy boots or that he owns a gun or that he prays or that his "funny accent" makes him sound dumb. Not living in a border state, they have all kinds of opinions on how illegal immigration should be handled but they can't see it from their house and don't let that stop them from being critical. And nobody points out that debating is not a Presidential activity. It's only an activity of a candidate.
Ron Paul scares the crappola out of them and they want to make sure you think he should scare the crappola out of you. Ron Paul actually does the business shows but the loudmouth opinion jockeys on the non-business shows who don't know squat about the federal reserve, business or the deficit know he knows more than they do.
I think they actually like Santorum seeing as how he used to be a regular guest on Fox News and he worked on Capitol Hill (near them). They keep telling us how well he does after every debate. I just think they know he's going nowhere and why waste their time...unless he has a sudden surge. Then I predict they'll be all over him like white on rice.
Michele Bachmann? On Capitol Hill but doesn't hang with them.
Gingrich? They should love him but they keep pounding home his "baggage" and the way he runs his campaign (because doncha know, we always vote for the guy with the best run campaign that answers the media's phone calls when they ring him up). Maybe because he's no longer on Capitol Hill and they can't derive any personal benefit by smooching him now, so they've soured on him.
Very few on Fox News have been in support of Romney. They have tried everything they can to revive Perry's chances and still are. Now they are singing Cain's praises constantly. I can count on one hand how many are actually positive about Romney, which is crazy imo.
Not everyone is going to hate Mitt Romney just because you do. He makes a lot of sense for the nominee to logical thinking people. Herman Cain is a nice man and I am sure he is very intelligent in what he knows, but he is not ready to lead the naiton. The prospects of that are really sort of scary.
Rick Perry has as many or more flaws as Romney upon closer inspection and to be honest, he just doesn't seem very smart. He comes off as some one who just thinks he should be the nominee...because he is Rick Perry. That isn't going to cut it. You can't say he isn't cutting it because of his accent or because of his religon any more than you can say Romney isn't liked because he is a Mormon or he is rich or because Herman Cain is black.
Romney has proven he is willing to sign legislation that directly contradicts the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. He supports large government and government run health care. If that isn't a RINO then what qualifies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was in my state, Tennessee, this past weekend but they could not understand why he isn't in Iowa or New Hampshire. Didn't he check with them, first? 
