Posted on 02/10/2008 6:24:42 AM PST by jdm
**EXCERPT**
Super Tuesday's over and there were no absolute winners - until Mitt Romney dropped out of the race.
Nonetheless, even before Romney withdrew and McCain, in effect, became his party's nominee, we might as well have canceled the rest of the primaries and caucuses, since the media had already decided that this year's standard bearers would be John McCain and Barack Obama.
Yes, somewhere along the line, the role of the media has changed from reporting on the primaries to deciding the primaries. They pick their favorites, they give them preferential treatment, they tear down their opponents, and they anoint their winning candidates even before voters go to the polls.
Step one occurs early in the primary process, when network executives decide which candidates get covered and which ones don't. Among Republicans, too bad for Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter. Once the media suits decided they weren't serious candidates, they got no media attention, which resulted in their never being taken seriously.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocala.com ...
Damn!
Thank you, McCain/Feingold.
If the media had stayed with Hillary as the “chosen one” Bill Press would have had no problem.
Bill Press is an idiot. Tell me you knew.
Did the media pick the winners, or did the GOP Establishment pick the winner by moving the primaries up?
Who actually did THAT?
Moving the primaries up had to be decided by SOMEONE. If that can be changed at the GOP Convention this summer, then Conservatives need to band together to change that.
If the process can be changed for 2008, it can be changed back to the way it was for 2012.
Let’s find out who is responsible and MAKE THE CANGES.
(I am asking because I honestly don’t know.)
‘The media picks the winners’
This is news?
It would be news if the MSM picked it up and broadcast it...but we know that ain’t gonna happen.
his panties are in a wad because Hillary is losing.
If we vote for the opposite of who they pick, we will be all right.
That is exactly right. The voters did not have a chance to get to know the candidates. The Primary Season was from January to February, instead of giving us until June to see how how the various candidates performed under campaign pressure.
Would be interesting to see what the votes are on the absentee ballots, especially since many of them were cast before several candidates dropped out.
Also, I wonder how many current voters know that some of their choices are no longer running.
I can’t believe all those still voting for drop outs are doing it in protest of the rest of the ballot.
Response: I agree with this statement. It is happening right before our eyes.
I suspect that it’s more the order of the states that does it. Why start off with purple Iowa and NewHampshire? Start with deep red Utah, Oklahoma,etc.
he’s just pissed because the superdelgates will now make the dem race ugly by nominating hillary.
It sure does.
I think you’re right about the order of voting having an influence, but it’s a bit of both, particularly now that almost all the primaries have been moved up.
The one most likely to be chosen in the liberal states is also the one most likely to be chosen by the press, and when the press gets behind him and pushes, people don’t have much chance to think about it because their own primaries are so early.
Romney was able to stay in and gain some attention because of his private money; Huckabee got very little press time at first and even when the others had dropped out, the press narrowed it to Romney and McCain and simply ignored Huckabee. That’s why they’ve been so stunned by his wins, and the nerve of the fact that people have gone out and voted for somebody they’d tried to ignore.
But basically, it doesn’t matter, because unless there is so much buyer’s remorse among the delegates that something happens at the convention (unlikely), the press has gotten their pick.
As for Osama Obama, I think he’s going to be the candidate, because Bill is such an embarrassing has-been that the press cut him off some time ago and Hillary doesn’t have that much power on her own. And, of course, Hussein Obama’s even more liberal than Hillary, has a very dubious attitude towards our country and the West in general, identifies more with Africa and Muslims than with us, wants government in every part of everybody’s life - so from the press point of view, what’s not to like?
The media never mentions that Bill Clinton was impeached. Can you imagine if Pat Nixon (when she was alive) were running for President? The media would mention every five seconds that he was disgraced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.