Like you, I too want the very best for our country. What do I know? I think Christopher Hitchen's (most recent article) has humorously nailed it. Obama's got "connections". And while some posit that some of the other GOP Presidential contenders were better, more principled, less principle, the entire lot was lousy, etc., what matters, ultimately, is how the camera (the media) presents or allows presentation.
Every last one of the GOP Candidates was good, and has good connections, not just within the US, but worldwide. But how were these candidates presented? Do we have a conservative PRESS? We have a few. The vast majority of the "handlers" (Media) are Democrats and Liberals.
Asserting that one is going to vote 3rd candidate is more a rejection of the Media, as far as political statements go; and of course the Media thinks such a vote is more grist for humor.
The idea of the "media" electing a candidate is, actually, a far more involved matter. It has everything to do with what types of connections a candidate has (worldwide); and what has been the past record on how a candidate might lend itself favorably to what interests the media the most.
Those who assert to not vote, are simply handing the Liberal Media a sanction: to continue to do what they do.
Say for example, Mitt Romney. Mitt came out as the pro-business candidate. Well, outside of advertisements and increasing rates, what can Media to get out of a Mitt Presidency?
Huckabee, they enjoyed; but I think the Media suspects Huckabee could just as readily harpoon the Media, in comedy, no less, should he be elected President. Ron Paul would have just given the media endless exhaustion; akin to their having to repeat a writing exercise on the chalk board, over and over. Giuliani, they liked. What they didn't like was how good he was at not only getting liberal voters to sway to his position on those things "law & Order"; but his complete ability to undermine those things the Media holds dear -- dictating to the Presidential Elect.
And so, they framed up the picture to elect John McCain. Why? Because they think they might get some of the "newer" visionary things the Media wishes for. Some. But on the other side, they'll get to keep their jobs writing anti-McCain editorials, too. It's a win/win for the Media interests, playing both sides against the middle.
But with Obama, the Media knows they'll get the whole Magilla; that Obama is quite happy to be loved by the Media; and so the Media knows it'll get all it wants out of an Obama President. That's starting to look rather dicey. And because, he can then blame the Press for any mistakes, misquotes, misdirections. I think this has them a tad worried.. And it should. Obama is a lose/lose, no matter how they spin. It's too late. They're, the Media, on record. So the best they can do is write Obama's "vision" thing for him, so they can analyze the pitfalls in advance, and those areas where he might be inclined to turn on them, and hurt them. They'll have their scripts ready to go.
Thanks for the reply.
The media is going to win for ratings sake no matter what happens, because they don’t report the news; they create it.
Of course, they do have their liberal bias and want things to swing hard left. I absolutely felt the frustration in your previous post and that you want what’s best. When I mentioned wanting what’s best, I was speaking of the struggle I have deciding what to do.
I’ve had little problem in the past drawing a clear distinction and being able to vote clearly, if not with a small amount of hesitation. But it seems more and more the lines of right and wrong are blurred in the world and in politics, while becoming much sharper in my mind.
I think there is a strong move by some to push this thing towards McCain just because he wears the “R”. Isn’t there more to right and wrong than a campaign button?
Thanks, again Alia.
GG