RE” they will have to find more effective ways to combat the liberal bias in the media, but even more important they need to decide what they stand for and then to stand firm”
Somewhat obvious but how? Right now with economic problems Obama is favored to give out addictive handouts. The natural response of the public is against the bailouts, but wont be for handouts where they get a few $$$. The press beats up on economy and anyone opposed to bailouts until voters are terrified to lose THEIR job, and many believe next bailout is required, a bad cycle.
The message republicans need a (anti-GWB/anti-democrat) message that the national debt is strangling the country,to ask over and over where the money is coming from , China, Japan, and ask how long congress (must sound bi-partision at first) can borrow before democrats will claim they have to take all our money. Ask what will happen when interest rates (or inflation goes up.) In other words deficit mania ala 1992 that got Clinton to raise taxes in 1993. Point out Obama website says ‘restore pay as you go’
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear its fall, does it make a sound?
The message needs to be better, agreed. And your recipe for that message is very good. The problem is the media will ignore it or twist it to show how “uncaring” all the Republicans are.
Obama won 52% to McCains 47%. The media gave at least 15% to Obama, who only won 5-6%. So, if they hadn't been so blatantly biased this year what would the outcome have been?
Media bias is sometimes subtle. For example, many say Ross Perot's run in 1992 took enough votes from Senior Bush to give Clinton the election with only a plurality rather than a majority. Others argue that if Perot hadn't run, Bush would have lost more resoundingly. However, what was the intrinsic value of having TWO opponents gang up on you and focus their efforts on your problems, rather than a true three way fight? I can tell you I rarely heard Ross criticize Clinton. It was all anti-Bush, all the time, by the media. And they could say with a straight face, “Hey, we're only covering what the candidates say!” Too bad if it's two against one.
This time the media didn't even attempt to defend themselves as to their unfairness. As far as I could see, it was the worst bias ever.