Skip to comments.Obama's Media-Contrived Courage (Romney must find his "Gingrich" media call-out backbone)
Posted on 05/14/2012 3:20:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Obama media -- the Gatekeeper Media who try to control what people know based on what fits their narrative -- are proving almost daily that they're not in the news business. They are in the business of political activism, aimed solely at getting their guy another four years in the White House....
.....When Newt Gingrich railed against the Gatekeeper Media in two primary debates, he struck a deep chord with Americans. According to a Rasmussen Poll released on June 15, 2010, "Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry." Romney needs to reach deep down and find the courage to take on the Gatekeeper Media.....
Romney should begin at the long-promised event in which Gingrich will enthusiastically endorse him. Gingrich will say nothing new, but Romney should take the opportunity to praise Gingrich's courage in taking on the media. Romney should say that the media's bias is a matter of culture, not conspiracy.
He should quote the statement about five years ago by Washington Post editor Marie Arana who said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." And he should challenge them to report the stories they now bury, especially about Obama's past.
It's an opportunity for Romney to make the media a campaign issue. If he did, he could significantly boost his chances, and those of other Republicans, in November. It would take a courage that no Republican other than Gingrich has had....
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Not sure making the Media the brunt of a political campaign will do anything more than give them more fuel for the liberal fire that already burns there.
The Media is left wing and biased, not much anyone can do about that except continue to let them cut their own throats. It has just about killed the NYT and Wapo, an MSNBC is a joke. The papers show the bias of their owners:expecting any different this late in the game is a joke.
There is about as much of a chance of this happening as us seeing our former "Compassionate Conservative" RINO President (Boosh) coming out and defending his record (the good parts) and taking O'Bummer to task for his illegal and Unconstitutional agenda.
First of all, Mittens would have to take his gonads out of where most Republi-tards keep them; securely hidden under lock and key in some storage area.
He/they are petrified of the Lame Stream Media and as far as I know, Newt is one of the few who has dared challenge the media. The rest (and that includes the Weeper of the House and the limp-wristed Mitch McConnell) think that if they stay quiet, the corrupt, biased, media will somehow be "nice" to them or conversely, not be so mean as usual.
They are ALL soooo stoopid and never learn from their mistakes or hitoire.
The media (as we witnessed in 08 with Juan McLame) help choose our candidate (the same as they just did with Mittens) and as soon as they are the presumptive nominee, begin an unrelenting effort to destroy them as they work diligently to help "their" choice (Dear Leader or any other Demo-Rat/Lib/Progressive/Socialist/Commie, but I repeat myself) get re/elected.
Wake up all ye Pubes and smell the deception, deceit and dishonor being perpetrated by the media and quit acting like a bunch of spineless, girly-guy, wusses.
Sadly, it appears that our women (Palin, Bachman, et al) have a bigger "pair" then our men do.
It’s both culture and conspiracy.
It's not about winning votes going Gingrich (it could); it's about winning the most votes and taking away solid blue states.
Ann Romney needs to hand them back.
Mitt's irritating passive-aggressive style, held up against Ann Romney's blunter approach, isn't going to cut it with the mood of the conservative electorate.
Snide little off the cuff comments on the rope line to uncomfortable questions is not leadership nor does it show confidence.
How can the country be "comfortable" with him, when he isn't comfortable with us, or trust that we know the score? It isn't like he hasn't had time to get in the groove.
It's his very fear of giving the MSM a headline that is his worst enemy. He needs to get over it. As he can see, even if it isn't a story the lap dog state media will concoct it. So he might as well look like he will fight and not just fall back on surrogates and their money to battle for him.
Tiptoeing around in fear is the wrong mindset, fully agree.
That said, the main reason Romney is getting in trouble is, I think, goes beyond fear and borders on political cluelessness in regard to his own internal contradictions.
He wants us to believe he really is against gay marriage, while he cluelessly tosses off a line that, as to gays adopting, “that’s fine”. As though it was a nothing burger.
He wants us to believe he’s a private sector kind of guy, while he me-toos Obama in regard to government saving the car companies.
Wouldn’t you just hate to be Romney trying to pick your way through this minefield which is considerably of your own creation??
All I can add is, dear Lord, may Obama LOSE.
But we’re told this is intentional strategy, that all the other GOP primary candidates were too opinionated and made themselves targets.
Romney and his handlers have carried this so far that he’s that “etch-a-sketch” persona (that leads to shifting positions) that they let slip out.
They’re counting on 70% of the GOP electorate not being up on the issues. They’re probably correct.
There’s being too opinionated, I suppose...
There’s also being possessed of too many contradictory opinions...
They can pretend they’re in charge of this campaign and are some kind of wise campaign gurus, but...
I submit it’s fear and loathing of Obama that’s driving this election.
And if Obama loses, it will be an Obama loss rather than an affirmative Romney win.
Because Romney is so easy to caricature...just play clips of Romney saying everything under the sun at one time or another.
It was starting to look like a contest between who could out-morph the other.
However, it is beginning to look more like Obama is going all in - betting on the far-left hand (the only cards he’s holding) while demonizing the GOP as filled with and controlled by the “extreme Right” (eye rolling on that whopper).
Mitt is desperately trying to win the swim suit, talent and ms congeniality votes in the Nov. beauty contest by pleasing all the judges.
Your last sentence...LOL!
I liked Gingrich and was for him after Perry dropped out, but he has dropped in my esteem because he is too self-centered and grudge holding to endorse Romney.
Romney is our candidate. If Gingrich cares for the country as he claimed to do when he was running, he should immediately and enthusiastically endorse Mitt Romney.
Look, I want nothing to do with Romney, but we can’t let that kind of emotionalism get hold of us. Sarah Palin has said she’ll eventually endorse the Republican nominee; we knew she would, right? When she does, it won’t mean she’s on the “Dark Side” or is no longer a conservative. It’s what they all will do, including Mark Levin, who has no love at ALL for Romney.
I didn’t really enjoy hearing Perry endorse him, but I knew it would come. It doesn’t make him any less of a conservative. Going for Romney, or not, is a personal decision we all have to make.
Romney would be well-advised to POUND the liberal media and make these attacks a centerpiece of his campaign. The media WILL fight back, of course, but in doing so they will provide more ammunition for later attacks.
I find it amazing that the press will zap Romney for some alleged high-school bullying incident, then conveniently forget to ask about Obummer’s missing high-school records?
The press has dirty hands and they can’t possibly win this. Sting ‘em hard!
Willard ain’t got the stones.
There are people around here who jump on every false and ugly thing the press digs up about Romney like it was their last meal.
We need to start supporting Romney and doing it without the caveat of “I hate romney but ...” or “I will definitely kill myself after I do it, but I’ll vote Romney.”
The candidate’s name is not ABO... it’s Mitt Romney and we’ll forget that to our peril.
He should quote the statement about five years ago by Washington Post editor Marie Arana who said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." And he should challenge them to report the stories they now bury, especially about Obama's past.Part of the problem is that we dont even name the name of our opponent. Media are ways of receiving other peoples stories or opinions. Things like TV sets or broadcasting towers, or movies, that sort of thing. And while fictional TV shows and movies certainly have their leftist tendencies, it is IMHO impossible to censor fiction in any principled way.
It is my settled opinion that the problem is not the communications media, it is the monopoly of journalism which inheres in wire services. It is said that Drink makes a man more so. Loosens the inhibitions, allowing Freudian slips to emerge. Well, wire services have the same effect on journalists. People become journalists because they lust for power and influence - they want to make a difference, they want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Wire services - the Associated Press, principally, but even if the AP has competition somewhere, that would still be a distinction without a difference - have the effect of bringing the incentives of journalism to the fore.
The need/desire for attention and influence are reflected in the well-known rules of journalism, If it bleeds, it leads, Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man, Always meet your deadline - theres nothing more worthless than yesterdays newspaper. Those rules make perfect sense for a newspaper as a business matter, but have nothing to do with "the public interest. They relate only to interesting the public, which is quite a different thing. Stories that get picked up and repeated over the wire satisfy the editors of the newspaper as meeting the criteria for interesting the public, and we are solemnly assured that those rules reflect the public interest and are objective. Those rules do in fact systematically emphasize the superficial and the negative. Negative superficiality is cynicism, and cynicism is the opposite of conservative.
For honesty - replace headline editors with truth tellers.
But that wouldn’t “sell papers” or elect liberals.
I’m afraid “Romney” and “backbone” sound silly in the same sentence.