The silent majority vs the liberal media

Chuck Morse Speaks ^ | September 23, 2012 | Chuck Morse

[Chuckmorse]

The election of 1972 was a contest between the liberal media and the silent majority. President Nixon won a landslide victory for re-election that year carrying every state in the union except Massachusetts by running against the elite liberal media which, in turn, did everything short of illegal activities to defeat him.The media exacted its revenge in 1973 with the Watergate witch-hunt which essentially overturned the election.

The election of 1980 saw much the same dynamic with Ronald Reagan defeating the incumbent liberal President Jimmy Carter and his media lackeys. Vice President George Bush did it again in 1988 when he challenged left-wing newsman Dan Rather on the air. Bush proceeded to beat liberal media darling Michael Dukakis. The Democrats finally smartened up and nominated Bill Clinton, a centrist, in 1992. George W. Bush did it in 2000 when an open mike carried a private conversation between him and Dick Cheney as he pointed to a New York Times reporter calling him an "asshole." Cheney was heard responding "big time."

This time around, the liberal media is openly supporting Barack Obama and they have obviously crossed a line. Examples include the response to the murder of the American Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff on September 11, 2012. Virtually the entire focus was on how Mitt Romney responded to the attack, an obligation on the part of any presidential nominee during a general election to such a significant event. The focus became Romney, cast in a negative light, as opposed to President Obama and the disaster that had just occurred on his watch. Another example was the illegally recorded comments by Romney at a private fund-raiser. The media failed to report the fact that the video tape had been altered.

Once the smoke is cleared, after this election, a congressional committee should investigate liberal media outlets not for opinions but rather for examples of where they deliberately lied, presented false evidence, chose to ignore stories that, by conventional definition, would be relevant to the balanced coverage of a presidential campaign.

In the meantime, Mitt Romney should raise the passions of the silent majority that rejects the politics and the social and cultural orientation of the liberal media. The election would become a referendum in terms of whether the liberal media represents the majority opinion of Americans or if they are elitist change agents trying to draw their own picture of America, a picture devorced from reality.

[elcid1970]

Sure hope you’re right and the day after the election the media elite are shaking their heads & asking, “How could this have happened? Nobody I know would have voted for Romney!”

I remember 1972 when some New York drama critic wrote, “where the Nixon people are, I don’t know, they’re beyond my ken. But sometimes, when I’m in the theater, I can feel them.”

Can’t stand elite people. They are arrogant, and arrogance grows from pride, and pride is the sin which spawns all the other sins.

[jsanders2001]

They have an excuse. They were hypnotized by the Antichrist. What could they do?

[Baynative]

"Once the smoke is cleared, after this election, a congressional committee should investigate liberal media outlets not for opinions but rather for examples of where they deliberately lied, presented false evidence, chose to ignore stories that, by conventional definition, would be relevant to the balanced coverage of a presidential campaign."

This should be a mainstay of the conservative agenda - a TEA PARTY MUST!

[Wings-n-Wind]