MSM Coverage of Republican Debates a Showcase Joke.

author: 
anonymous

MSM Coverage of Republican Debates a Showcase Joke.

By Owen Westler

One could almost feel sorry for poor, old, George F. Will, that is, as he trudges onward into more and more senility, trying still to worm his pretenses of sensible logic out of what is too often nonsense. If it were true, like he writes, “republicans crave fun” (to supporting Romney like a duty), then we can well conclude few republicans are reading this dour hack.

Now in the ongoing circus of presidential debates the poor guy has figured it worthy to advocate for Rick Santorum for president or at least Vice President (even while Will admittedly thinks republicans won’t capture the White House this time around). Hell, why not vote “Sanctorum” with almost Latinate sir name bordering ‘Sanctity’? This guy is the new messiah now that at least three of the Washington Post syndicated writers has dubbed him a heavy-weight worthy (how coincidental?).

And he looked manly in the photo op holding a high-powered shotgun while hunting in the cornfields of Iowa (no doubt another Dick Cheney kind of guy ready to play vice). Being more male-manly than that Walmart lawyer, Hillary Rodham Clinton, slamming down a whiskey sour or such wild turkey in dat thar Midwestirn, good-old-boy, tavern where hunters and hunter-wannabes hang? He’s red-blooded.

Imagine this clearly overlooked candidate is suddenly the media’s star and was suddenly placed smack dab center stage in the Manchester New Hampshire debate this Saturday and to be asked the “second” lead question about, no-less than, “Commander-and-Chief” duties? (This was of course after ABC stooges lobbied the pussy-foot question about job increases firstly to the “undisputed” champ Mitt Romney. But hey no bias-creation on the part of this News Empire with the typical apple-pie blonde-babe Diane Sawyer.)

And in case you missed the after-debate analysis, as if the type of questioning itself was not revealing enough of gross bias, they had a seemingly motley crew of variegated opinion rock stars, who entirety of seven-pillar opinions can be summoned up with these words: Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney. (Did we forget anything? No.)

But hey such a news empire would never insinuate any kind of bias to be sucked up by the American public would they? No way not the mainstream media! Granted Romney is good-looking, tall, smiles, family-orientated, intelligent, very business orientated, and rich. He is certainly not the worst of the group.

But nevertheless, we are assured by Will, Santorum is “not” a one-dimensional social conservative (polite euphemism for right-wing religious fanatic). After all he was involved in decisive 1996 Welfare Reform cutting down on free-loaders like those European pinkos. Apparently that makes him two-dimensional? Nevertheless, with enough attention and public debate coaching even the most one-dimensional can occasionally sound polysyllabic.

There was Ricky in his red tie getting all volcanic about the evils of the Iranian inner circle while basically revealing that he was personally involved in trying to motivate the common people there of Iran to overthrow their government. (Nothing illegal about that—why our country is constantly trying to manipulate the internal politics of other countries and steal elections as well—just like we do here in the United States.)

After all that is the American way (especially with the Iran cast that Israel does not approve). But it is the damnable democrats like Obama so negligent to not care about the Iranian people such as during our recently staged coup there (costing tax payers millions of dollars). Yet there was no mention by the enlightening ABC debate facilitators of our past long term support of the torturing and murdering Shah we put in power there—so long as our oil companies were happy.

Apparently George Stephanopoulos didn’t know about America’s 1953 coup that took out Iran’s democratically leader Mussedeq after his party nationalized oil back in the 1951. Our country’s support of this repressive tyrant and his secret police should not bother any ignorant Americans—because you pretty much have to be ignorant to take most of these politicians and media manipulators seriously.

But what really matters in these deliberately, deceptive, debates, themselves a form of American coup, by corporate and AIPAC manipulated mainstream media is the continuous talk that we should all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons program—and of course this allows for jingoistic candidates to splash patriotic dribble to the hilt. Meanwhile many Americans don’t even know where Iran is on the map—but they do know Iranians are dark, Muslim, hate Israel, and have control of our fricken oil. Now is that Israel and AIPAC loving enough or what? How dare those Muslims defy Israel’s right to have nuclear weapons (that we never question) and us grumpy Americans who want to maintain our wasteful lifestyles! We need an outside enemy to blame for our frustrations.

If George Will was really serious and sane about who out of this lot would make a good vice president he would have suggested Jon Huntsman. Instead we have a rash Santorum immediately sending troops back to Iraq, with literally no benchmark—unlike Romney who, at least,, clearly set real distance when he said a benchmark had to be high.

Still there is more to this staging of political battles for hearts and minds that simply supporting whatever a right-wing Israel and AIPAC wants in foreign policy—it is also making sure we don’t hardly cut any of the Pentagon’s budget. And this is where Romney got to shine about blaming Obama for daring to cut some of this hegemonic tax gluttony. Hell no you can’t touch a budget that supports so much profiteering.
How can any true blooded American sacrifice evil one dollar to stave off all the evil of ubiquitous, Muslim, terrorism around the entire world. It’s not like we don’t have something like 750 plus military bases of kind or another outside the U.S.? You just know corporate owned media is loving Mitt Romney. He’s is the ultimate patriot. After all few dare suggest corruption in our military industrial complex with corporate and banskster supporters (or the mainstream media). There ain’t not moral hazard hiding here?

Still, if you look at “other” media pundits other than ABC News then the latest push in republican faddism is the late but great Rick Santorum—at least by some factions is the real deal. And if the mere name Charles Krauthammer might make you feel a bit nauseous and sick due to his sanctimoniousness (talk about baggage) then reading his latest discovery of how marvelous Santorum is could almost make you gag (not that Rick Santorum is not a decent man, with intelligence, integrity, and civil duty mindedness which he seems to have but rather the weasel way these pundits suddenly seemed to have discovered him (it’s not like he didn’t exist before) almost as if conspiracy going on—but that’s just a theory so…). Nevertheless suddenly Rick is “…plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.” Well what was he before so many media pundits discovered his name? Wasn’t he that when Herman Cain had high marks?

It very well seems the whole recent glorification of Rick Santorum is really about burying Ron Paul and Gingrich in the mud. Divide and conquer. Likely it is true Ron Paul really was winning in Iowa and the results were purposely manipulated up until January the 3rd to make it look close and then it was stolen. Right up to that day some were even admitting Paul was ahead.

What progressives should have been focusing on over the years is the election and polling process. How valid is the Iowa process if the following is true: “Elron - Voxeo: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus”? http://www.bollyn.com/elron-voxeo-the-israeli-defense-firm-t...

Whatever company computers counts vote tallies should be of very careful interest to people who care about fair elections. Often these procedures are done in secret with no transparency or accountability—and yet neither major political party has dealt with these kinds of undemocratic issues. The media and even much Internet media has skirted this issue.

It should especially be important to know if Israeli or Zionists interest are involved in anyway—especially given the fact that so much of the Iowa debates were about our supposed ally—Israel, and supposed fighting terrorists especially in the Middle East, and especially the constant pressure by Israel to get the United States to go to war with Iran.

There are too many people in power who will sacrifice a bright and independent mind a right to be president or a political leader for a naïve lackey who will do whatever Israeli right-wing and AIPAC demands. Plenty of social conservatives are brainwashed by Judeo-Christianity and will submit to the most insane consequences if that is what people like Netanyahu demand. They are not leaders willing to look out to what is truly of interest to those of us in the United States. They are pawns to this fifth column.
That is why we went to war with Iraq—because AIPAC and Neocons wanted it so. Now they want a war with Iran, which is why we cannot trust the mainstream media to mediate our political process.

By vaunting Rick Santorum they have found the opposite to Ron Paul’s extremism. The two are very opposite in some ways and this way the powers-that-be in the media and Washington establishment can kill any real chances of Paul had at being thought a real contender. (And granted Paul has real ideological rigidities but he still questions what all honest politicians should be challenging and are not—bankruptcy by “unnecessary” wars and a bloated military machine.

You could see how both Diane Sawyer and company was trying to put Paul on the defensive with question deliberately planned to make him look bad. The whole debate process is a sham. It is sophisticated pretense—Hollywood style. It reflects how criminal this country really is.

This is not to say there was no opportunity for showing one’s colors. Despite the fact that many politicians use what can be termed “negative” campaign ads only Paul seems to have been called on some allegations, and then asked if he were ready to apologize. The whole ABC thing stinks.

And imagine much of slick, Washington D.C., media punditry reduced to advocating Rick who basically espoused elimination of contraception (because it allows people to “do things” sexually they should not be doing otherwise—definitely not libertarian); and who claims to be worried gay soldiers might be problematic in war (not killing civilians or drug abuse or suicide rates); and who opposes abortion when the fact is war is equally murder which many right-wingers readily support (as well as the democratic party). But get this—Santorum is big to reduce food stamps; and, he is given to make statements like uninsured (for medical) Americans should spend less on cell phone bills? So much for our “compassionate conservative” that Michael Gerson of the Washington Post claims that Santorum now is (as he is now to paint himself to be).

Personally I don’t doubt Rick Santorum has some compassion—but it is hardly a dominant attribute of the Republican Party. Even the flintiness of some of Ron Paul’s ideas seem too inclined to place principles over any and ever form of compassion. You’d think the doctor stepped out of some Nietzschean plot of an Ayn Rand novel and the only thing he can manifest is some excess of adoration to the school of Austrian economics. (But then who brought up some real issues about racism in America when he was asked about some bogus smear he was supposedly involved in 20 years ago—go figure.) You can’t buy such a soul easily.

Still one could feel sorry for George Will who admits one of the goals for his party is to prepare the ground for better presidential nomination competition for 2016 (meaning he really doesn’t like the current fair of candidates all that much as he praised Christmas as respite from the pitiless clamors of cacophony in the good old days of Herman Cain and such.) Do you miss Sarah in his red, white, and blue bikini while holding a rifle pose?

And yet what George F. is really about is hammering home certain pet themes no matter how convoluted they are styled or how airy they might sound. In his same column praising Santorum (first week of January), he skips around pell-mell to one of Romney’s recent speeches that contrasted “merit-based” society to Obama’s “entitlement society” as a “…fundamental corruption of the American spirit”.

Assume for a minute there are those socialists on the left who do try to “weave a web of dependency” and “entangle” individuals and industries with governmental supervision. But ask if there was any mention anywhere that Romney himself is kind of silver-spooned kid—getting breaks and privileges most others didn’t get—including attending Harvard.

Equally there is no mention of the enormity of “corporate welfare” or “dependency” of huge military industrial complex, or Pentagon bureaucracy in either Will’s or Romney’s harangues about big government and excess supervision (or our supposed prerogative of supervising the entire world as corrupting the American spirit)?

But you really need to read Tim Dickinson’s “The Party of the Rich: How the Republicans’ abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agendas of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent” (Rolling Stone magazine November 24, 2011 pages 46-57) to really understand what Georgy Porgy is now left to protect in the republican party. Herein even diehard, traditional, republicans are documented to turn in their living graves as their Republican party has become extremely ideological and morally corrupt (not that democrats saints). (This article is definitely worth reading for a more educated view of reality than what politicians play to the gallery.)

Also google this article on the Internet:

“30 Statistics That Show That The Middle Class Is Dying Right In Front Of Our Eyes As We Enter 2012”. (Don’t remember the name of the website.)

Still what is so noteworthy about a snide pundit like George Will is the seemingly-clever variety of ways he makes the same prejudicial points over and over again—year after year—when in fact they are really sophistic attempts, more like trying to be a modern artist sloshing various collages of pictures together irrespective of whether they well match to each other. This elitist throws in splendiferous sounding sentences around here and there to suggest erudite learning. He then adds a smattering of esoteric historical references to make it sound his thinking is well grounded in much knowledge. But in reality much of his style, when actually analyzed and compared with some of his other writings, is not at all that impressive—and often enough is contradictory.

Take the previous column (also from the first week of 2012) in which he rings in a “conservative” year. “Doctor”, as so typical for him to smear progressives with various forms of attitudinal disease (no projection of course on his part). Now he conjures up this notion that he claims progressives “like” the idea of energy scarcity—so they can “boss” others around with industrial regulation.

Mr. Clarity thus thinks progresses fume at the idea that an “abundance” of fossil fuels found close at hand and so it causes “horror” in their progressives’ hearts—referring to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

But without trying to make sense out of Will’s grasping attempts to drool and dribble so as to paste together any kind of Democratic failure on all energy issues—we should nevertheless try to clarify a few things for George—who is not nearly as profound as he likes to assume.

First off Mr. Will the word “conservative” is almost exactly related to the work “conservation”. Why do you suppose that might be?

But how can that be when people like George do not seem to care about conserving the environment? In fact there is no mention or insinuation of care about the environment in this tirade. The only issue according to this Washington Post genius is one of recalcitrant “liberals” and lesser countries of the United Nations bossing around the free and corrupt world.

Extreme notions of laissez faire economics and neo-liberalism more or less argue “real” freedom exists when there are “no” (or damn few) limitations to what capitalists and corporations can and can not do. They tend to treat economic activity as sacred. Basically only profit and productivity matters and every other value takes a hike (no one-dimensionality here). In another words one can be as criminal or polluting as one wants if in the name of industrial activity. And Mr. Mitt ain’t no regulation guy. But according to the fanatics it is OK for companies to act like psychopaths just so long as the economy is churning—and if there are serious consequences well too bad we will simply down play them or better yet not mention them.

One of George Will’s fortes is the act of omission, which is really a type of censorship. But he doesn’t think most of his readers will catch him. So that doesn’t stop him from lecturing the new conservative “base” which he described as “…white voters without college education—economically anxious and culturally conservative” from which he notes Santorum is part and can so energize (in another words the ditto heads that listen to Rush Limbaugh).

But this is not to say some few, real intellectuals of the republican party, like George, don’t like their heady neologisms from time to time. He wrote Frank Meyer, founding editor of William Buckley’s National Review in 1955 “…postulated the possibility, and necessity, of ‘fusionism,’ a union of social conservatism and those of a more libertarian free-market bent.” How’s that for politico-speak for the anxious white males without college education. The only thing they postulate is their posterior to the football game. But check out that “fusionism” word to meld two strands—is that uppity or what?

The fact is economic issues are the real issues of this election—not religiosity. Those pundits who have already declared Paul can never win—and given the racket it is likely true—and as they concede that he brings contrarian ideas to the debate—these pundits never follow up on any real exploration of his sentiments. Surely George Will’s Christmas dirge, where he waxes words about the elements, the wind and libertarian snowfall in Iowa of maybe 8 inches in which “believers” might see proof of God favoring Ron Paul, is hardly anything but sarcasm. This is another way of censoring certain topics—such as the arbitrary corruption at the Federal Reserve as too traditional to fail for Will’s eyes. Instead we are ornamented with postulations about the Protestant wind that stopped Catholic Spain’s armada and supporters who want to repeal 1913 Federal Reserve Act. But there is no analysis of how to reform the secret society and its cronies.

The fact is George Will and his writer group cronies make their money from the Washington Post, that is owned by a Jewish family, that supports Zionist politics and U.S. interventionism all over the Middle East, and the current economic trends—no matter how much it bankrupts our government and economy. He is not going to buck the system that has fed him so well. In another words he is “not” a man of principles but politicians. Both he and newspaper he works for are part of the bigger problem.

Meanwhile if Israel forces us to go to war with Iran we need to destroy Israel’s military capacity.