Martin Eden Mercury
VIP Member
- Nov 2, 2015
- 897
- 107
- 80
part two: Tweedledee meets up with Tweedledum
During the third RNC sanctioned presidential primary debate hosted by CNBC, the viewing public was witness to surrealism come to life. We've learned the GOP as a whole seems to agree with the statement of Senator Marco Rubio that “The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC; it is called the mainstream media.” This view is not new. It stems out of a now, long standing perception on the part of GOP voters, going all the way back to 1987, when Brent Bozell started up the Media Research Center. The MRC claims to use expert news analysts, utilizing scientific methodology, to prove a liberal bias in the media (let us hope it is honest, as well as fair and balanced).
Starting in the late 1980s and mid 1990s, the liberal bias in the media view was seeded into the public mind, and brilliantly nurtured by the creative forces of a newly created conservative media. The backbone of this new conservative media existed in the form of the national syndication of Rush Limbaugh's programs, and the debut of the 24 hour FOX News cable channel. This all had a weirdly, seeming synchronicity with the rise of the Clintons.
In the 1990s, the left wing of the Democratic party were wary allies, more than they were friends of the Clintons. The Clintons came of out the centrist DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). Like the GOP, the left wing in general was hostile to the rise of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clintons co-opted and drowned out many of the voices on the left. Which brings us to another view held by GOP voters: That the main stream media is not only an arm of the DNC, but that the media and the left love, and always has loved Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's run for the Senate in 2000 was criticized by many in the media, and attacked by the left, as carpetbagging. Yes, in the tradition of RFK and others, including historically, returning veterans of America's foreign wars who settled in new places after serving their nation. Mobility in American society has long been celebrated, except in election years.
Recently, in the last few years, Hillary's friends in media, known as the Democratic Super PAC, supported her candidacy with articles like these: Jun 30, 2014, Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in the Atlantic on Hillary Clinton's Formidable Strengths—and Greatest Weakness. It's mainly a rehash of a tired old argument on Iraq "The former senator has yet to publicly come to terms with her catastrophic decision on Iraq." It's as if without Clinton's vote the invasion of Iraq would never have happened. Conor also wrote a piece years ago on why he would be voting for Gary Johnson over Obama in 2012. You guessed it -- the former senator's catastrophic decision on Iraq. My guess is that Lincoln Chafee was Conor's default candidate in the Democratic primary. On April 6, 2015, Meghan Foley wrote an article in The Cheat Sheet. In her article she posited "3 Problems Standing in the Way of a Hillary Clinton Presidency." Meghan listed Hillary's three problems as politics and experience, the competition, and money (She will raise vast sums with ease). I won't even go there. On Jul 22, 2015, Jim Newell wrote an article for Salon, in what I suppose is another supportive piece by the Democrat's Super PAC, on Hillary's candidacy issuing A grim warning Hillary supporters can’t ignore: The fundamentals of her campaign are looking weak. General election match-ups this early are irrelevant. The real worry is in her sinking favor-ability ratings.
Oh the poor Mock Turtle's of the left. So very sad over Hillary's chances and candidacy
"Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a battle; For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Had spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow, As black as a tar-barrel; Which frightened both the heroes so, They quite forgot their quarrel." Tweedledum and Tweedledee shared a common enemy, Hillary
During the third RNC sanctioned presidential primary debate hosted by CNBC, the viewing public was witness to surrealism come to life. We've learned the GOP as a whole seems to agree with the statement of Senator Marco Rubio that “The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC; it is called the mainstream media.” This view is not new. It stems out of a now, long standing perception on the part of GOP voters, going all the way back to 1987, when Brent Bozell started up the Media Research Center. The MRC claims to use expert news analysts, utilizing scientific methodology, to prove a liberal bias in the media (let us hope it is honest, as well as fair and balanced).
Starting in the late 1980s and mid 1990s, the liberal bias in the media view was seeded into the public mind, and brilliantly nurtured by the creative forces of a newly created conservative media. The backbone of this new conservative media existed in the form of the national syndication of Rush Limbaugh's programs, and the debut of the 24 hour FOX News cable channel. This all had a weirdly, seeming synchronicity with the rise of the Clintons.
In the 1990s, the left wing of the Democratic party were wary allies, more than they were friends of the Clintons. The Clintons came of out the centrist DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). Like the GOP, the left wing in general was hostile to the rise of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clintons co-opted and drowned out many of the voices on the left. Which brings us to another view held by GOP voters: That the main stream media is not only an arm of the DNC, but that the media and the left love, and always has loved Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's run for the Senate in 2000 was criticized by many in the media, and attacked by the left, as carpetbagging. Yes, in the tradition of RFK and others, including historically, returning veterans of America's foreign wars who settled in new places after serving their nation. Mobility in American society has long been celebrated, except in election years.
Recently, in the last few years, Hillary's friends in media, known as the Democratic Super PAC, supported her candidacy with articles like these: Jun 30, 2014, Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in the Atlantic on Hillary Clinton's Formidable Strengths—and Greatest Weakness. It's mainly a rehash of a tired old argument on Iraq "The former senator has yet to publicly come to terms with her catastrophic decision on Iraq." It's as if without Clinton's vote the invasion of Iraq would never have happened. Conor also wrote a piece years ago on why he would be voting for Gary Johnson over Obama in 2012. You guessed it -- the former senator's catastrophic decision on Iraq. My guess is that Lincoln Chafee was Conor's default candidate in the Democratic primary. On April 6, 2015, Meghan Foley wrote an article in The Cheat Sheet. In her article she posited "3 Problems Standing in the Way of a Hillary Clinton Presidency." Meghan listed Hillary's three problems as politics and experience, the competition, and money (She will raise vast sums with ease). I won't even go there. On Jul 22, 2015, Jim Newell wrote an article for Salon, in what I suppose is another supportive piece by the Democrat's Super PAC, on Hillary's candidacy issuing A grim warning Hillary supporters can’t ignore: The fundamentals of her campaign are looking weak. General election match-ups this early are irrelevant. The real worry is in her sinking favor-ability ratings.
Oh the poor Mock Turtle's of the left. So very sad over Hillary's chances and candidacy
"Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a battle; For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Had spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow, As black as a tar-barrel; Which frightened both the heroes so, They quite forgot their quarrel." Tweedledum and Tweedledee shared a common enemy, Hillary
Last edited:
