Subject: txt 2010 msm bias crpt bdd -
Approximately once every four years, the media establishment and certain "moderates" in the Republican Party decide to destroy a conservative candidate. They sharpen their blades and their tongues and they go into action, armed with the conviction that the vitriol of their pens will wither away the candidate's reputation and potential.
Very often, it works.
After all, what would you think of a candidate the Baltimore Sun calls a symptom of "the right, the radical right, which cherishes notions that often are too simple, too negative and too risky"? What would you believe about a candidate one liberal columnist calls "patently ridiculous … frivolous"? What would you say about a candidate one writer says is incapable of "accuracy or depth"? A candidate who "cater[s] to the fears and anxieties of the great middle class"? Would you back a candidate one New York Times columnist calls "primitive"? That The New Republic calls an "ignoramus"? That The Nation labels "the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency"? Would you support a candidate even moderate Republicans despise? A candidate whose simple legitimization by the party constitutes a "political dance macabre … the dance of death for the Republican Party"? A candidate described by a moderate competitor as plagued with a "penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems"?
Could you ever support such a candidate?
Yes. You did. In 1976, 1980 and 1984. Because the candidate described in each of the above quotes is not the much-maligned current media punching bag Sarah Palin. It's Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan was seen as a rube, a throwback to a nostalgically nonexistent past, an empty vessel spouting radical propaganda. He was stupid, incompetent, dangerous. Katie Couric would have torn him apart on primetime television. "Saturday Night Live" would have had a field day. And he won. He won big.
READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment