2008 has been a year of unbelievable change in American history. This is true regardless whether the topic is pop-culture, business, legal issues, or politics:
*We've seen a mind-boggling spike in oil prices.
*We've seen a presidential frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani, not win a single primary.
*We've seen a top movie star, Wesley Snipes sentenced to 3 years prison for tax fraud.
*We've seen the passing of the most influential Washington insider, Tim Russert, well before his time.
etc.
But 2 of the biggest shockers:
1. Barack Obama, with no experience wins Dem nomination and is the frontrunner for POTUS
2. Gays from around the country can travel to California and legally marry.
have 1 thing in common:
The media has ignored their significance because of political bias towards them.
1. With Senator Obama, it is factually true that he lacks foreign policy experience in any real sense. Yet, Obama has never been asked to defend this lack of experience. No "news reports" have focused on it in an objective way. It has been left to partisans to assert in "clumsy" ways that Obama is not ready. Hillary was left on her own to try to "bring him down", the media wouldn't be fair for 1 news cycle. McCain similar is finding out that news people won't make obvious statements and present the news in a template that makes the most sense. So running against obama, you have more than 1 opponent.
So the end result is that since, Wolf Blitzer won't say, "Obama has no FP experience". Chris Wallace won't say, "Obama is not qualified to be President" because of his lack of experience.
Not once. Sure, they might hint around and ask secondary questions and speculate about whether he needs a VP to bolster credentials, but what I say is objectively true.
You might think, maybe that's not their role to make declarative statemtents, but they do it on every issue. The "objective" media asserts "facts" that are debatable all the time. But when something is obvious as Obama's non-existent FP resume, they have been silent.
Right now the media is asserting that the "surge clearly has worked". Whereas earlier, the "surge clearly hadn't worked".
Whatever you think, they are taking a position.
Think about other issues/people
Remember Tim Russert with his obsession with Social Security going broke? It was all premised on a lie. There was no crisis. The worst case scenario was that decades from now, if nothing changed retirees THEN would receive 70+% of promised benefits, which in real terms would be larger than today's payment. Maybe not the best politics, or the best policy, but not a crisis. But Russert declared repeatedly to every Politician "the looming crisis" and then asked questions.
What about, Al Gore's problems with "the truth"? Media magnified small issues into character problems.
So this year, when you are a journalist, don't you have to ask an Obama supporter, "Obama has no experience, if he's qualified, who isn't?"
But what happened is that they refused to ask the questions, make the statements, present the facts, and then people voted. Now that people have voted,
Obama is qualified because people voted for him.
Obama is doing a great job on his trip overseas. He is really good.
But honestly, we are back in a situation just like with Bush where we have to trust he has good advisors, and hope they don't hijack the agenda like the neo-cons did to Bush.
Only the most pro-Obama person could still think he would have voted against the Iraq War. He has been a conventional Dem all the way since getting in a position of power.
So we have an inexperienced politician who portrayed himself as big change, and is now showing himself as really conventional.
But because of the media's refusal to ask serious questions, and make obvious statements and conclusions:
Democrats are guaranteed to win this election.
Just as much as Republicans were guaranteed 2004 when the media accepted the Swift Boating of Kerry allegations and the Flip Flop label.
2. A similar thing is happening with the gay marriage debate. This is a tremendous change in america, and night after night there isn't discussion on cable, barely a mention in the papers. Almost nothing. Why? Because by ignoring this large change, it makes it more normal everyday. By election day, supporters of GM will be able to say, how is your life different because we have had this "right" for the past 6 months."
The media is lulling people to sleep so as to allow the issue to be more normal to moderate people.
It is absolutely working.
Republicans don't talk about it.
Democrats don't talk about it.
Only the far left activists talk about it. By them being so extreme, it allows the moderates to move the mainstream pendulum on the issue to the left.
So for instance, civil unions is almost universally supported in terms of major party politics.
Again, imagine the media being fair, and saying, "whoa, whatever you think, this is large, this is huge".
What does it mean for our values?
What does it mean for what we teach our children?
What does it mean for the already weakening institution of marriage?
Are there any boundaries that can't be broken, if enough people agree?
But, silence.
I support Obama.
I oppose the gay rights movement.
But in both cases, the media has ignored the major issues becuase of political bias.
Here at mydd, we have people who jump 2 steps ahead and ignore reality.
They talk as if its' normal to nominate a person with no experience.
They talk as if it was only a matter of time before the "bigots" were defeated and the "last civil rights issue" was acheived.
I wonder where are the realists?
No matter what side, to accept reality, and then present their viewpoint.
No normal person wants 2 "married men living next to them".
No normal voter wants an inexperienced Senator becoming President.
But we are approaching these because of the elites in media working together to shape the issues.
Ultimately with Obama, I sense we will get lucky and he will turn out okay as President. I think he will surround himself with good advisors, and make good decisions.
I always remember as a black person being told that becuase of racism, "we have to be twice as good" as whites, especially when we break a barrier. Like Jackie Robinson or Thurgood Marshall. But Obama clearly isn't twice as good, he's not qualified in an objective sense according to what we've thought all these years.
Yet, this year, we've changed, and it's not a story? How many Democrats railed against Bush for lack of experience in 2000? I'm trying to show the power of a group of elites in the media who can control our politics by what they say or even don't say.
It seems I'm the only Democrat here at mydd who will speak obvious truths that are politically incorrect. But those of you who are ready to call me names, even you have to admit at some level
This is risky.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 46 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
