Posts Tagged ‘presidential candidates’
The media loves McCain in South Carolina
Written by Chad Phillips
Sunday, 20 January 2008 16:24
No Comments

Read an interesting article in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Senator John McCain's close victory Saturday night in the South Carolina Primary. What made the piece interesting were some of the things written about MCain's opponents.

Take this paragraph, for example:

"The distant third-place finish was a severe blow to the candidacy of Mr. Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee Senator. He had been counting on a strong showing in a Southern state to revive his fortunes, and gave a rambling speech in which he urged his followers to 'stand strong.'" Emphasis mine.

It doesn't take a journalism major to point out the negative slant of that statement. He gave a "rambling" speech? According to whom? Apparently, according to the writer who is supposed to report the facts NOT his opinion about the facts. In the same sentence, the writer uses another interesting word which frowns on the venerable Fred Thompson. (Oops! Did I say "venerable"? Oh yeah, I forgot; this is commentary , so I can say whatever I want.) Continuing onward, the writer uses the word "followers" to describe those who support Thompson. Such a descriptor/noun…whatever, conjures up images of a flock of mindless sheep. Couldn't the "reporter" have just written?:

"…Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee Senator … had been counting on a strong showing in a Southern state to revive his fortunes, and gave a speech in which he urged his supporters to 'stand strong."

Well…he could have, but that would not have had the desired effect.

The Washington Post, to their credit, did a much better job covering the story. However, they couldn't resist this, not so subtle, barb aimed at Huckabee:

"For Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, South Carolina with its large evangelical community offered him a chance to prove he was more than a one-state wonder after his victory in Iowa, where evangelicals were a strong force."

Well, perhaps the writer is correct. Maybe Huckabee is nothing more than a "one-state wonder," but last time I checked there were still more primaries to be held. What's more, is the negative spin used by the writer to describe Huckabee. According to The Washington Post, Ol' Huck had a chance to prove he was more than a "one-state wonder." But now that he's lost the primary in South Carolina we know the truth: He really is just a one-state wonder, a fluke (or a kook) of the rightwing, fundamentalist kind. 'Cause heaven knows, along with the "journalist" who wrote this piece, that Huck ain't got a prayer of winning another primary.

However, McCain is twice a winner in South Carolina–a hit with both the state and, for now, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Should Clinton or Obama manage to lose the general election, he (McCain) will be a nice concession to ease the pain of the liberal masses.

 
Blood thicker than water in Michigan
Written by Chad Phillips
Wednesday, 16 January 2008 15:36
No Comments

That could explain why Republican voters were wooed by Mitt Romney with vacuous statements like this one:

"[The] global economy is here to stay and it is, by its nature, constantly changing, as you all know. To compete more successfully in it we must better prepare American workers and students to seize its opportunities. That is how we will build a stronger and more prosperous America.”

Sounds good…sort of, but what does his statement mean? Anybody? I'll tell you what it means. It means precisely what you want it to. "Prepare American workers to seize … opportunities"? Prepare them how? What opportunities are you talking about here, Mitt? And that last line about building "a stronger more prosperous America," that was a nice touch, except I've heard it parroted by just about every career politician I've had the misfortune to hear speak. Is this it, America? Is this the best our political machine can produce? (Anyway, I'm a little suspicious of anyone who's named after an apparatus used for taking a fastball.) But I digress…Any freshman economist can tell you the President has virtually no control over the economy. Furthermore, unless Romney's reference to "seizing opportunity" includes reinstating protectionist tariffs and getting us out this free trade boondoggle, the economy ain't gonna improve much. You can expect more manufacturing jobs to go overseas, more high-end service jobs to go overseas, the dollar to continue to plummet, more problems with imports (defective products, unsafe products, etc.), and on it goes.

While it was reported today in The New York Times that the three most decisive factors influencing Romney's win in Michigan were: Economy, Iraq, and immigration, perhaps an even bigger influence were his family ties. Approximately, 42 percent of Republican voters said that Romney's ties to their state influenced their vote. When you couple that "blood" connection with Romney's promises to revitalize Michigan's economy–an economy dependent on the automobile industry, you end up with a potent cocktail–one which your average Michigan Republican can't resist. Too bad for Michigan, blood is thicker than water.