Media: Now a Contest of Character, and Journalists Have None

No, the dishonest propagandists of the mainstream media have no character (the Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, The New York Times, the Gost on Globe, The Wall Street Journal, etc. and etc.). Nor do the incompetent panderers of the unfair and unbalanced network have any character. Today's "journalists" are evil people (in their "professioinal" lives) spreading eveil. They are totally uninterested in actual "information". See Michale Crichton's dead on novel, "Airframe".


Today's ridiculous from the dishoenst incompetents at the AP (as featured by the evil peole at Yahoo "News"/AT&T):


"GOP primary contest now comes down to character"


"How do I lie to thee; let me count the ways." I like to misquote Elizateth Barrett Browning from time to time, since th emisquote so accurately reflects the present attitude of "journalists" in America.


First, the INCOMOPETENTS of the AP ASSUME ("ass of you and me") that the GOP race is between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. That is a lie. My Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter goes on, futilely, maknig it necessary to continuallyl warn you about being around any person or facility connected with the despicable AP (lest you be turned into a pillar of salt,if not worse). This blog has correctly told you that the "race" between Perry and Romney is over, in the sense that Perry can now not win the Repubican nomination outright. The only question now is whether Perry can stay in the race, ankd get 15-20% of the vote. I have my doubts, but if he can, then we may have a DEADLOCK after the first big round of primaries, with four or five candidates hanging in ther (Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul--with maybe a few others still trying to pick off a few delegates here and there).


No, contrary to the propaganda of the incompetents at the desicable AP, "character" has nothing to do with it. "Character" for WHAT? The AP does not know. It is entirely the WRONG word. I THINK the dihsonest peoplle of the AP know that, but I can't be sure. They are SO incompetent. Correct headline: "Perry and Romney test whether negative campaigning against each other can work". This is especailly true for Perry, who is now (disastrously) basing his whole campaign on tearing Romney down. But Romney is definitely throwing some negative jabs. This is doing nothing but make Cain and Gingrich look good. Perry cannot win this way, and will not win this way. Perry is coming out with a flat tax, apparently, and will apparently receive the endorsement of Steve Forbes (if Forbe s follows through on what he said over the weekend). That merely shows how WRONG the despicable, dishoenst people at the AP are. The VOTERS are not looking for negative attacks (for "character"). They are looking for a different kind of "character". The "character" the voters are looking for is SUBSTANCE, and showing that a candidate can beat Obama. They are NOT looking for one Repubican tearing down another with the same kind of tactics you can expect from the Democrats, AND the dishoenst propagandists of the mainstream media, next eyar. Yep. The MAIN source of "netative campaigning" in America today is from suposed "journalists" (especially of the mainstream media). That is because, as stated, present day "journalists" have no intrest at all in information.


No, it is simply FALSE (what else is new for the dishones incompetents of the AP) that Prry and Romney tearing down each other has anything to do with "character"--other than refleting BADLY on the "character" of both Perry and Romney (Perry more than Romney, as Perry's clumsy attacks cover for Romney's more smooth and clever counterpunches). Perry desperately needs to get away from these obvious, clumsy, obviouis personal attacks on Romney, and show that he has some substance to him as far as going against Obama (not to mention saving the country). The "flat tax" may help. But I think it is too late for Perry. People have learned not to like him, for good reason. Thta is the only "character" involved her. Peopele, in contrast, LIKE Cain, despite his obvious flaws (see previous article). If Perry is able to get away from his totally negative attacks on Romney, and actually get into the substance that voters want, he does have the chance to undermine Cain (NOT with direct attacks). It is my prsonal convction that people are more open--and really should be more open--to a FLAT TAXX than they are to a SALES TAX (which Cain ha made pretty complex in his 9-9-9 plan).


Thus, you can see just how incompetent and dishonest the AP headline is. TheAP wants to make the GOP entirely about the attacks between Pery and Romney. That is absurd. Even the attacks are based on the assummptoin that GOP VOTERS want HONEST SUBSTANCE on the issues they care about. But it is the ISSUES they care aobut. They just want a candidate who effetively addresses those issues, and shows an ability to take on Obama on those issues. Some of the "attacks" may convince some voters that they can't trust the candidate being torn down on an ISSUE, but the attacks will not affimatively advance the attacker. That was Perry's cardinal error. I believe it will be fatal, and that is the only "character" involved here.


No, I am not kidding. The AP article--totally agenda driven--was all about the attacks between Perry and Romney: trying to make the "race" all about those attacks. The AP could not be further from the truth, but that is to be expected. In my now at least eight years of paying more attention to AP articles than anyone in the WORLD (my Sodom and Gomorrah search), I have never seen the AP anywhere near the trugh (excpet by total accident).


Bottom lne: What is really happening here, evidently toally unobserved by the clueless AP, is that Perry and Romney are creating a HUGE opoening for the other candidates by trying to tear each other down. The only question is whether the other candidates can trake advantage of the oening they have been given. If not, the nominee will be ROMNEY. If so, the BEST that Romney and Perry can hope ofr is DEADLOCK.


P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight). By the way, did you notice that Rush Limbuagh gave a totally INCOMPETENT "review" of the last Republican debate, as distinguished from the brilliant analysis you got in this blog. The min reason for that is that Rush is so PARTISAN. Nope. I am NOT "partisan". By that I mean that I do not look at everytithing from the point of view of whether it helps "my side" win, or helps the other side. I have a sTRONG, coherent PHILOSOPHY on issues, which will always tilt me toward actual conservative politicians. But, within that idological frameowrk, I see REALITY as it is. Rush does not, or pretends to not, despite his protestations to the contaray. This means that Rush will RARELY say negative things about a specific Republican, UNLESS that Republican attacks Rush. Oh, Rush will talk abadly about the Repubican establishment, but Rush regards the Repubilcan Party as "his side". And Rush is PARTISAN (hates to lose). Thus, you don't get an honest appraisal of the last DISASTROUS debate of Republicans. Plus, Rush does not look ats badly upon negative attacks as I do, even though his program realy does argue ISSUES more than personal attakcks. Thus, Rush could say that he "laughed" at Perry's clumsy attack on Roney for 'hiring' illegal aliens, but that he (Rush) does not mean that in a negative way. Rather, Rush said he "understood" how the attack came to be made, and Rush wanted to show his own cleverness at explaining how Perry came to make the attack out of left field (apparently). Rush does not care that this is all besside the point--the point being how BADLY almost all of the Repubicans, especailly Perry, did in the last debate. Rush is too willing to look at this as a game, where he is thre to help "his" side win (while overlooking the obvous flaws of "his side"). Now Hannity is much worse than Rush on thiis, and Rush talks intelligently about ideas most of the time. But whne Rush goes into "partisan" mode, you cannot trust him to tell you the real situation. You can trust this blog to do so, withougt suger coating. That is why this blog has WITHDRAWN its endorsement of Michele Bachmann. That is not because I no longer "like" Michele Bachmann, or don't remember that she is a "heroine" of the movement that led to the conservative win in 2010. It just means that I can see reality. And "reality" is that Michele Bachmann failed to cut it as an effective Presidential cndidate, even though she had a huge opening. The same may yet be ture of Cain. Thus, we may end up with Romney by default. Then (lol) Rush wil lbe ALL FOR Romney. Did I tell you that Rush hates to lose!!!!! You will NOT see this blog as "all for" Romney, although I have told you that whether I suuport Romney at all (assuming Romney is the nominee) depends totally on the REPUBLICAN PARTY> If that party betrays me again, as I am confident they will, then I will not support a nominee like Romney If the Republican Party stands for something, then I may give Romney the benefit of the doubt (on the gounds that the rest of the party wil hold him in line). Don't hold your breath.