Gingrich and Pols: Media Incompetence Proven

How do you know that this blog is more competent, and more worth reading (typos and all), than any of the ordinary media outlets (to watch or read)? Easy. This blog has informed you for years that polls should be IGNOPRED. They give you NO factual information--other than the self-fulfilling prophecy that the medai pays attention to themm, along with politicians--and it is an absolute fact that they do NOT predict the future. Yet, polls are the PRIMARY method that ALL of the media uses to "cover" elections". That is not even to count ISSUE polls, which are stupid, meaningless, evil things with ALWAYS an agenda behind thme. This blog is virtually the only place you will find a condemnation of ALL p9olls, including polls I aGREE with (that support me in one sense or another)--another area where this blog is way ahead of, say, Rush Limaugh. This blog is about the only place correctly informing you that polls are EVIL things, with no theoretical or practical justification And that is if they were RELIABLE (wqhich they are not). Every media report n every poll is aLIE, and I don't see how yu can trust anyone who liest that consistently and obviously. It is a LIE because NO poll ever means exactly what the media says it means--beginnin gwith the fact that the polls themselves say they are olnly fallible estimates with a buiilt in margin of error (routinely ignored byt he media, even after they say there is a margin of error).


Doubt me? Never do that. Look at these ridiculous "olls" on the Republican nomination, and even more ridiculous polls on putting Obama up against various Republicans. "Meaningless" is to kind a word for the hysterical reporting on these totally useless lpolls. And this is not even opinion Look at the FACTS.


We will, for the sake of brevity, ignore the ridiculous polls before the first debate (a lesson in incompetence themselves). After the first debate, and the Iowa "straw poll", Michele Bachmann was "polling' right up there with Romeny. Then came Rick Perry, who jumped right to the TOP of meaningless polls, while Bachmann faded. Then came Herman Cain, who again jumped right to the top of the polls--tied with Romney. Now, as of tonight, you have NEWET GINGRICH being shown in at least one poll as in a virtual tie with Romney, and with Cain in Iowa. Yep, That is a meaningless poll, as they all are except for raising money and prompting MEDIA ATTACKS from the "negative ad" partisans in the mainstream media). Do you need any more evidence that polls are useless than what I have just cited? yet, the media is still talking as if polls MEAN SOMETHING. Is it even possible to be more incompetent than that? Nope. the Obama polls will not mean AnYTHING until there is a Republican nominee, and we get to next sumemr. Nothing at all. Nope. They do not eve really tell you who has a better chance to defeat Obama--any more than your own judgment tells lyou. That totally depedns on how the WINNER of the Republican nomination handles that campaign, AND (more importatn) how the economy is doing next sumemr.


This blog told lyou "first" that there were now only three peopole (absent a possible deadlock) with a chance to win the Republican nomination: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich (although this blog correctlyl labeled Newt a dark horse--not because of the polls but because he is NEWT). Now, this evening, thre is an AP/AT&T/Yahoo featured article about hthe sudden "resurgence" of Newt Gingrtich. This is with those same "polls' the media reports breathlessly showing anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of the electorate UNDECIDED. Hell, talk abut MEANINGLESS. With that kind of fluid electorate, I could be President (don't panic: just kidding),


This blog has corrrectly told you what is happening all along. How can you be surrised at Gingrich's rise in the polls when Gingrich has WON almost every debate, including at least one debate where the unfair and unbalanced network had Romney the clear winne. Gingrich had nothing to lose, and that has liberated him. The reason do not, and never will, support him for President (see article abut a week ago) is taht he has no principles, and really shifts positions more than Romney. Gingrich was my hero with the "Contract with America". Since thenl he has disappointed me more times than I can count, and that does not even include the SMEARS of his personal life (as to which I have consistently defended him, in that they are totally irrelevant as to whether he shold be Prfesident of the United States. This blog has told you that Romney's problem is that he is the poster boy for "politics as usual", and has said NOTHING in the debates to escatpe that image. The has played it SAFE: smooth, but rather obvioously playing to focus groups adn polls, without saing anything bold. This blog, of course, told you that Perry was not impressive, IN FORESIGHT, while Perry had yet to self-destruct in a debate (and was leading in the "polls"). Just why does ANYONE listen to these media people when they are so OBVIOUSLY INCOMPETENT.


What has been the primary effet of "polls" so far? They have not told you anything about the electin (other than that Romney is the "safe", default candidate, which eveyrone already knew). The main result of polls has been to trigger the MEDIA SMEAR MACHINE. Romney was ahead, and the media trotted out the "Mormon", "filip floppijng", and "RomneyCare" stuff--with assistance from the other Republican candidates. Perry shot to the top, and the media started running SMEARS on Perry--only to find that Perry did a better job of smearing himself. Then Herman Cain rose to the top. Well, you know the LYNCHING that occurred at that ponit. Now Gingruch was the subject of EARLY MEDIA SMEARS. You can now expect that SMEAR campaign against Gingrich to be resumed. Do you remember how the media tried ot suggest that Newt Gingrich should not be President of the United States because of a $500,000 CHARGE at Tiffany's? Did you happen to notice that Barack Obama spent TAXPAYER MONEY on a $500 MILLION dollar CHARGE at Solyndra, and not nothing for it? The mainstream media is just composed of the most dishonest hypocrites ever to have walked the Earth, on two legs or four.


I am serious here, and have been telling you this for a decade. The American people have to SOP letting the MEDIA SMEAR PEOPLE. It has gotten ridiculous this election season, and the media has alrady served notice that it is gong to "defend" Obama on CHARACTER. That meanst that the media is gonig to conduct a non-stop SMEAR campaign against possible Repubican candidates, culminating with an extreme campaign against the eventual nominee, as the way they think they can reelect President Obama. Again this evening, CNN was suggesting that Obama' sbig advantage is that "polls" (again) show that the American epole still liek Obama personally, and think him of "good character." The clear message was that Obama-helped by the media--is gong to run a campaign of CHARACTER ASSASSINAION against the Republicans. The DEMOCRAT on CNN did not even bother to deny this--suggesting that the Repubican candidates had already given the Democrats a good start against each oterh. But that is not quite ture. It is the MEDIA who have ealy rn the SMEAR campaigns the moment a Republican has risen toward the top of teh nomination heap. No, it does not matter at all whether the initial "leak" on Herman Cain came form a Republican or not. The LYNCHING has come directly from the racist partisans of teh mainstream media.


As I have said before, and will say agian, if the American peole continue to let the media urn these SMEAR campaigns, and get awy with it (by the peole paying any attentin to them),m then the American peoiple DESERVE what you get. In the end, you do not have to let the dishonest media SMEAR MERCHANGTS control you. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". Just how many times has the MEDIA "fooled" the American pople with SMEARS blown out of all proportion against REPUBLICANS (especailly conservatives)? It would take a computer to add them all up. And yet the MEDIA actually reorts that the American people don't like "negative campaigning". It is the MEDIA (hypocrites that they are) who are the main source of NEGATIE CAMPAIGNING in our elections. These SMEARS are all "negative ads"--the media just provides cover for Democrats by running the ads for them. It is up to the American people. They are either going to stop putting up with this, or this country is doomed. Our elections are becoming a farce, as the media does its best to PREVENT any election forom being abuut actual SUBSTANCE (instead of about whether Herman Cain once said "sweetie" to a white woman, or whatever). I again remind you that this blog has PROVEN that all of these "journalists" are totally beneath contempt. With this article, this blog again shows you that ALL of these people are unworthyof being paind any attention (including the people of the unfair and unbalanced network).


This blog is still endorsing Herman Cain for President. I would dearly love to see Cain as President, and believe that at some point we HAVE to ellect a President how is not a normal politican. However, this blog has correclty told you that Cain is a LONGSHOT, for the reason that he is like a maiden running his first horse race (despite low profile losing campaigns byCain in the past) in the Kentucky Derby. Cain has not previously shown, and still has not shown in this race, that he can stand up to the pressure of this kind of campaign. No, the SMEAR is not the problem. The INEXPERIENCE is the problem. This blog has endorsed Cain because I put my money where my mouth is. If I say that the American peole have to GET OVER going along with the mainstream media, and "politcs as usual" politicians, then we have to start SOMEWHERE. Herman Cain strikes me as a good place to start. And I am sorry, but I cannot support Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, even against Barack Obama (which is not to say I can support Obama). I admit that I would actually be interested in seeing Newt Gingrichy as President of the United States. I can't support him, because he SCARES me. I don't turst him at all. But he is, by far, the SMARTEST man running for Preisdent (and I include Barack Obama in this comparison). Gingrich's problem is FOCUS and DISCIPLINE--including discipline of thought where he does not just jump on every new "idea of the mooment" (as a substitute for a real, coherent, consistent view of government and desirable government policy and philosophy), In short, a Gingrich Presidency would be interesting, but more dangerous--by far--then Cain. However, I admit that I simply could not stand the idea of John McCain being Prsident of the United States. And I did not support him. I will not support Gingrich, but I have a sneaking guilty deisire to SEE what kind of President he would make. Yes, Gingrich is the best DEBATER that teh Republicans have, but even in debates he can LOSE FOCUS. He has definitely shown that he can do that in a caompaign. Therefore, it is not clear how strong Gingrich can be against Obama. Again, though, he is SMAARTER than Barack Obama (by far). If Gingrich puts it together (a big "if'), it will be no contest. Nope. If Gingrich puts it together, I dont't see the SMEARS having any effect (despite a personal past that makes Herman Caiin look a little bit like Mother Teresa).


Talk about ironic. Look at what the MEIDA have "accomplished" with these constant SMEARS based on the polls by which they live and die. I maintain that Herman Cain still has a chance. And there is still the possibility of a DEADOCK (if at least three candidates, plus Ron Paul, can maintain a viable campaign into the big primary days). But the media SMEARS have the potential to make this a rae between ROMNEY and GINGRICH (if Cain can't keep up). You know what? Ropmney and Gingrich (if he can actualy maintain the momentum to make this a race between him and Romney) are probably the two STRONGEST candidates the Repubicans have againt Obama, i fyou discount the POTENTIAL of Herman Cain (meaning Cain is a risky choice in terms of being sure of winning). Dont you think that is IRONIC? What the mainstream media partisans MAY have "accomplished" with their SMEARS is to set up the Repubilcans to run their STRONGEST candidate against Obama (my usggstin being that the WINNER of a Rmeny-Gingrich two-man contest would be that candidate). Have the truly stupid media outsmarted themselves, and INSURED THE DEFEAT (to the extgent you can extrapolate at this premature stage) of Barack Obama? Another rason not to be too disturbed by a Gingrich or Romney Presidency, even if I cannot support either of them. I would dearly love to see the MEDIA be responsible for the DEFEAT of Barack Obama. With more media support, and less media smear, Perry and/or Cain may well have been able to keep Gingrich down, and even take out Romney. It is still possible for Cain, but lookng less a probability. If Gingrich gets on a roll, he may be unstoppable (even for Obama and the final media smear campaign).


One more bit of analysis (which the media keeps trying to disute, showing again their incompetence): Romney will NOT win Iowa (absent a total self-destruction from both Cain and Gingrich, and then maybe even Bachmann). That is because Romney will NOT really contest Iowa. He does not DARE. He did that in 2008, and it cost him the election. Unkonw Mke Huckaby defeated him in Iowa, and that left the opening for McCain. There is no McCain this time, but Romney simply cannot afford to RISK the same thing happening in Iowa again. It would be insane. It is like pitching to Albert Pujols after he has already hit tow home urns in the game, with the game on the line. Unless you absolutely have to, you just are not going to risk ti. Romney does NOT "have to" contest Iowa, and he willNOT "risk" it. He will do as well as he can with a low key, surrogatge campaign, while making clear that he is NOT putting any emphasis on Iowa (meaning, in essence, that he cannot win Iowa's caucuses).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If you can get past that, you have to admit that the above is a BETTER analysis than you are getting anywhere else. You might remember that Rush Limbaugh was touting Rick Perry as a "conservative savior", at a time this blog correctly told you that Perry was no such thing. And while CNN was saying this was a "two-man race" between Perry and Romney, this bolg told lyou that Perry would never be Preisdent: that the race was between Cai and Ropmney, with Gingrich a dark horse possibility (perhaps becomming obvious a little faster than I thought it would, but remembe that Gingrich has NOT established himself yet--and remember that almost NO ONE has yet made up their minds). Since I agree with that one "poll" 'finding" that a majority of people haeve not made up their minds, how can I count out everyone but Romney, Cain and Gingrich? Easy. JUDGMENT. This blog counted Perryout weeks ago. Paul has no chance. Bahmann misssed her chance, and is down to a "Hail Mary " in Iowa. Huntsman--the original media darling--never had a chance. Santorum never cuaght fire, and has been LESS impressive as the ampaign went on (coming across as a standard politician--just more conservative than Romney). Nope. Cain may fade. Gingrich may fade. But SOMEONE other than Romney will probably win Iowa, before Romeny wins New Hampshire. And Cain and Gingrich are the only reasonable prospects (barring a miracle from Bachmann). Thus, Romney will lmost surely face SOME kind of challenge out of Iowa. If he faces more than one, that is when the possibility of a deadlock arises.