Saturday, January 21, 2012

Romney "Unscathed" In Debates? This Blog Proven Right and Yahoo/Mainstream media (ABC?) Proven Wrong

You will recall that this blog RIDICULED the Yahoo "News" "featured" headline that Romney had "emerged unscathed" from the South Carolina debates. Current audited count: This blog 9,357 , Mainstream media: 3. I have challengfed the "3", and I think I just got 3 bad calls.

Again, the unfair and unbalanced network was NO BETTER than the rest of the mainstream media in completely MISREPRESENTING the debates that Romney clearly LOST BADLY, as this blog told you at the time. "The Five", on the unfair and unbalanced network, even went so far as to say that Romney's opponents had not come up with a "wedge issue" against Romney . How can you be this STUPID, and still present ourself on television as "experts"? Beats me. NONE of these people (modern TV "journalists" or commentators) are woth watching or listening to. The continuing mantrra of the unfair and unbalanced network was that Romney was cruising, until it was obvious to everyone that this was not ture.

I can explain part of this, besides AGENDA. The TV peole, an "journalists" in general, are way too much into establishment "story lines". The "storyline" here was that Romney was the inevibale nominee, unless he mad a MAJOR GAFFE. Well, as this blog told you, Romney's reaction to the tax return questions WAS a "majro gaffe". But it goes beyond that, and seems to reflect a DELUSION of Romney himself.

It is ABUSRSD to say that the "anoninted" estalbishment candidate is "entitled" to the nomination undless he is "knoocked out"--has a "Perry Mason moment", or "Rick Perry moment", where the candidate collapses like a murderer being exposed by Mason on the stand,. Romney had to contnue to MAKE HIS CASE, and could not just sit idly by while GINGRICH MADE A BETTER CASE. You can LOSE without a major "gaffe", and you can WIN despite not convincing the MEDIA that you have 'knocked out" your opponent with some sort of NEGATIVE attack. As this blog has said in other articles, the Gingrich NEGATIVE ATTACKS on Romney wre really not succesfful. ROMNEY did Romney in, not with "one moment' but TWO terrible overall debates--while Gingrich was having two great debates (again, NOT on ATTACKS on Romney, but knockng media questions out of the park).

The fundamental expalantion for this, besides agenda, is taht the media is NOT INTRESTED in real issues and real information. The media is only interested in the FIGHT, and the "negative ad" attacks that the MEDIA makes every day (disguised as "news"). The media is NOT INTERESTED in giving voteers actgual INFORMATION about the overall performance of the cnadidates, or how well the candidates are commuincating their positoins. What the media is interested in are thse GOTCHA moments. They may DELUDE themselves that they MISSED a "gotcha" moment or moments, as Rompney tried to "explain" his totally confused "position" on disclosing his tax returns. They may even DLUDE themselves, as Romney seems to have deluded himself, that Gingrich SCORED with those attacks on Bain capital But the turth is that Gingrich KEPT showing that he was able to EX:PRESS HIMSELF, and show actual INTELLIGENCE and WIT, while Romney came acorrss as some sort of out-of-toch rich guy unable to communicate with ordinary Americans. No, ordinarly Americans, outside of the Obama crowd, do nto CARE if Romney is "rich". Bu tneither do they give him CREDIT for merely being rich (credit he seems to EXPECT). Romney's challenge is to show that he actually understands, and CAN EXPLAIN, conservative IDEAS, and not jst claim he should be elected because he was "talented" at getting rich. Conrary to what Romney seems to think, merely being "successsful" at Bain Capital does not PROVE he will make a good President, any more than John Corzine being "successful" at Goldman Sachs PROVED he would make a good governor or President (which, of course, he will never be).

Romney being "successsful" at Bain Capital is only a MILD POSITIVE. It is not to bvbe apologized for, or attacked (as Gingrich as done, to his discredit), but Romney sitll has to show why he would make a GOOD PRESIDENT (and not jsut a good Wall Street-type venture capitalist). That, Rmney has NOT done!!!!!!!! No, conservatives do NOT believe that Romney was THAT good a governor of Massachusetts. We may be willing to believe that he was not bad, as I did when endosrsing him in 2008. But he, Rpomney, has been LESS effective in convincing me he would be a good President almsot every month since he dropped out of the 2008 race. There are LOTS of peole out there who MADE MONEY as Wll Street people and venture capitalists. Mitt Romney seems to say that any ONE of those would be a beter President than Rick Santourm, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul. Romney, n other words, seems to say that you are DISQULAIFID from being President if you have not "worked int he private sector"in a job that involved making money like a Wll Street venture capitalist. Again, this is a MILD POSITIVE, and not a substitute for CONVINCING people that you know how to lead the country.

For exmaple, WHAT did you "lewarn" at Bain Capital about "creating jobs"? Surely, Mittt, you are NOT saying that you would turn the government into a "venture capital" operaion? If that is your plan, you had better EXPLAIN IT> All conservatives agree that government does not" creeate" jobs by waving a magic, bureaucratic wand. We all aregee that the FREE MARKET economy creates jobs. So what? As President, you wil be IN GOVERNMENT. It is GOVERNMENT POLICY that you can influence. You will NOT be "creating jobs" in the private eocnomy. You wil be PART OF GOVERNMENT. As part of government, HOW will you enact pollicyies that will help the private economy "create jobs". And, when you do that, are you not DONING THE SAME THING that Newt Ginrcih said he ws doing as Speaker of the HOuse? No, MItt, it realy makes no sense--the "case" you are tyrying to make. Yo uCANNOT, at the same time, be "crfeating jobs" in the private economy and be President of the Untied States. As President, you will--again--be PART OF GOVERNMENT. Sure, you may have LEARNED things in the private economy that will HELP wyou know what PUBLIC POLICIES will be best for the eocnomy, but you need to EXPLAIN what those public policies are, and WhY yours will hellp the eocnomy more than those of the other candidates (including Barack Obama).

Nope. The MEDIA may "buty" the Mitt Romney "storylne". I do not, even though I regard Bain Capital as a MILD POSITIVE. To me, Mitt Romney comes across as an ESTABLISHMENT, Big Government guy, who just thinks he knows how to MANGE the government better than others (wtihout having any real "philosophy" of smller, more limited government). Look at Michael Bloomberg, in New York City. He MADE A LOT OF MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. And he is stil a BIG GOVERNMENT GUY. Steve JObs called himself essentially a Democrat--at least left of center. Warren Buffett is about the most successful Wall Street-type businessman who has everlived--a man who has acutally been responsible fo rthe OPERATION of MANY COMPANIES he ahs bought, and made much more mneyh on INVESTMENTS than Mitt Romney. Buffett SUPPORTS OBVAMA and MORE TAXEWS. He is also a disnoest polliticl hack. But, if all it takes is knowing how private sector jobs are created, Warrn Buffett has a BETTER CASE than Mitt Romney . That is just NOT ENOUGH. Kowing how business works is a PLUS, but it is only a MINOR plus.

I have called most of presnet-day Wall Street ECONOMIC FASCISTS who don't relly believe in the FREE MARKET SYSTEM. To me, Mitt Romney is mcuh more along those lines than a real "free market" guy. Romney was for the Wall Street bailouts (TARP). Am I wrong? My brother thinks Romney is a DMOCRAT, jsut like McCAin and Gworge W. Bush (on fundamental governmental philosophy) . The pont is that Romney has not CONVINCED me that he really BELIEVES in what I believe in--or even major portions of it. He has not done so any more than Michael Bloombeerg or Warren Buffett ahve convinced me that THERI views are ight. Romney seemst o think he does not HAVE to actually "convince me", but that his "record" is enough. Sorry, Mitt, it is NOT. Bloomberg and Buffett--jot to mention Jobs--were MORE successful than you. So what. I wqould NOT want Bloomberg or Buffett as President. I don't want YOU. And no, the media is NOT INTERESTED in tring to nvstigate what kind of President you would really ake, or the ISSUES as to what should be done. The media is only interesteed in AGNEDA, in POLLS, and in "GOTCHA".

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: