Jobs? You Don't CARE about JOBS,or so Dishonest Media Tells Us

Another headline today showing that Yahoo "News" people and are mainstream "jounaliss" are some of the most DISHONEST peole who have ever lived (read previous article):  "GOP focuses on monthy jobs report, but do voters care?'


What can yo uay about peole this DISHOENST and PARTIASAN (while LYING abut it)?


No.  This headline is objectively a LIE-no excuse for it.  How do you KNOW it is a LIE, and that the mediia LIARS know they are LYINB?


Easy.  For YEARS, after every monthly "jobs report", President Obama has talked abut the "progress" he is making, and the "fact" that he has produced so many straight months of private "job creation".  Obama, of oucrse, has ignored that we have been STUCK in the same BAD position for more than TWO YEARS, and have made NO "improvement" this ENTIRE YEAR.  But President Obama is our Liarin-Chief, adn yu expect him to say things like that.


However, the media did NOT say that "voters do not care" about the monthly jobs report whenever, that report has appeared to show momentray "good nes". In factg, over lamost th elast 3 years, our media has HAD ORGASMS over EVERY "jobs report" (weekly and monthly" that APPEARED to show "progress". Nothing abut how the "voters do not care" 


What is this headline really telling you?  Right.  The media is tryihng to tell you that YOU SHOULD NOT CARE.  Our media has (rightly) GIVEN U:P on the economy. They have decided that the econmy is NOT gong to get Obama re-elected.  Therefore, the MEDIA is trying to pull off a self-fulfiling prophecy:  that what voters realy CARE about is whether they LIKE a ccandidate, and how they FEEL aobut a candidate. REad this last sentence again, because it is important.  It realyl is a somewhat SEXIST attmpet to appeal to WOMEN, upon whom Obama and the media re RELYING to turn off their brains and look to their "feelings".  But that is only an asie.  What makes that  sentence IMPORTANT is how STUPID it is. Have we really come to the pint, as a peole, where we vote on how we FEEL, rather than for the person our brain tells us will be the better PRESIDENT?  IF we hae realy come tho that pint, then nothing I cay matters. We are DOOOMED as a natino.  Our media is telling us that we prefer--should lprefer--to vote for a candidate basedon our FEELINGS for thatcandidate, and evaluation of how that candidate "connects" with us, rather than on what our BRAIN tells us is best for the countgry.  Disaster.  That is the worst INDICTMENT of the people of this country I have ever seen, and it is basicaly the MANTRA our mainstream media is using to tlry to win this electin for Barack Obama. 


No.  I don't think it is ture, although I admit I WORRY abut women.  No.  I dont pay any attention to POLLS (evil things that LIE, and cannot ossibly tell us what we SHOULD do).  I simply do not BELIVE that this electin will end up showing a 25%  defference in the way women vote and the way men vote (which, if it happens, is another reason to say we are DOOMED). Howeve,r as readers of this blog know, I am both AFRAID of women, and leery of the way they THINK.  No. You can't generalize about ALL women (except, I think, to be AFRAID of them all, if you are a man).  But too many women do seem--not basedon polls but jsut my judgment and observatin--to PAY ATTENTIN to the BACK FENCE, PARTISAN GOSSIP of the modern 'journalist". Too many women seem to vote too much on EMOTION, and "feelings" about a candiddate, and not on tkhe directin this country needs to go.  In fact, too many women--agan, in my jugment--have NO chherent idea of the kind of country they want.  Instead, they want to base their vote on their "Reality TV" idea of the candidates as PEOLE.  This scares me.


Nevertheless, I stand by my PREDICTIN that--in the end, no matter what polls say--OBAMA LOSES if the economy does not MATERIALLY "improve' by electin day (or at least APPEAR that way).  "Skip, how can you say that, when you admit the media is 'allin' for Obama, and for this idea that it is 'personality', and 'likability', that really matter in a President (a well as appeals to DIVIVIDE us into groups, such as women, Hispanics, blacks and us minority "white' males, even if many may have, like me, Elizabeth Warren Native American 'blood' REALLLY flowing in our veins)".  I am with the OLD Bill Clinton on this one:  "It is the econoy stupid." .


Do voters realy care about the DETAILS of the monthly jobs report?  Tha tis the WRONG question. Of course they don't .  But voters KNOW how the econmy is doing, for the most part, and they KNOW (or have their own impressioni) abut how the "job market" is doing.  IF tghe GOP can really marshal the FACTS on the jobs data, and MATCH those with the IMPRESSION voters ahve, it is ABSURD to suggest that voters "do not care'.  As I say, the LIARS of the media KNOW it is absurd.  But they are LIARS. Doubt me?  Thought experiment:  Wht will happen if the unemplyment RATE goes down to a MEANINGLESS (in erms of progrss) 7.9% before elecitn day (as it might)?  Right.  The media iwll have ORGSMS again, as they will if "job creation" reaches 200,000 in September or October (either month).  FORGOTTEN will be this idea that voters DO NOT CARE about the "monthly jobs report".  Do you need any more PROOF that our "journaliss" are LIARS. I hope not. 


"But, Skip, YOU are not supporting Romney.  Don't you think he can lose?  And there are all of these indicatins--okay polls you don't lie--that Romney is not favored ON THE ECONMY =mch more than Obama.  Does that not show that voters may not care?"  Actuallyl, NO, even if you wrongly pay any attentin to polls.


Romney CAN lose, if ENOUGH peole look at him th eway I do (as I agree many do, from my own obseratin and judgment).  My PREDICTION stands, but one of my brothers thinks Romney is running one of the WORST political campaings in history: WORSE that the hopless John McCakn.  I can't qute agree with that, but I do agree it is pretty BAD.  WHY should peole favor Romney on the ecommy when Romney SAYS NOTHING that indicates he has any real VISION as to what he is going to do with the econmy--other than MANAGE things better than Obama.  Now the media/Obama attack onRomney is INCONSISTENT, becaue Romney cannot BOTH be "right wing" had have 'no principles".  This media/Obama approach will ultimately be INEFFECTIVE, as will the attacks on Bain Capital.  HOWVER, if the PUBLIC gts the impression--my impression--that Romney will onlly be "Obama-light", and--IN PRACTIVE--no better than Obama (because no GOP opposition from the right), why not stay with the President we have.  No.  I can't actualy vote for Obama. But I can't vote fo r Rmney either, and I realize that is sort of a vote for Obama (IF you assume that I would vote for Romney if I did vote for one of the two major candidates). 


Why, then, do I maintain my PREDICTIN that OBAMA LOSES if the econmy does not materially improve?  As I have said, 3 of my brothers will hold their noses and vote for Romneyh.  f1 of my bothers, in Arizona, will apparently go my way.  Why do 3 borthers intend to vote for Romney, even though at least 2 KNOW he is "Obama-light"?  It is because they feel that they KNOW we are DOOMED with Obama.  Is there not a CHANCE than Romney will do better?  Don't we at least all agree that Romney IS a BETTER MANAGER than Obama, even if he has no ral conservative principles? 


I think the latter is the way almsotALL lpeole think, i the end.  The only alternative is DESPAIR. If we really are going to be NO BETTER OFF under Romney than under Obama, whkat HOPE do we have?  Almost all lpeole want to have SOME HOPE.  They have trouble living without it.  On eletin day, if our economy is sitll in BAD shape, with no real improvement in sight (likely), are peole really going to ABANDON HOPE.  Women?  Are they not the most PRACTICAL of creatures?  Are they realy going to ABANDON HOPE because of their "feelings" about Romney and the GOP? I don't think so: always admitting that Romney appears capable of turning guarantteed victory into defeat. Are people really gong to vote for what they KNOW is DOOM?  I just can't see it, even as I, myself, think it is WORSEW to vote for "poliics as usual". If I can see this, why do I think voters in general do not  I think if Obama LOSES, this WILL be the reason: not that peole don't "like" Romney, or that he does not "coonect" on an EMOTIONAL leve, but that Romney fails to give them any HOPE that he can acutally do better.  I have NO such hope.  3 of my borthers do.  Is this a flaw in ME, or in tTHEM?  Ah, that is the question.  I do think it is a CLOSE decisin.  A of 2006, however, I made this decison forevermore:  No more voting for the "lesser evil' when I don't think the "evil" is that much "lesser" (and, in practice, probably not "lesser" at all).


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