Media Working to Tell Us Who We Want for President

There must be something wrong with the Republican field, if one follows the media.

First Bachmann was the front-runner for nominee. She was all over the news with her victory in Iowa, the conservative news stations praised her, the liberal news stations finding faults with her, and so on.

It took a couple of weeks for Bachmann’s fame to fade out. Rick Perry threw his hair in the ring. Suddenly the media were all over him. The polls showed huge support for him. The Republican leadership was excited. He had all the support he needed, he beat all his rivals the moment he entered the race, Texas prospered under his governorship, he was an experienced leader, he was a “formidable campaigner”. . . for another couple of weeks.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Vatican Orders U.S. Bishops to Avoid Addressing Sex Abuse Crisis

Then it was all gone. Suddenly we were back to Romney who “recovered” and now lead the field again. Again the polls showed how the Republicans just wanted Romney and no one else. Another couple of weeks.

Then Herman Cain appeared almost of nowhere and rose from 4-6% to 38% within a couple of days. He is now the darling of all Republicans, and the polls support him, while Perry and Romney are far back. Bachmann is not even mentioned anymore.

Let me try to understand this. The Republican voters are a bunch of immature imbeciles that change their loyalty to their candidates – and therefore the principles that those candidates represent – every two weeks. And they do it in large groups: large enough to make a candidate skyrocket overnight and then fall like a meteor in two weeks. Since the candidates don’t seem to change their principles every two weeks, then the preferences of the voters that participate in those polls must be based on something else but principles: for example, personal appeal, or just momentous whims. Or at least that’s what the media is trying to tell us.

I don’t buy it.

Yes, I know very well that the maturity of the Republican voters is not perfect; I know that they can be lured by rhetoric. But there’s no way that the whole Republican field is so vulnerable to manipulation as to change its loyalties to a candidate every two weeks without any obvious change in the principles of those candidates.

The picture becomes clearer when we look at the “polls” that are the basis for the media preferences to one candidate over another. With all the talk these days about “scientific polls,” most of those polls are anything but scientific. Most of them use 400-600 “responders” with no clear explanation as to how these responders were picked and not others. When it comes to the Republican presidential nominees, one phrase is used profusely, “likely Republican primary voters,” without any explanation as to what constitutes “likely.” Then the 400-600 responders are asked questions that usually are so arcanely worded as to leave many people wondering what the questions really mean. Then the results are usually not posted, but only a sample of what the media want us to know about the polls.

Ever since The New York Times told us who we conservatives wanted for our nominee back in 2008, I am suspicious. The NYT endorsed McCain. I was not surprised. I was surprised when there was not a single voice in the Republican establishment to raise the alarm that the Republican Party was nominating exactly the candidate who was endorsed by a far-left, die-hard socialist, bankrupt paper financed by Soros. The media at the time told us conservatives who we want, and who was our “electable” candidate. We know how that worked out.

So the media now is working again to choose our candidate for us. They try one to see if he will create enthusiasm. If he doesn’t, they try another one. Then another one. Not that there is a lot of difference between the candidates; the issue is more psychological than a matter of principles. The media just wants to tell us who we want.

I say we give them the famous answer of General McAuliffe, commanding the 101st Airborne at Bastogne in December 1944 to the German demand to surrender: “NUTS.” And vote for the one the media refuses to notice. The 13th floor. The man of principles who never flip-flopped and never betrayed the Constitution.

Previous Let’s Print More Money
Next Steve Jobs: Liberal iCon but Capitalist Extraordinaire


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.