I once heard a liberal TV talking head say something that still horrifies me to this day. Rather than deny media bias, he essentially called leftwing bias objective, comparing entertaining conservative ideas with giving legitimacy to flat earth talk. With such a mindset, allowing conservatives to have any voice at all alongside liberalism isn’t “objective,” but ridiculous. And why be ridiculous and allow conservatives to have any voice whatsoever?
That’s what liberal “tolerance” and “objectivity” gets you: rabid censorship. Consider what almost-president John Kerry recently said:
The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.
It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?
Such talk ought to be terrifying to liberals, who congratulate themselves on their open-mindedness. But the quintessential ingredient to liberals is abject hypocrisy, such that they can shut down any competing voice to their own at the same time they pat themselves on the back for their committment to free speech, etc. etc.
CNN loves to present themselves as the REAL news (even though nobody watches them) because unlike Fox News they’re “objective.”
What does “objectivity” look like to a liberal?
“In an election where the Republican candidate actually stands a chance against a weakened incumbent president, so far it is a couple of intellectual lightweights who are stealing the show.
Since Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll and Rick Perry entered the race, these two have been sucking up most of the media’s attention, mostly for saying stupid stuff. Like Bachmann‘s claim that as president she’ll bring gasoline down to $2 a gallon. Or Perry’s highly inappropriate shot at Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke saying that his actions could be “treasonous.”
Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Karl Rove, are suggesting that the former half-term dropout governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is going to join the race as well. Swell. Palin’s people are pushing back against the speculation, saying that anyone who claims to know about her plans is misleading the American people. But Palin has certainly been acting like a candidate, now hasn’t she? Showing up in Iowa during the straw poll voting, and…Iowa-themed political video released ahead of her Labor Day speech which is also scheduled to take place in Iowa. If Palin runs, we’ll have yet another MENSA candidate to join Bachmann and Perry. There is no doubt this three-some would consume the lion’s share of the media coverage.”
At the other end of the intellectual spectrum, there’s Ron Paul, who placed a very close second in the Iowa straw poll. He continues to talk sense – whether or not enough people are listening. There’s Newt Gingrich – love him or hate him, he’s a very bright man. There’s also Jon Huntsman, who says candidates like Bachmann and Perry are too far to the right and have “zero substance.” Testimony to his intellect right there.
He may be right, but I venture to say none of the three has a prayer against Curly, Moe and Larry. And that’s a sad commentary on the state of our politics, isn’t it?
Here’s the question: When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?
“Objectivity” looks like openly mocking every Republican who has any chance whatsoever of winning the GOP nomination.
And for what it’s worth, if Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman actually pulled it out, Jack Cafferty and CNN would be attacking any of them, too. We saw it with our own eyes when RINO “maverick” (because he constantly rubbed the Republican base raw) John McCain won the nomination. Next thing you know they were doing this to him:
You know, versus all those “Obama as transcendent haloed messiah” figure that the mainstream media fed us over and over and over again.
The mainstream media have been feeding us this garbage – and ridiculing our candidates as stupid – since Ronald Reagan. It’s like Lucy promising to hold the football for Charlie Brown. “Journalists” say, “That conservative candidate can’t win; in fact NO conservative candidate can win! Because conservatives are stupid and out of touch with the values of the American people. It doesn’t matter if conservatives outnumber liberals by a full 2-1 margin. Just like it didn’t matter if Barack Obama was THE most liberal Senator in the entire nation prior to his run for the presidency, just as John Kerry was before Obama. Facts don’t matter. Just trust us and let us pick your candidate for you.
And too often Republicans have done just that – and then watched in amazement as the media went from praising the Republican as “the moderate whom the Democrats most fear” into a rightwing fanatic boogeyman.
You want to know whom the Democrats most fear? Just watch whom they attack the most viciously. THAT’S the candidate they don’t want to see get the nomination.
And the candidate they most don’t want to see facing their beloved “haloed messiah” is Rick Perry.
Which is why the mainstream media propagandists have been ganging up on him with pure unadulterated lies they’ve artificially created and deceitfully slandering his record.
Remember how Obama made Chris Mathews leg tingle? Nothing has changed:
Hypocritical Matthews Slams ‘Nasty’ Perry’s Attacks on Obama
By Scott Whitlock | August 22, 2011 | 12:22
On his syndicated program, Sunday, Chris Matthews slammed Rick Perry for being too “nasty” to Barack Obama. The liberal host also wondered if the fact that Perry is not a Mormon gives southerners a “permission slip” to like him.
Speculating on the Texas Governor’s popularity, Matthews theorized, “Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist.”
The NBC anchor then suggested sinister motives behind his supporters: “And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.'”
On his self-titled program, Matthews said of the presidential candidate: “Some people like- apparently on the right- the fact that [Perry's] so nasty against Obama.”
Just in the last week, Matthews has used his other program, Hardball, to compare Perry to segregationist Bull Connor.
He also suggested that the governor would have opposed integration. On Sunday, Matthews wondered if the GOP was the “nasty party.” Matthews certainly knows something about being nasty.
A transcript of the exchanges from the August 21, 2011 Chris Matthews Show can be found below:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist. And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.’
RICHARD STENGEL: Well, he checks all the boxes on the right and he doesn’t have to actually say all those conservative things all the time because people know he does that. So it’ll be fine with that. But I think it’s not so much about reaction to Mormonism, it’s a reaction to Obama. It makes the contrast with Obama seem much greater than it–than Romney does. Romney and Obama, if you blur a little bit, they can seem pretty similar.
STENGEL: Perry and Obama, no.
MATTHEWS: Yeah. That’s very true. Some people like–apparently on the right–the fact that he’s so nasty against Obama.
JOHN HEILEMANN: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: They like that.
HEILEMANN: The Republican Party is a very conservative party now and a lot of people in the Republican Party don’t believe that Mitt Romney is a genuine conservative. That is always going to be a huge problem for him going forward.
MATTHEWS: Is it a nasty party?
HEILEMANN: Well, there is a piece of it that obviously is very angry. And just to your point about the middle, the middle–there are a lot of different parts of the middle. There are a lot of suburban mothers who are–moms who are not going to like Rick Perry. But there’s an angry downscale part of the middle and they are mad about the economic condition of the country.
In just the past month Chris Matthews has called Republicans “muggers,” “kidnappers” and “terrorists” and slandered Rick Perry as a supporter of segregation and called Perry “Bull Conners with a smile.”
So it’s really quite remarkable that a vile little weasel such as Chris Mathews would care that a politician not be “nasty,” given what a nasty little rodent he constantly has been toward Republicans in general and toward Rick Perry personally in particular.
It’s also amazing that this same Chris Matthews who is so upset with Republicans’ and Rick Perry’s “nasty” side didn’t mind at all when Barack Obama viciously slandered George Bush as “unpatriotic” and as a “failed leader.” More recently, Obama tore into Republicans as people who put their party ahead of the country, and as people who “would rather see their opponents lose than America win.”
Meanwhile, Obama’s vice president Joe Biden said Republicans “acted like terrorists.” While Democrat Representative Maxine Waters said “The Tea Party can go straight to hell. And I intend to help them get there,” and Democrat Rep. Frederica Wilson said, “Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party.”
But of course Chris Mathews is a hard-core Goebbels-style propagandist. And being “fair” or “objective” is always a mantle such people want to claim while they attack their political enemies with every word they speak or write.