They have started their 2012 re-election campaign with obvious tactics—propagandize and incentivize subsections of the Barack Obama base, and disseminate party-line excuses for his failures. Two examples should suffice to make my point.
First, consider the “Occupy Wall Street” anarchists— retros, quackos, wackos, smackos, slackos, or bandidos— to whom I referred in a previous blog.
The media needed three years to finally start paying attention to the Obama-based economic fiasco. It took they that long to find a way to turn the meltdown into an Obama plus rather than the negative that it indisputably is. To do so, media types jumped on the occupy bandwagon as it careened down Main Street, out of control. Following the “never let catastrophes or miseries go unexploited” philosophy of Barack Obama, the media suddenly got religion in the form of supporting the occupiers. To their way of thinking, the nation should blame Republicans for all its economic and other woes and, well, that’s worth talking about.
So, television, especially, has recruited a cadre of talking head to relentlessly, pseudo-scientifically assemble and disseminate the “data” to show how only the Democrats can avert Republican-initiated social-political-economic Armageddon. And, you can be sure that the current onslaught of pro-occupy media is merely a dress rehearsal for next year.
The closer we come to the presidential election, the more frequent, intense, and sympathetic the media will be to anything that in anyway can be construed as anti-Republican. A few months from now, you undoubtedly will begin seeing shabby, starving American waifs, staring out from the cover of Time magazine and pleading for “social justice” of the Barack variety.
Second, simultaneous with the first strategy, media types already are honing their Obama apologetic talking points to a keen edge so as to be razor-sharp by Fall 2012. I already have heard one laugh-out-loud, ludicrous discussion that just must be shared.
How does popular, Obama-pandering media explain the current economic chaos and failure of presidential leadership? Rush Limbaugh provides a partial answer by citing Morning Joe December 12, 2011 during which Jon Meacham, executive editor at Random House and syndicated columnist Mike Barnicle explain who Obama is and why he does as he does.
BARNICLE: He has reeeemarkable gifts. He’s eloquent, he’s convincing, he’s clearly very smart. He wins the presidency in 2008; overcoming all sorts of doubts and surpassing a field filled with a couple of truly, truly good candidates. I think he is stunned, given his gifts, and his inability to get anything really done in Congress. I think he’s stunned by it.
MEACHAM: In a weird way the country is not commensurate with his gifts. That’s a harsh thing to say but I have a feeling in the dark night of the soul –
BARNICLE: Yeah!
MEACHAM: — that’s what he feels. I think he thinks that this is a[n] eighteenth century constitutional republic that needs s-s-significant updating.
There you have it. The liberal media advises that the crises assailing us and not due to any Barack Hussein Obama inadequacy. The crises are due to deficiencies in the archaic, 18th Century principles that served to found and guide our country until the 2008 presidential election. Since then, whatever has gone wrong in America is attributable not to anything in anyway associated with the remarkably gifted, eloquent, convincing, very smart, 21st Century Barack, but to our failure to understand and follow him. Meacham and Barnicle implicitly suggest that we must re-elect our nonpareil president so that he can educate the nation out of its foolish ways. If so, there will be no occupiers, poverty or pestilence; rather we will discover:
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation.
Those lines sound soooooo familiar. I hope I haven’t failed to quote someone!
No comments:
Post a Comment