A reminder that Palin was not their first target and a little sample of what Paul Ryan is up against. He’ll handle it well, but this video is an excellent history lesson about the media’s longstanding obsessive bias.
Even before he was officially announced by Mitt Romney, liberal reporters were helping the Obama campaign try to define Paul Ryan as a heartless budget-slashing extremist. But Ryan’s no exception — journalists have found an angle of attack for every GOP vice presidential nominee from Dan Quayle in 1988 through Sarah Palin in 2008.
How disgusting. Trashing candidates just for the sake of trashing. So I have learned the way of the liberals. THAT, truth is out! Media Democrats, you have been outed.
Sent this to everybody. There were no good old days of journalism!
A nice counterpoint would have been to run the liberal media’s trashing of Democrat VP candidates. What? You say there wasn’t any? Imagine that.
I’ve been surprised by the amount of “friendly fire” from our side….I use that term loosely; when comparing Ryan against Gov. Palin. I expect it from the media and I understand everyone is excited with Ryan as VP pick,but why bring Palin down in the process?
I have seen it on Fox, Killme on F&F’s and Bill “I’m a talking Point”.
National Talk Radio, even Rush. I’m hearing it on Local, “we aren’t going to let Ryan be “Palin” by the media, he is better than her. Yea, where were they when Gov. Palin was being “Palin”?
Why is it necessary to compare and tear down Gov. Palin? Can’t BOTH be smart, serious VP picks,just to name a few comments I’ve heard? Does “our side” want points from the media for doing thier jobs? Palin really does get punched from ALL directions.
As I see the updated list of speakers for the convention, many of them would not be there without the Lady’s help.
I’m happy to have Ryan, but is it necessay to have a Palin punching bag?
Good Vibes to Allen West today.)
My Dads favorite show was the news.We saw Lee Harvey shot on live tv.But he didn’t suffer fools gladly. He’d say “don’t believe everything you hear or read in the papers.”
It’s hard to describe this, but it is insidious. It’s lazy thinking that’s excused as being smart. I remember drinking down everything that was said by the media as being informed, when I was a teenager. The disillusionment from that was a bitch. It took my several years to understand that the mindset that was inculcated in me in school, and was filled with content by the news media, was merely an ideological viewpoint, and not the truth. Now thanks to Glenn Beck’s research on progressivism I’ve come to understand a bit about where what I experienced came from. It came from ideologues, but not just of the traditional political variety we’re accustomed to. It came from ideologues who believed in their own industry or career as well, going back a century now.
What I think liberals don’t understand (and I can speak to this, as I was once a liberal through and through) is that what they see as “meanness” comes from an assertive individualism that they see as being threatened by the likes of themselves. The reason liberals ought to be looking in the mirror in contemplation of themselves is due to their belief that government policies, top-down, can and should change our social fabric; to use government as a kind of non-profit, force-fed charity organization. All they see are people’s intentions. What they neglect is the actual effect their instrument of “change” has on society.
Once a liberal understands what is beyond their illusion of control, and how real people live, interact, and die, that’s when they can begin to see why conservatives see, believe, and act as they do, and come to appreciate it. Beyond that, one can even come to an understanding that there are those with a somewhat liberal mindset even in the Republican Party, who have the same desire to control society “for its own good.” In fact, in some cases this is what I see liberals reacting so violently to. They’re getting a taste of their own medicine from a different angle, and they don’t like it. An interesting thing is perceptive, discerning conservatives can see it, too, and they don’t like it, either.
What liberals see as irrational ideology is often a desire to restrain government so that people can be free. Deep down liberals are afraid of the effects of their peers’ actions upon them, but the magical, dreamy side of them embraces “enlightened authority,” informed by “the voice of the people.” This is the reason why on the one hand they appear to desire independent thought and resist government intrusion into what they see as private, personal matters, whereas on the other hand they want authoritarian intrusion into certain people lives, local politics, financial matters, and business practices, and why in their own personal, financial, and business matters they find ways to skirt those controls. They don’t want intrusion into their own lives (which is good), but they want to be “freed” from the indirect effects of other people’s decisions (ie. they want others controlled by agents of whose societal values they approve). They are myopic and self-serving, and perhaps they try to make up for this by “caring for the earth and the poor” and such, as a kind of “surrogate conscience.” They can’t see why other people get angry at them for holding a double-standard. What matters is only what they want, when they want it. Who but the “weird” and “ideological” live any differently? Ah, those who have a conscience, and understand that others have the same rights and responsibilities as themselves, and that to live in harmony with free people, we must live with that, the good and the bad.