The New Reality

We've finally done it.  We've ceded power to the far left fringes of our society and in doing so, elected a man with a resume devoid of detail and accomplishment.  A man that has spent less time in the senate than John McCain spent caged in Vietnam.  A man who was never seriously vetted by the press and whom we really know nothing about.

How did we get here?

Everything seemed to change when the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to George Bush in 2000.  The left came unhinged, vowed revenge and haven't stopped making good on that threat since.  The mainstream media moved from a biased, yet still somewhat principled lot to outright shills for the Democrat Party and Barrack Obama.

This double threat proved very effective at completely destroying the credibility of both the Bush administration and the man himself.  Think about the last time you saw a positive story about the President on television, in print or online.

You can't, can you? 

Has he really been THAT BAD?

Consider this:  Shortly after 9/11 one of the major networks took a poll of American's.  They were asked the likelihood of another terror attack on US soil in the next five years.  Fully 85% were convinced it would happen. 

Well, five years came and went 26 months ago.  Have you heard anyone in our esteemed press corp recognize his efforts in neutralizing Muslim extremists?  Not unless you listen to Fox News.

Remember his reasoning for going into Iraq?  "We can fight them here or we can fight them there."  Well, we've fought the entire war since 9/11 on their turf.  Doesn't that vindicate his position?  Shouldn't he be credited for his vision?  If the tables were turned, wouldn't the liberal press be singing the praises of the visionary Democrat President who stuck to his guns and showed such great leadership against tremendous pressure and odds?

Folks, we live in a new reality.  One party has all the power and a massive PR firm to cover up their mistakes.  If you ever wondered how Fascists regimes start, look no further than the cozy relationship between our new political ruling class and the mainstream media.

Comments

[Mike S]

Great analysis - that sums it up as well as I've seen anywhere. You need to start writing again! You actually have some fans out here!

[Craig M]

Very well said. The media are the bane of our existence and absolutely bought and paid for the election of Obama. Even Democrats have to admit that this is a big problem in the long run.

Great perspective and absolutely spot on!

[Chris Ponteri]

At least Hillary didn't win!!!

Seriously, I think the country was in the mood for change, and after electing old white men to lead our country for the last 230 years, the voters decided a middle-aged black man meant change. And throw in all of the money Barack raised and it's easy to see why he was elected.

I can't imagine that a majority of the American people are in favor of bigger government. I don't think they realized what they have gotten us into.

[Jeff]

Excellent column. The press has now helped the dems win 2 elections 2006 and now 2008. In 2006 they helped the dems by politicizing the Iraq war and by bombarding the world with Abu Ghraib and torture stories which eventually soured our reputation with the world although they blame GW it really is the dem/media's fault. Then the cheerleading and protection of Obama while attacking McCain/Palin. Its disgusting and scary.

[USA Conservative]

Chris,

Totally agree about bigger government. From what I've read the secret ballot issue pertaining to unions could drastically increase the size and have an enormously negative impact on our economy.

I just pray the Fairness Doctrine isn't reinstated so we can at least hear some minority dissent.

[just another opinion]

Conservatives complain about the "liberal media" and liberals complain about the "right wing media". Is Fox News not mainstream?

There are differing opinions readily available for anyone remotely interested in hearing the other side to an argument, especially with the internet. It's pretty difficult to conduct a widespread media conspiracy nowadays with the internet in play. The liberal media argument is old and played out.

This is the first general election where the internet has had such a major role. One could argue that there has never been a more sober and up-to-date account of an election. Sure a lot of things were sensationalized, downplayed, conveniently omitted, what have you on BOTH sides and that's how it has always been! Technology and ideology does change, evolve, and dare I say...progress? All political parties need to find a way to change and adapt their message so it reaches people if they hope to make an impact. McCain's campaign made a lot of mistakes, just like Kerry's campaign made a lot of mistakes which led to his loss.

The media, as a whole, doesn't play "sides". You can open up an US Weekly magazine and figure that one out pretty fast. For example, Britney went from cute teenage pop princess to a psycho bald washed up lady in just a few years. It's pretty presumptuous to suggest that the only reason Obama won is because people who voted for him were somehow tricked by the media into doing it.

Oh and some other signs of fascism? A disdain for intellectualism and the arts, an obsession with national security, extreme militarism, sound familiar?? Of course this is among many other characteristics having NOTHING to do with either democrats or republicans. Obama is obviously way too reasonable for fascist "ideology" as is John McCain. Come on now.

[Play It Straight]

Easy there, "just another opinion" ...

I don't think you want to use US Weekly to bolster your argument, since their "Babies, Lies and Scandals" hatchet job on Governor Palin is widely cited as a one of many examples of media bias.

Further to that, Dr. Lawrence Britt's 14 Signs of Fascism are an interesting point of reference, but by no means constitute the definitive definition. They are his opinion (presented as your opinion, by the way. That's OK, plagiarism will enjoy a new tolerance with Joe Biden living at One Observatory Circle).

But I am confident fascism will not be the issue. The hard left is too selfish to coalesce around one direction or philosophy.

[USA Conservative]

Just Another Opinion,

I find it laughable to suggest that bias is generally equal on both sides. That argument is intellectually dishonest. For example, Bill O'Reilly draws 2.5 to 3.0 million viewers nightly. However, the newscasts of the three broadcast networks draw nearly 20 million viewers nightly. Add CNN, MSNBC and PBS to the mix and the liberal press reaches nearly 10 times the number of viewers that Fox does.

Oh, and if you think Fox tilts to the right, there have been three independent studies of bias in the press in the last 14 months. In every case, Fox was found to be the least biased of the news gathers by a wide margin. In fact, Pew found that Fox actually skewed slightly to the left in study released last month.

With regard to fascism, I'd suggest you read the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. It might change your opinion on what could be coming.

[just another opinion]

I wouldn't seriously use US Weekly to bolster any political argument. I'm sorry it was taken that way. I was just using it as an example of mainstream media, be it trashy and ridiculous. Most people don't take it that seriously. I mentioned it to point out the fickle nature of mainstream media. My point was that anyone who is at all interested in hearing both sides of an argument can easily find the information nowadays. Which is how I landed on this blog in the first place.

Some of the 14 signs of fascism are more or less consensus, I never claimed it to be the "definitive definition". Nor was I attempting to project it as my special opinion. At best it is a concise, simplified breakdown that allows a very complicated topic to be mentioned in a blog reply.
Anyway my point was crying fascism, socialism, communism, or any -ism doesn't get you anywhere.
Just as your blanket statement of the hard left being too selfish doesn't either. I'm interested in what you think the "hard left" is and how it has any real impact at all, or at least any more than the hard right. Then again I don't know what you would consider the "hard right" to be.

[Jim]

The truth is there is always more than one side to a story.

[andrew]

quote:
Remember his reasoning for going into Iraq? "We can fight them here or we can fight them there."

Oh, and here I was, thinking all the time that it had been over weapons of mass destruction in the hands of one of the Near East's most rabid tyrants, Saddam Hussein who, coincidentally was also the region's most rabidly anticlerical one. Arresting and torturing Shiah mullahs and Baha'is, squarely at odds with the Wahhabis in close-by Saudi Arabia (erm, weren't most of the 9/11 crew from over there? Ah, but Saudi Arabia, one of the religiously most intolerant countries in the region is on our side, so it is ok, I guess.) and leading a most welcome war against the equally murderous mullahs' regime in Teheran - a war in which the US gov't was quite happy to support him.

But thanks for clearing this point up. Reading this, Colin Powell must feel even more the fool for having been set up with his utterly silly wmd speech in front of the world community.

go figure...

[USA Conservative]

Hey Andrew,

Does the term run-on sentence mean anything to you?

With regard to WMD, there were numerous reports inside and outside the intelligence community and Iraq that those weapons had been shipped to Syria a few days prior to our invasion with the help of the Russians. Of course, why would the media follow-up on that when they can learn nothing and make Bush look like a lying idiot.

Look, I don't know what happened to the WMD, but I do know he used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 and they didn't find any of that weapon either.

I guess Puff the Magic Dragon ate it.