I Don't Think GOP Can Beat the Press

[Oh Shoot]

I've become convinced that there's just no way to beat BHO because there's just no way to beat the press.

Can't find stats but I'd opine that at least 40% of likely voters get the majority of their "news" coverage from ABC/NBC/CBS. Add that to the rest of the built-in Dem base, and he becomes a lock.

Though the big three have leaned left for decades, since they anointed BHO in '08, they've become so far left that you need binos to even see them clearly.

I've been watching the daily 30 minute national indoctrinations a bit more lately, and a little more CNN too. It's really disheartening -- the constant leftish nudge has become a blatant sledgehammer. The only neutral coverage at all is for the non-political fluff pieces, bread and circuses.

I'm not kidding when I say the majority of news coverage has become just an extension of the USA Progressive State. Very much like Itar-Tass in Mother Russia.

While I do agree that the two party system has become joint tyranny, even the minor distinctions offered by what remains of conservatism are being successfully extinguished, and I see no foreseeable changes in that until The Big Pain that effects everyone, including the liberal talking heads.

Moderators for the first debate have been announced, btw. Left and far left only. Watch the softballs they'll serve up. It'll be a miracle if Mitt will be able to rise above the script they'll lay out.

- OS

Edited August 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[gjohnsoniv]

Unfortunately I have been noticing this as well. It's going to get nasty the closer it comes. Who are the mods by the way?

[Lumber_Jack]

I get depressed just thinking about it.

[gregintenn]

The good thing about it is that by watching CNN, you, all by yourself, dramatically increased their ratings. Their ratings have been tanking the last couple of years. The further left they've gone, the more people have turned them off. Most newspapers have suffered the same fate. I imagine the major demographic for the big 3's evening news are somewhere north of 60 years old. It won't happen overnight, but I see poor desicion making beginning to bite the press in the rear. The internet has also helped the spread of alternative news outlets. The big 3 simply don't have the clout they enjoyed 20 years ago.

The media is definitely in the tank for the left. I still believe a strong candidate could overcome this pretty easily. Too bad one isn't available.

[tnhawk]

The media can not even report the weather without giving it a liberal slant.

[QuietDan]

A coherent, repeatable, understandable message. Flood the Zone, starting with purchased media, especially ads on television. Fully utilize alternative media, especially Talk Radio, Direct Mail, Billboards, and the New Media, to include e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and such. Online Forums such as TGO count. Oh, and Word of Mouth, with personal, door-to-door contact and public gatherings. It's not easy or cheap, but it can be done.

[Guest ThePunisher]

What I can't understand is how they can continue as long as they do with their ratings tanking everyday. The bottom line is what is suppose to count for any business. We've seen that the Dumacrats can't last too long on talk radio as compared to conservative radio. Fox is beating the lights out of the other cable news venues, and viewership is tanking on the three alphabet networks. I guess the progressive commies have reached the point of all out blitzkrieg now that they've gained control without a shot fired, and they're not willing to relinquish their control.

[Raoul]

OS, I have to agree with you. Add to that the fact that Mitt has marginal testicular fortitude and I ain't feeling too optimistic.

[Oh Shoot]

What I can't understand is how they can continue as long as they do with their ratings tanking everyday. ....

The news divisions of NBC/CBS/ABC have often run at a deficit throughout the years, but the networks overall always make money, so they are subsidized from other parts of the operation.

One may speculate that this is because they are actually in the Dems' pocket one way or another, or simply because they see it necessary to keep their news divisions no matter what to show overall public good will and "seriousness" of purpose. Even though 90% of what they big 3 present is purely fantasy/entertainment/sports, sports commanding the biggest overall revenues, last time I noticed.

They are BIG, with a 75 year history of ingraining into the US culture, and will take a bit longer yet to be eroded to the point of failure, at least as far as their news divisions are concerned; entertainment and sports, probably never. The morning "news" shows have already transitioned to 50% pap, rather than news.

Then again, much like the Democrat party itself, the worse things get, the more the traditional networks may thrive overall, in that more and more folks drop extended cable and go back to the basic packages, or at worst, rabbit ears. So they may actually grow overall in viewership in bad times, just like handouts from the political admin expand its voter base.

- OS

Edited August 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ah, don't give up to soon. Liberals and conservatives usually don't even watch the debates, just us diehards

when we get around televisions, Mac. Look at the ratings of all the media outlets and laugh. They are mostly tanking

except Fox, for what that's worth. Yes you little pissants, I mentioned Fox just so you could bitch about them. You know who you are.

As far as Mitt goes, I think it is his race to lose, with all the liberals blundering continuously. I think he has to blunder less and go for the jugular instead of do like that idiot did in 2008. It is a pure mud campaign from Obama and Romney has to convince, by using some of that mud, just what Obama has cost our country in the name of the economy.

The liberal progressive regime has come close to all out communism and it is awakening a lot of folks who don't even bother to vote, but see their country coming to an end if they don't, this time.

I doubt it will even be a tight race. I think it will be a large gap between whoever wins, and the winner will decide the fate of whether we dissolve, because we won't allow a totalitarian dictator rule. The country will dissolve before that happens.

Romney has a slim chance of getting this country back into shape, but he needs that senate majority to do it. Hell, we need a senate majority more than we need Romney.

Edited August 18, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

The news divisions of NBC/CBS/ABC have often run at a deficit throughout the years, but the networks overall always make money, so they are subsidized from other parts of the operation.

One may speculate that this is because they are actually in the Dems' pocket one way or another, or simply because they see it necessary to keep their news divisions no matter what to show overall public good will and "seriousness" of purpose. Even though 90% of what they big 3 present is purely fantasy/entertainment/sports, sports commanding the biggest overall revenues, last time I noticed.

They are BIG, with a 75 year history of ingraining into the US culture, and will take a bit longer yet to be eroded to the point of failure, at least as far as their news divisions are concerned; entertainment and sports, probably never. The morning "news" shows have already transitioned to 50% pap, rather than news.

Then again, much like the Democrat party itself, the worse things get, the more the traditional networks may thrive overall, in that more and more folks drop extended cable and go back to the basic packages, or at worst, rabbit ears. So they may actually grow overall in viewership in bad times, just like handouts from the political admin expand its voter base.

- OS

Yeah OS, they have a really good economic model for success in a free market economy. But I read that Comcast, the new owners of NBC are cutting staff on the Tonight Show and Leno took a pay cut to save staff positions. This looks like the Marxist model of subsidizing other programs might be catching up to them, in that they are having to make cuts to be a viable enterprise. Marxism and profits just don't add up very well.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The good thing going on with the

media outlets is that they are

becoming so blatant and sloppy

with their reporting that more folks

are turning away from them as a

reliable source.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest HvyMtl]

The media is a business, owned by big corporations. They use sensationalism to sell product. They are not as "liberal" as labled. They do have their own agendas. Makes one wonder why these big corporations do not support Romney.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't hardly watch tv any more. Or even listen to the radio much. Occasionally I hear about a snippet of conservative thought expressed on CNBC. Does anyone listen to CNBC who could verify whether or not CNBC might be a little to the right of NBC or MSNBC? Just curious.

[1pointofview]

The media is going to be fighting against the right. So the only answer isnot allow the media to put them on the defense. When the media starts with their left wing narratives you throw facts back them and do it with conviction, not watered down middle of the road talking points. This is is called leadership and was the only reason Obama won last time. Mccain is a spineless politician who changed with the wind and during our econmic turmoil people needed direction and unfortunately the only direction being provided were from the socialist

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The media is a business, owned by big corporations. They use sensationalism to sell product. They are not as "liberal" as labled. They do have their own agendas. Makes one wonder why these big corporations do not support Romney.

I agree with the big corporations part, Hvy, but the fact that they are losing money and preaching and slobbering all

over Obama's feet(and probably other places) tells me they are still and have been liberalism personified all along.

If they weren't so blatant, their market share and credibility would be a lot better.

Their agenda is Obama re-election 2012.

[Oh Shoot]

.....Their agenda is Obama re-election 2012.

Most of he media outlets fawned, lauded, bowed, elected and anointed BHO.

To turn against him now would show they used bad judgement four years ago. Must throw bad money after bad now.

You may not get what you deserve from Mitt, but you deserve all you'll get from Barack.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The media is going to be fighting against the right. So the only answer isnot allow the media to put them on the defense. When the media starts with their left wing narratives you throw facts back them and do it with conviction, not watered down middle of the road talking points. This is is called leadership and was the only reason Obama won last time. Mccain is a spineless politician who changed with the wind and during our econmic turmoil people needed direction and unfortunately the only direction being provided were from the socialist

McCain could have been a better candidate and the liberal press painted him as a dangerous right-winger (after being their favorite pet RINO for a couple of decades). But there wasn't anything McCain could have said to win. McCain was being honest with mushy middle of the road talking points. He's only barely to the right of Obama. But even if McCain had lied and pretended to be a right-wing dude-- Even if McCain had been a better orator than Demosthenes, Hitler, Malcolm X and Spiro Agnew all rolled into one-- McCain would have lost. Simply because the average voter was sick of R's screwing the pooch. R's somehow managed to turn a balanced budget into a disaster within 8 short years. "If you like what G.W. did to the nation, elect me to double-down in the same direction!" Not a good campaign slogan.

I'm not a liberal commie Obama supporter. Merely explaining why you couldn't have elected an R for dogcatcher in 2008. Unless the public is insane, Obama will lose regardless of how smooth he talks, regardless of leftist media, and regardless how badly Romney campaigns, merely because Obama took a situation made bad by R's and made it worse.

On the other hand, if Romney wins then he better be real smart or real lucky, because if Romney manages to screw the pooch as bad G.W., then the 2016 president will be so commie it will make Obama look like a right-winger.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Most of he media outlets fawned, lauded, bowed, elected and anointed BHO.

To turn against him now would show they used bad judgement four years ago. Must throw bad money after bad now.

You may not get what you deserve from Mitt, but you deserve all you'll get from Barack.

- OS

May those profound words go down in the annals of OS history.

I'm just not witty enough to come up with those zingers, you old coot!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

McCain could have been a better candidate and the liberal press painted him as a dangerous right-winger (after being their favorite pet RINO for a couple of decades). But there wasn't anything McCain could have said to win. McCain was being honest with mushy middle of the road talking points. He's only barely to the right of Obama. But even if McCain had lied and pretended to be a right-wing dude-- Even if McCain had been a better orator than Demosthenes, Hitler, Malcolm X and Spiro Agnew all rolled into one-- McCain would have lost. Simply because the average voter was sick of R's screwing the pooch. R's somehow managed to turn a balanced budget into a disaster within 8 short years. "If you like what G.W. did to the nation, elect me to double-down in the same direction!" Not a good campaign slogan.

I'm not a liberal commie Obama supporter. Merely explaining why you couldn't have elected an R for dogcatcher in 2008. Unless the public is insane, Obama will lose regardless of how smooth he talks, regardless of leftist media, and regardless how badly Romney campaigns, merely because Obama took a situation made bad by R's and made it worse.

On the other hand, if Romney wins then he better be real smart or real lucky, because if Romney manages to screw the pooch as bad G.W., then the 2016 president will be so commie it will make Obama look like a right-winger.

The only thing event that helped McCain was Sarah Palin. She should have been at the top of the ticket. McCain

continuously tripped over himself being PC and scared to death of a black skinned candidate, that he should have

been ashamed of himself. He still should be. That was the worst campaign in modern history. Even that goof, riding

in the tank, the debater, could have beaten him.

[Oh Shoot]

... But there wasn't anything McCain could have said to win....

Yep, JC himself couldn't have won running under GOP.

Above all, Barack Hussein Obama is Dubya's ironic legacy.

All might have been different if he'd just not have gone into Iraq because he felt he had to do something big, combined with the boner to avenge his own daddy's legacy with the other Hussein.

Dumb ass cowboy -- Teddy Roosevelt he ain't.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

May those profound words go down in the annals of OS history.

I'm just not witty enough to come up with those zingers, you old coot!

A lifetime of linguistic prestidigitation, greased with cheap bourbon.

With your encouragement, I'll add it to my sig, until Barack wins second term.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Right where it deserves to be!

That 5th word sounds dirty. I guess you meant "cleaned up" with cheap bourbon.

[Oh Shoot]

Right where it deserves to be!

That 5th word sounds dirty. I guess you meant "cleaned up" with cheap bourbon.

Nah, brain had to be lubed to spit most of them out in first place, and especially to take money for it now and then.

- OS

Edited August 19, 2012 by OhShoot

[Mike.357]

Palin should have been at the top of the ticket? Are you serious? Sees Russia from her back yard? Really.

If someone properly vetted her no one outside of Alaska would have ever heard of her.

If there was a God almighty he could not have beaten the annointed one in 2008.

King Geo II, the worst president in US history, blame him for Obama being in the White House right now.