Nine out of ten media regurgitators are going nuts. Crazy.
Over one guy. Even the yappers at
Fox are turning on this one guy. Why?
What can one person with a point of view and the
accessibility to very big megaphones have in store for the poor media types
that they have turned on this guy with such passion? What do they see that many of us don’t? This is one guy doing supposedly what we are
supposed to do when it’s time to run for public office –
·
Speak your mind
·
Point out the problems
·
Talk about your solutions
·
If you’ve got some real accomplishments, mention
them
Are the media folks all upset because he doesn’t do it
within their self defined acceptable boundaries? If so where does it say you have to perform within
their definitions?
Are the media folks all upset because he has little or no
respect for them? If so where does it
say you have to have any respect for them?
Is he going too far in explaining in simple terms – language
and words that anyone can grasp the meaning of – what is really going on? At least how he has experienced it and seen
it and participated in it? If so isn’t that
what we expect of someone? Tell it like
it is at least from his point of view?
There is something very bizarre about all this upset if all
this one man is doing is making things up – not telling it like it is – camouflaging
his comments – picking his/her audiences carefully – avoiding certain topics
that may be troublesome – blandishing his/her own resume with lots of made up
nonsense – putting a happy face on a track record of failure – cavorting around
with gobs of cash she has collected from the very people she claims to be the
source and cause of all the problems ever known to mankind.
Oh, if you do that the media doesn’t get upset at all. They want to coronate you. Treat you like royalty. Maybe that is what they want – a silly queen
with not a lick of common sense or any record of accomplishment – and a wardrobe
closet filled with Kmart style outfits.
And gobs of cash from very, very rich people with agendas. But we still ask – why would they want such
a person? What is going on here?
But we all know the answer don’t we? It is as plain to see as the noses on their
faces.
3 comments:
This isn't the 1st time in history that a wealthy- beyond - comprehension candidate arose, and with a populist agenda, threatened to upset the political applecart. Ross Perot did the same thing; told the truth in unvarnished terms, echoing the common man's opinion when the professional politicians were too timid to do so.
Before that, John Anderson, of Rockford, Il, did likewise.
We need to remember that in Perot's case his 20% of the return ultimately cost Bush I his reelection and the country was inflicted with the scourge of Bill Clinton, who won with 42% of the vote. The repercussions are still felt today, as former piano-leg super-model spouse Hillary is a serious contender for the Oval Office. Trump can be useful until he becomes a distraction, that is, a 3rd party candidate.
One gets the feeling that the rich guy is merely stroking his massive ego, not seriously running. Still, it's going to be fun watching and it'll be interesting to see how the the other toadstools react to him. Right now he's calling the tune and everybody must take him seriously. He has even made Rick Santorum seem plausible as a candidate.
We need to ask ourselves" Are we ever going to learn?"
I can understand the comment, but I have a hard time with the original statement. Trump is a creation of no one but himself. Regardless of the outlet or the medium, Donald Trump draws attention. He has both support and high negative ratings. As a result, he draws eyeballs to television and print stories. Whether people like him or not, they will pay attention. The media is no different than Proctor & Gamble in that they give the people what they want. There is a sell in many instances to get attention to the "product", but this is not the case regarding Donald Trump. He is the one who creates the excitement and interest.
You can live with it or not, but Trump stories sell the ads before and after the story is aired or printed.
As for Perot and Anderson, I am not sure there is any peer reviewed empirical evidence that either effected the result of the election. Both drew interest from the left and the right on the populist model. I would anticipate that Trump, were he to run as an independent, would not draw significant support from the left. His support is more a manifestation of the Tea Party element in the Republican Party and the distrust arising from that area.
I think everybody can agree that currently Trump is, as you say, the hot candidate,and that in this era, voter disgust is higher than ever before. I'm not sure what you mean that he is a candidate of no one but himself, but in the sense that he is not a professional politician, I agree.That is a large part of his appeal. The notion of citizen-candidates is as basic to American govt as far back as George Washington.
Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote in his run for the Presidency. Bill Clinton got 43% and Bush I got 35%, all approximations. Every expert and historian agrees that most of the votes for Perot were siphoned away from Bush. Ergo, it's not too great a leap to maintain that Perot cost Bush the election. The same could be said about the Green Party and its' candidate Ralph Nader. In the election of Bush II v. Al Gore, the Greens pulled a far less # of votes. However the election was so close that even those votes eventually made it possible for Bush to win by a chad.
The point is, that 3rd party candidates with even a little traction can swing elections. I find it incredulous to read that Ross Perot had no effect or that he drew equally for both sides. Trump is, as you say, THE story right now. When we finally get around to examining his record of support on issues like partial birth abortion, Obamacare, etc. the public at large will see past the bombast, hopefully. We are way past the point where we can elect a celebrity-type who has no real accomplishments, no qualifications other than skin color or gender and hope to survive as a country.
Post a Comment