Media Dictatorship At A Debate Or Censoring The Opposition
When you compare the substance of the so-called rowdy mob debates in South Carolina with the serious Brian Williams exercise in Florida, there is simply no contest.
Yes, it is true. The substance of the supposed cockfights in Carolina was actually far more intellectually important and informative than anything that was accomplished in Tampa. Frankly, what these debates must have are intelligent, concerned, and rowdy crowds to keep the feckless and clueless liberal moderators on the subject of anything important. Moreover, their reaction to the passionate and articulate defense of conservatism is a good way to motivate the candidates to keep articulating conservatism with passion too. It's a win-win. And for the media and other liberals, it's a lose-lose.
Without the crowd as a governor, so to speak, Monday night in Tampa, what we saw was a tortuous exercise where supposedly valuable time was wasted discussing the difference between sugar cane and sugar beets, Terry Schiavo and "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) orders, Elian Gonzales, and something about the Everglades that I'm sure is important to Floridians -- but should be none of the federal government's business in all likelihood. (Thank you, Ron Paul.)
And all of this crucial business was after we were tortured over how many years of tax returns the son of George Romney should release -- and some kind of discussion of business overhead that had something to do with gross versus net income of venture capital firms versus consulting firms versus CEO compensation of said firms and whether or not a man on Mars should pay that high a rate. Or something like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment