Let’s get this straight. The mainstream media hates Republicans. Opinion journalists hate Republicans. Reporters hate Republicans. People in the entertainment media—sports, celebrity news, drama, comedy, variety shows—hate Republicans. Half the people on “fair and balanced” Fox News hate Republicans. Analysts hate Republicans. Anchors hate Republicans. Actors, poets, writers, graphic novelists, movie producers, playwrights, painters, sculptors—especially those who are largely supported by the tax dollars of people who vote Republican—hate Republicans. In all probability, camera crews, makeup artists, hairdressers, key grips, and best boys do, too.
And it doesn’t stop there.
Professors—adjunct, assistant, associate, tenure-track, tenured, full, and emeritus—almost all hate Republicans. High school teachers, elementary school teachers, pre-school teachers, day-care workers, have an increasingly high likelihood of hating Republicans—and they’re teaching the children in their care to do so, too. The people designing curricula hate Republicans, and they design curricula to undermine the values and virtues Republicans want to teach their own children.
I say all this to remind you that, no matter who is chosen to be the Republican nominee by the voters, at the end of the nominating process, that person will be opposed not only by the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Hillary Clinton, unless by some miracle of Congressional fealty to the Constitution, she is in jail by then), but by every single so-called “opinion-leader” surrounding him (or her.)
We need to be prepared for this, and have a nominee that can not only handle the onslaught, but best them at their own game. We need a nominee that knows the media—not how to manipulate it, but how to expose it. We need a nominee that will hold the media to its own supposed standards of consistency and isn’t afraid to remind them not only of the things the other candidate has said—but of the things they have said.
Consider the things the media tried to focus us on this week. Ben Carson has been hit twice—first because he once told a graduating class at a 7th-Day Adventist school that, in his opinion (which he called “my personal theory”) Egyptian pyramids may have been built to house the grain stored up by Joseph in the Bible. Joe Scarborough (who never tires of claiming to be a Republican, just before eviscerating whatever Republican he is talking about at the time) was rendered speechless, and is now inordinately interested in knowing how old Ben Carson thinks the earth is.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders openly declares on national television, during a Democratic debate, that what America needs is a “revolution.” This was not considered insane or dangerous or out-of-the-mainstream, or over-the-top. Instead, the person perceived to be some dangerous crazy guy was the one whose answer to “who are you most proud of having as an enemy” was NOT any of his fellow Americans. Jim Webb’s apparent willingness to kill America’s enemies in defense of America is now considered by Democrats a sign of unfitness for office.
Secondly, the media is maddened that no one has appeared to corroborate Ben Carson’s stories of his violent youth. There is a famous saying in law and logic that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This appears to be a saying that is not covered in Journalism 101 (even if it were, it would not help, since many current “news” anchors and reporters never went to journalism school, but got bachelor’s degrees in subjects like English–looking at you, Mika Brzezinski). The chattering class is occupied now with a frenzied search for witnesses to events that occurred mostly between children when Carson was a child. Witnesses to whom Carson deliberately gave fictitious names. Carson turned sixty-four years old in September. That means the bloodhound media is trying to track down unnamed children to remember incidents that happened fifty years ago or more.
And yet, they are not bothered by the fact that Hillary Clinton has some, shall we say….creative memories of events that happened just two years ago—when she was not a child, but the Secretary of State, lying to the parents of the people she was supposed to have protected from harm. Nor are they interested in finding witnesses to those events—which killed four American citizens, one of whom was the US Ambassador to the nation in which Hillary Clinton abandoned him.
And let’s not even talk about Obama’s own uncorroborated life. Or his “composite” girlfriend.
So far, in this presidential nominating season–particularly in the CNBC debate–the questions have ranged from A to B, focusing tightly on the category “Things Democrats Can Use Against You In Ads For The Next Twelve Months.”
The Republican National Committee is punishing NBC as a whole for the outrageous behavior of their moderators, and it’s possible we may get better questions, but it is imperative that we produce a nominee who is more “resolute” than Romney turned out to be, and who will not shrink from bringing the truth to bear on an industry that is no more looking for it than O.J. Simpson was ever looking for the “real killers.” Such an individual must not only be thoroughly versed in the Constitution and the laws, but also in the events developing all around us on an hour-by-hour basis.
Your mission, Republicans: find that person.
And don’t forget who the enemies are.