by Datechguy | January 21st, 2012
The Anchoress reports on a disturbing omission in the MSM coverage of Thursday’s debate:
I came to the debate a few minutes late so I didn’t see it live. At the end of the debate, when CNN replayed “highlights” the standing-O wasn’t included (it certainly seemed like a “highlight” whether one liked it or not), so I only became aware of it thanks to the internet, and social media.
This morning I got an email from a friend who scours the papers, and he wrote:
AP and others did not even mention the standing O
I took a quick look around at various mainstream reports and discovered that my friend was correct. Even pieces identifying themselves as analysis of “winners and losers” or “views from the bleachers” made no mention of the standing ovation that accompanied Newt’s smackdown of King.
Now let’s be clear, I’m a Santorum man and that’s it, but this is really more about the stereotype that the left has about the right than anything else.
To our friends on the left, the Christian is an intolerant bigot, extremely judgmental who only lives for their own self-righteous. It is a caricature of actual Christianity which is not only based on the concept of forgiveness but demands it of any who would follow Christ. In fact every time the Lord’s Prayer or as we Catholics would say the Our Father is prayed we are reminded of it:
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us
For our own sakes we have to forgive
Of course one is required to avoid and turn away from sin, but Gingrich has confessed his sin and asked forgiveness. We must avoid the trap of the elder brother in the story of the prodigal son.
But to our friends on the left that’s a story they are not familiar with.
this flyer was surreptitiously distributed on the windshields of cars at a pro-life event where the Paulistas were out in force.
So I come out to the parking lot, get the flyer, drive to a McDonald’s to file my American Spectator column and, while I’m at it, decide to Google this “Elizabeth Reichert” to see if such a person exists. And the only reference to her online as of 10 p.m. Wednesday was … Will Folks at FITS News, who had managed not only to transcribe the 388-word flyer, but also to write a 475-word “news” story about it, in which he said, “Allegations are flying among the rival 2012 camps, but at the moment a majority of fingers are being pointed at Perry’s campaign.”
Because why would you stop a dirty tricks campaign when you are pulling out of a race and trying to mend fences. Stacy continues
So: How did Folks get hold of the flyer? Was he in Greenville that night? Three presidential candidates — Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich — spoke in person at the pro-life forum, while Ron Paul appeared via satellite TV hookup. If Folks was in Greenville to cover that event, where are his reports of those candidates’ appearances? Did he decide that what the candidates said at the forum was less newsworthy than this flyer distributed in the parking lot of the Hilton?
You see what I mean by “suspicious”? One suspects that, unless Folks himself wrote this flyer, it was written by one of his fellow Ron Paul supporters, who informed him in advance and provided him with the text of the flyer by e-mail, so that all he had to do was to cut and paste it and hit the “publish” button the minute his fellow Paulista informed him that the flyer had, in fact, been distributed.
Read the whole thing and you can see why lover-boy is so anxious to hit Stacy. When you are a shoe leather reporter used to using sources you know how much time it takes to transcribe a flyer, you notice a lack of sources and the improbability of certain “facts”.
This would be consistent with Robocalls that took place in Iowa falsely questioning Santorum pro-life and pro-gun stance and the false flag operation at the Gingrich/Huntsman debate that I covered in Goffstown NH..
Paul’s people seem to take a page out of the Lyndon Johnson school of tactics. Politics isn’t beanbag and a presidential campaign even less so but my advice to the Ron Paul folks is this: If you expect Rand Paul to be a serious contender in 2016 (and you do) I strongly suggest cleaning up your act. The press might not be all that interested in the tactics and the players while the targets are fellow republicans or conservatives, but once the target is a democrat in 2016 or Obama if somehow Paul gets the nomination, all of this stuff is going to come out in the wash and a lot of members of the GOP who stayed silent because they didn’t want to alienate the Paul folks will be happy to confirm and cooperate in bringing you down.
Now it’s true that “liars and disgraceful cowards” votes count the same as everyone else, but I would remind every one of an old poem that I enjoy quoting:
One night in late October,
when I was far from sober,
Returning with my load, with manly pride;
My feet began to stutter,
So I lay down in the gutter,
And a pig came up an’ lay down by my side;
A lady passing by was heard to say:
‘You can tell a man who “boozes”
by the company he chooses’
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.
And this doesn’t even take into account this interesting piece of work:
In what appears to be a last ditch attempt to halt Newt Gingrich’s late momentum in South Carolina, a fake CNN Breaking News alert was emailed to state Republican activists early Thursday morning claiming that the former House Speaker pressured his ex-wife to have an abortion.
CNN did not send out the email alert.
I don’t know who sent out this blast, but as it says above “you can tell a man who boozes…”