The only, and I mean only, way to combat this bit of insanity, is to pre-empt it with a failed Hillary Clinton primary candidacy in 2015. It seems the networks and Hollywood powers that be, having been sorely disappointed stung by a less than lackluster Obama presidency are ready to help anoint Hillary Clinton in 2016. With a four part mini-series, they will all be eager to help her just before her coronation election.
As John Fund at NRO points out, you can already see the white washing of her political blemishes being planned;
I wasn’t surprised to learn that sometime before the 2016 election, NBC will be releasing a four-hour miniseries about Hillary Clinton starring Academy Award nominee Diane Lane. What did surprise me was that the series will cover none of her life before the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which took place five years into her husband’s second term as president and when Hillary was already 51 years old. It’s as if her first half-century will be airbrushed away, along with the many scandals that dogged her in those decades.
While the series will still have a lot of ground to cover — impeachment and the “vast right-wing conspiracy” she suspected, her successful 2000 Senate race, her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, her time as secretary of state and her role in the Benghazi debacle — it’s striking that so much rich material will be excluded even before footage is discarded on the cutting-room floor.
He's right about the scandal removal (click the link to the original article to see the list). NBC it seems will start the proceedings in 1998 - Bill Clinton's second term (via Newser);
The NBC show will star Diane Lane, and it will cover "Clinton’s life as a wife, mother, politician, and Cabinet member from 1998 to the present," the network says. "The script will begin with Clinton living in the White House" during Bill Clinton's second term.
If you really want to short-circuit Hollywood by seeing them run a Hillary Clinton biopic mini-series going into a general election in 2016 where she is not a candidate, START HERE.
Newt Gingrich is a terrific debater, and on the surface it would seem that he won the debate last night, within the first 3 minutes with his response to John King's opening question. Fair enough. Although each candidate had their moment(s) to shine. Mitt Romney even provided a couple of good answers himself. Good in the sense that they sounded more genuine than they did car salesman, as he often does (to me at least). Whether Gingrich actually won or not, there's an observation to be made about his debating style that could prove to be a weakness in the long run.
ABC plans to unload an interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife right before the South Carolina primary, lending credence to the theory that the liberal media wants Mitt Romney to face president Obama. Why? He's very beatable. Maybe they don't feel the same way about Gingrich who could clearly undress Obama in a debate.
NEW YORK (AP) - An ABC News executive tells The Associated Press that the network has interviewed Newt Gingrich's second wife and is likely to air the segment Thursday on "Nightline."
That's two days before the South Carolina primary, where the Republican presidential candidate is trying to topple GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.
The ABC News executive did not indicate what the ex-wife, Marianne, said in the interview and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans for airing the interview were tentative.
The timing couldn't be more suspect.
That said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've argued that attacks on Romney were justified now because the GOP can't change it's mind in September if he's the choice. The same is true for Gingrich. But I suspect he can weather it. The other point is that if this swings the South Carolina race in favor of Romney, it quite likely locks him in as the nominee.
UPDATE: Why am I so sure this is an anti-Gingrich ploy? Timing.
In baseball, a team carries about a dozen pitchers. On a roster of 25 that borders on 50% of the staff. Why so many? Pitchers' arms get tired and they can't pitch every day. They would throw too softly and serve up home run after home run. They would risk injuring their arms and ending their careers. There's a lesson in that which the GOP may have inadvertently stumbled upon.
Every conservative knows that the mainstream media (MSM) has a liberal bias. Every conservative knows that they will run interference for the Obama administration, and any Democrat in Congress, the Senate, court justice or any governor so as to ensure that the liberal agenda can continue to advance. Every conservative can also see that while they might be trained journalistically, they aren't following the tenets of their training, because they are guided by 'the struggle' and not the truth. They are no longer journalists. They are a JournoList.
And further, it is apparent to most conservatives that the training of journalists beyond their chosen field is typically pretty slim - economics, geo-politics, history, religious studies, science, military tactics, or anything else that might be relevant to the topics they might cover. Normally that would be okay, as long as it was not a pervasive problem. It also would not be a problem if the topic-uneducated chose to educate themselves in the area they were going to be covering. And by educating, it does not mean "The Liberal Handbook Of ________".
But that doesn't seem to happen. Instead, the liberal media seems to learn from the Alinsky Playbook. They learn or develop tactics that they use to help forward that liberal agenda.
Ignore
If a fact gets in the way of your desired narrative, ignore it. For example, NewsBusters has this story;
We also shouldn't ignore what we ended up with the last time a nominee mentioned race and gender influencing decisions. However, the most disturbing reflection of Sotomayor's character is the company she keeps. According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, otherwise known as "La Raza".
As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
.... La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”
Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the MovimientoEstudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
Maybe it's an outlandishly wrong story. But it doesn't even get mention as that, if that's what it is. So how do you know they're ignoring it and not reporting falsehoods? Because if it was wrong, they'd vehemently report it as such because it fits the narrative of Republicans and conservatives as bad guys.
Ignoring a contention of that narrative is the preferred approach. You can't be called on factual errors or misrepresentations. More importantly, you don't even expose an alternative viewpoint for consideration. It's that type of approach that allows liberals to feel they can make claims like 'the debate is over, there's a consensus.' (Way to go Al Gore.)
Spin
If you can't ignore something, then you'd better spin it to your own narrative if you can.
In today’s New York Times, a front page article detailed the CIA’s use of torture during interrogation methods. The article elaborated on the memos the Justice Department released yesterday on CIA interrogation techniques. The NYT called the methods the CIA used “brutal” and “graphic.”
Before discussing torture further, it must be defined. Black’s Law Dictionary, an authority in the legal world, defines torture as the “infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure.”
Do the CIA interrogation techniques described in the recent memos fall in line with the definition of torture?
One technique that was used was sleep deprivation. Detainees were shackled in a “standing position” and kept awake for days, some times as long as 11 days. The excerpt printed in the NYT about sleep deprivation said:
It is clear that depriving someone of sleep does not involve severe physical pain… Nor could sleep deprivation constitute a procedure calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses.
Clearly, sleep deprivation is not torture, yet the NYT called it “brutal.” Go to any college campus during mid-terms and you’ll find plenty of students on Adderall, staying awake for days studying. Are they being tortured?
Good question Sean. And the article is an accurate observation of the New York Times and their continual 'spin mission'.
Ridicule
The next option in the arsenal of the mainstream media is ridicule. While it smacks of desperation, it seems to work, and it adheres to Alinsky's rulebook, so they continue to do it. Everyone has seen this one in action. If something poses a threat to your narrative, and you can't ignore it - ridicule it.
Those are the four weapons they use to promote their agenda as the one true agenda. So when they've run their course, they just repeat them. Maybe in a different order or a different balance, but the playbook is the same.
How long before outright lies become part of the repertoire? Or other things like legally silencing the opposition? No, I'm not paranoid. I don't think it will happen...quickly. But look at the Fairness Doctrine. It's not that far fetched that the march in that direction is underway.
The good news is that regular people, conservatives, moderates and even liberals who don't like the way the debate is shaping up and turning out, have time to put a stop to it.
