So Much Nonsense, So Little Time

With the Presidential Primary Season coming down the to wire, one would expect to see some really hard hitting news stories, and some really hard questions for the Candidates about issues, and a lot of research about their character, and their values. My, how disappointed one would be if this is really what they were expecting.

First off, last night, on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, she sat down with all the major Presidential contenders and asked them about their temper. OK, so, you ask a politician if they have a problem losing their temper, what do you expect them to say? "Oh, yes, I've got a nasty one, that dude from Iran looks at me the wrong way and I'll nuke him right off the face of the Earth!" I mean come on, it's meaningless drivel, meant to fill time and masquerade as real news, but it utterly worthless to anyone who is serious about finding a candidate to get behind for their party's nomination, or for President in the General Election. I'm not saying that temper doesn't matter, if one of them has a history of beating the tar out of people, we need to know that, but I guarantee you that you are not going to get that answer directly from the Candidate, it's going to take some real digging, some real, honest, journalism.

But let's not just point fingers at CBS, they certainly aren't alone in doing ridiculous stories and asking ridiculous questions. When it comes to Romney, all they seem to be able to ask him about is his religion, which I've discussed before, and there is some importance to it, but the issue has been dealt with, lets move on. To Romney's credit, he works hard to steer conversations and interviews on to real issues, and actually tell us what he's about, or at the very least, what he wants us to think he's about.

I have the same issue with coverage of Mike Huckabee, everyone wants to focus on his religion, and his background in it. Again, it's a valid issue, but it's been dealt with, let's get on to the real issues. A problem here however is that, unlike Romney, Huckabee doesn't fight to overcome this, but plays right into it, allowing it to be smokescreen in front of his campaign regarding other issues. What we need is a real clear look at this man who would be President (and regardless of what the Media and Pundit types would tell us, actually does have a shot) and where he stands and what he would do. But you really have to fight to get that clear look, and unfortunately, there's enough misinformation out there about Huckabee that you have to be extra careful what you believe.

On to Rudy Giuliani, who pretty much gets a free pass on his liberal standing on 90% (or more) of the issues, while being grilled continuously about providing protection to his mistress (now wife) while mayor of NYC. As I stated in a previous post, "Wrong Question," this isn't what should have been considered there. For one, they seem to gloss over the fact that Rudy was still married while he was off "hooking up" with this other woman, which is a cause of great concern in a Presidency, it's not just about his personal life, as he would have us believe. He took vows to his then wife. Part of being married is being faithful to your spouse and to the vows (read "oaths") you take to the person before Almighty God, and if you can't even live up to that, why should we expect you to uphold the oath of office taken to the US Constitution? Furthermore, he knew he was going to have to offer her protection once people found out he was sleeping with her, and he knew that would happen in fairly short order, it's not the kind of thing that you can keep secret, so, how is is this man fiscally conservative? I mean, he didn't mind spending big money in taxpayers money so that he could have an affair, why should we trust him with the Federal Budget? But that question wasn't asked either. All we seem to hear are questions along the lies of, "Wouldn't it have been better for you politically if you'd have let some whack job take her out?" Of course nobody has ever said that, but come on, it's pretty much what it boils down to, not real issues, and not even the heart of the issue they are supposedly covering. Just more fluff. Even Bill O'Reilly says things like, the woman he had an affair with while still married... but New Yorkers knew that marriage was already pretty much over, as if that makes it all OK.

Also, it took them quite awhile to get over Fred Thompson's "trophy wife" before we could get any real coverage about him, which there wasn't much of to begin with. It's nutty, but that is what they talked about.

On the democratic side we hear about people attacking Hillary because she's a woman, which is utter nonsense, and then about the mud slinging between Obama and Clinton, not because it's meaningful, but precisely because it's not. It clouds our perception of where they stand on the issues.

They do seem to have dropped the ball in one spot though, they talk about John Edwards being vain, getting $400 haircuts and living in a Mansion across the street from a trailer park, whose residents he completely ignores, meanwhile he's going around the country talking about the two America's and the divide between the elites and the regular folk. OOOPPSSS!! That's an actual meaningful story that exemplifies that Edwards talks a good game, but is really one of the elites that he claims to despise.

There are plenty more examples of this, but I think we all get the point. The goal of the Mainstream Media is to cloud the issues from the view of the American people, while at the same time influencing them to vote for the one they pick. They want to tell us what to think about the news, not just report the news and let us decide for ourselves. It takes a little more effort to see through the nonsense, but the American people in general are smart enough to do it, if only they will.