GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

John McCain, Hillary, the Media and the “B” Word

by

Last week, while doing some cardio at the gym, I looked up at the TV monitor to see CNN’s Rick Sanchez anchor a seemingly lengthy segment about how Republican Presidential contender John McCain handled someone describing New York’s junior Senator and Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton as a “bitch.” Given the attention Sanchez was devoting to the topic, I assumed a McCain aide had so described the former First Lady.

Only later would I learn this reporter was hyping the Arizona Senator’s failure to rebuke a woman who asked him “How do we beat the bitch?” I wonder if CNN has ever devoted as much time to a top Democrat’s failure to rebuke someone who asked a question using equally colorful language to describe the President of the United States.

I mean, they’re making an issue not something a Republican candidate said, not even something one of his staffers said, but of a question a voter asked.

Combined with Wolf Blitzer’s kid-glove treatment of Mrs. Clinton in the last Democratic presidential debate and the network’s booking two pro-Clinton “analysts” (Including one who has worked on her current campaign) to provide post-debate analysis, Sanchez’s hyping of the story is just another example of CNN showing unusual sensivity to Mrs. Clinton. No wonder some claim CNN stands for the Clinton News Network.

I would daresay I’m not the only one asking whether or not Rick Sanchez hyped this story at the behest of the Clinton campaign. After all, it would make it look like the former First Lady’s opponents were attacking her personally. Mrs. Clinton and her team label all criticism as personal attacks.  It’s the crux of her strategy, discrediting her critics while making her appear sympathetic (you know, the one subject to such awful innuendo).

Perhaps, she recalls that she only recovered from her dismal polling numbers as First Lady (the highest negatives of any First Lady since pollsters started asking Americans their opinion of the president’s spouse) when the news broke that her husband was involved with a White House intern. People felt sorry for her. I guess she thinks gaining public sympathy is the key to higher approval.

Whatever the case, CNN has been made a mountain of a molehill. And while that network may try to shield Mrs. Clinton from tough questions at the same time that it provides favorable coverage of her campaign, new media will make it easier for others to criticize the network’s bias, criticism more difficult to level back when her husband was in office.

The more the Clintons try to spin, the more people will become aware of the spin. That, in turn, will continually remind people about the Clintons’ methods of media manipulation. And further cement Mrs. Clinton’s negatives.

Mrs. Clinton just can’t manipulate he media the way her husband did in his first campaign — and throughout his two terms in office. And it’s not just his personality. It’s also how the media has changed.

Kudos to John McCain for standing up to the media and refusing to apologize for someone else’s remark. It’s nice to see this one-time “media darling” take on the media. It’s a good sign that as president, he’ll show such fortitude in standing up to America’s adversaries.

And such fortitude is helping allay some of my doubts about the Arizona Senator’s presidential bid.

Comments

  3. I hate these gotcah politics. I hate them on the right and I hate them on the left. McCain didn’t say it. He’s not responsible for it. There’s no reason he should have to apologize or explain what someone else said. Sean Hannity pulls this crap all the time (but people on the left do it too). It’s BS.

    This isn’t news. How about a story comparing the various candidates positions on a particular issue. Or highlighting their experiences in dealing with tough choices or situations. I’m sure there’s a lot of things (some positive, some not) that we don’t know about Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Giuliani. That would be news. This is crap.

  5. I love the way this paragraph has applicability beyond the Clintons:

    The more the Clintons try to spin, the more people will become aware of the spin. That, in turn, will continually remind people about the Clintons’ methods of media manipulation. And further cement Mrs. Clinton’s negatives.

    As I shall demonstrate:

    The more Ian tries to spin, the more people will become aware of the spin. That, in turn, will continually remind people about Ian’s methods of ‘truth manipulation’. And further cement Ian’s negatives.

  9. #1: My favorite line, and what is most indicative of the mentality of the Sorocrat Party, is this:

    Ghilarducci would end current tax deferrals for 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, which she said are inequitable in that they favor the well-to-do over lower and middle income Americans. Workers earning $24,000 or less would get a $600 tax credit that would cover their 2.5 percent contribution.

    “A wealthy family in a 35 percent tax bracket gets a tax break three-and-a-half times more valuable than a family in a 10 percent tax bracket, even if each family contributes the same dollar amount to a 401(k),” she said.

    Of course they do; the wealthy family is required to pay three and a half times as much in income tax. The change is proportionate; both families receive the same net benefit in terms of a reduction in their taxes.

    But the problem is to the Sorocrats is that, in their ideology, the wealthier family should be punished and forced to subsidize the poor family. This is consistent with their screaming rhetoric that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share”, despite the fact that, as data shows, over 50% of the tax revenue in this country comes from 5% of the taxpayers.

    Can any Democrats explain to me why their party’s entire mentality is to punish success and reward the opposite?

  12. Let’s put it this way: The male equivalent (not precisely, but morally) is to be called “bastard”, “prick”, etc. And people call male politicians those names all the time, right? And Hillary is equal to any man, right? She wants **no** special treatment, right?

  13. #8
    That’s why it’s so funny when liberals get a burr up their twats about Bush supposedly speaking to pre-screened audiences.

    #11
    Well when I’m honest, they call me angry and hateful. Then again, they hate nothing more than when you peg them for what they are.

  17. #13

    I’m a liberal and I have a burr up my butt about this one too. I like real news not fake. And I don’t like politicians using plants and avoiding hard questions. I don’t like it when Democrats do it or Republicans. And plenty of liberals are pissed at how Hillary Clinton is avoiding the media and avoiding answering tough questions.

    McCain gets a lot of crap from conservatives but the reason liberals often like him is that he goes on the news and information shows and actually answers questions. He doesn’t just spout talking points no matter what he’s asked. The same is usually true of Chuck Hagel (another one conservatives blast all the time). I might not agree with them but I appreciate intelligence and candor. It’s so rare in Washington that it sticks out.

    Anyway, many Democrats are NOT pleased with how Sen Clinton is running her campaign. So don’t act like we are ignoring it. We aren’t.