Interesting note from Don Surber this morning.
But the real inappropriate relationships in last year’s presidential campaign were between ACORN and the campaigns of both Obama and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The Times ignored that story. Unlike the McCain affair, multitudes of reporters were not rushed to flood the zone on this game changer.
Well, of course. Don isn’t shocked by this, if I read him correctly, nor should he be. Nor, frankly, am I. This is simply more of the same where the Dinosaur media is concerned.
Here’s the thing; at what point does Pinch make the connection between his falling revenue and the lack of public trust that such bias engenders?
There’s this, also; The kind of ‘fair play’ that John McCain would have had us playing under under the bill bearing his name, didn’t take into account this kind of bias, and thus gave a working advantage to the Democrats… something he claimed he was trying to avoid with McCain Finegold. That speaks to me of a level of competency that is seriously sub-par, on the part of McCain. As Surber notes,, McCain got bit by that bias, too. I’ll bet he never figured out how, though.
McCain Finegold was supposed to get the money out of politics. Of course it didn’t. It simply shoved it further into ACORN, for example. I wonder; Can anyone put a monetary value to a Democrat candidate, on a biased press? How much do you suppose the kind of non-coverage Don speaks of was worth to Obama, and to Clinton?
No wonder congressional Democrats are busy trying to use tax money to keep newspapers alive.
Tags: biased press, Campaign, campaigns, competency, congressional democrats, Democrat, Democrats, Don Surber, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Obama, presidential campaign, tax money, WHAT biased press?
