Obama Under Fire: How the Media Minipulates the Electoral Process

Before I get into the subject of the non-stop assault on Barack Obama via his Church affiliation I want to say that I am in no way an Obama supporter. My wife told me of a video comparing the Obama campaign to the Seinfeld episode where they came up with the idea of a show about nothing. This was then fused with the Obama campaign's success, a campaign about nothing, just the vacuous phrase "Change we can believe in!" I of course am a Ron Paul supporter and will be voting third party in November (Libertarian or Constitutionalist). This is all by way of preface.

That said, this election more than any other has woke me up to the sheer power and influence of the news propagandists in our voting process. The fall of Guilliani from frontrunner status followed by the resurrection of McCain seemingly out of the grave of irrelevancy, the predicted Obama win in NH and the defeat at the hands of Clinton allegedly because she cried. Of course there was the constant sidelining of Ron Paul as a non-contender from day one.

In short the media has more control over the electorate than many people give them credit, it is they who announce what the "latest polls show", it is they who decide who the "serious candidates" and "front runners" are, thus deciding who we are to choose between. It truly is lamentable to see how effective this is when almost everyone I talk with throws out the cliches of "Ron Paul?! Go ahead throw your vote away!" or "You gotta choose the lesser of the two evils..."

My point above is to show how influential all of this nonsense really is, if front runners are announced you must abide by the above cliches and vote for one of the "winners". So the media has a massive degree of sway and ability to manipulate the electoral process by raising candidates up and bringing others down. Moving now to the Obama pastor situation that has been incessantly bantered about by the media pundits for over a week now.

The Meat of the Jeremiah Wright Scandal:

I am not of the secularist opinion that a politicians religion doesn't matter, in a lot of ways it should be an indicator of the person's character. However, we also know that politicians feign religiosity to gain acceptance, kind of like holding babies for photo ops only in this case it's baby Jesus.

In regards to Obama's church attendance a recent fervor has erupted due to allegedly racist comments made by Wright from the pulpit. The Neo-Cons have not stopped talking about this on the radio and tv playing clips of "racist" statements, bringing up Wright's friendship with Louis Farrakhan and Obama's relationship with a former member of the Weatherman Underground group. In short, the sharks have smelled blood and there is now a frenzy.

Just what DID pastor Wright say that has Sean Hannity and company so ruffled? Here are some of the more shocking quotes (taken from an AP report):

(Speaking on Sept 11):

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Here we see Wright call out our governments own nasty doings and support of terror and how our evils have come home to roost via people hating the U.S. I of course would go further than Wright so my simple question is what's the big deal here? Oh I forgot, we're not supposed to ask WHY the third world hates America we are just supposed to bomb them for hating us...that's the patriotic thing to do after all.

(Probably the most played quote):

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I admit this is strong language, we need to THINK about it and ask questions rather than simply REACTING to it. The question we need to ask is "Why is he talking like this?" Well, he lists some of the reasons, the drug trade which our own government is involved allowing (do your homework and you will see this is true), the racist prison system which can have people (mostly Black) locked up for 3 strikes of non-violent crimes. After all it is mostly impoverished blacks who are on the street pushing the drugs the CIA has brought into the country.

These seem like pretty good reasons to think God's curse would be called for on this country, and he is probably right. I do disagree with calling it down like Wright does, this certainly is out of step with what Christ Himself taught. Christ rebuked His disciples for calling down judgement on sinners. (Luke 9:53-55)

(Another quote):

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

Well, again isn't that all true? What so far has been racist about anything Wright has said? He is simply saying Hillary doesn't know what it is like to be marginalized because of her race (perhaps gender), Barack does. (The above quotes were from an Associated Press release on Mar 18, you can see the article here)

Now on Rush Limbaugh's web page we see an article titled "Obama's double life exposed: His racist Hatemonger pastor". Now I am not here to defend Jeremiah Wright, I am sure I would actually disagree with him on most of his theological positions, for instance this black Jesus nonsense. Jesus was Jewish, He doesn't need to be black to be acceptable to blacks, if you think that Christ needs to be black or else Christianity is "White mans religion" you're elevating your race above Christ and His Word. Is Wright guilty of that? Probably.

My Assesment of This Boondoggle:

To tie this together what I see in this whole situation is a whole lot of silliness at best and malicious slander intended to minipulate the electorate at worst. It is silly to say that when someone looks at our own government as the cause of hatred of America that person is unpatriotic and hateful. That is just plain stupid, and antithetical to free thought. However, that is what we get in the media.

This is the new investigative journalism at it's best, say good bye to reporters breaking stories like Watergate, say hello to the era of News slathered in big breasted celebrity gossip and political assassination with spurious investigation. In this era candidates are made and destroyed by the media and corporate ties.

Even now "recent polls" say Hillary Clinton is now the front runner due to all of these revelations about Obama's filthy secretive racist Satanic pact making past. After all that's what this is really about, the media folk are the king makers. Until we realize this we will continue to play in their sand box by their rules with all of this "Left" vs. "Right", "Liberal" vs. "Conservative", "Democrat" vs. "Republican" game. This is all a charade of choice, the reality is that we have no choice, they will have decided for us.

A clear example is how the Manchurian John McCain came out of absolutely nowhere to get the nomination, early in the election McCain's candidacy was treated in similar obscureness as that of Ron Paul. This changed after Iowa, and almost overnight McCain (not Huckabee who won Iowa) was anointed "frontrunner".

These are the kingmakers at work, and right now Obama is the latest victim of their onslaught of rubber knives and Nerf bullet scandal charges. We see it time and time again, as with the "Dean scream" (The video can be seen here, ) keep in mind that little "Byeah!" at the end of Dean's speech is what allegedly cost him the nomination and brought Howard Dean's campaign to the dust paving the way for skull and bonesmen John Kerry to be the 2004 Democratic candidate. We need to see through the spin and understand where they are trying to shift our opinions to and ask why?

Will this rubbish about Obama's pastor cost him the nomination? Perhaps. It is difficult to say, if Howard Dean can be deemed unelectable because of a girlish shriek then any drummed up assault can result in the toppling of those the media wishes to sideline. Any statement on race can be spun as racist, any statement on sex can be spun as sexist, and any statement criticising the war or government intervention overseas can bee spun to be "anti-American" hate speech.

This is the new "free press" in America, it is nothing short of Soviet style propaganda. What is truly lamentable is the fact that most people don't know the difference between propaganda and reporting. There is however still a glimmer of hope and truly free press in America and that is why I thank God for the Internet.

UPDATE:

I recieved in the comment thread a link to a video of one of the controversial messages, this video gives better context to Wright's statements. Not that I think his statements were that bad to begin with but still, it is good to see the broader scope of what he is talking about rather than isolated sentences.

The video can be seen here.

Stellar Ron Paul Interview

Over on the Gold-Silver web page there is an excellent interview with Ron Paul mostly dealing with economics. In the interview Ron Paul explains a bit of the Federal Reserve system (most people have no clue whatsoever about the FED, this is intentional by the way), defends a gold standard monetary policy as well as consititional liberty. This really is a must see for thinking voters:

The interview can be seen here.

It's Nothing Short of Criminal

What I am referring to is the manner in which all of the network news outlets have consistently covered Ron Paul in all of the "debates" (More like Q & A sessions than debates). This is how elections are rigged apart from directly throwing away certain votes or adding votes. This is how the phenomena of "frontrunners" are born, the media baptizes the person who fits their allegiance and shuns those who do not.

I can understand that not every goof running for president need be taken seriously, and frankly finances has been a cut off mark. Unfortunately for the elite owned corporate media Ron Paul has such serious supporters he has met the financial cut offs and has stayed in the race. It's his ideas they don't like, the same ones that people who actually are paying attention and not voting based on superficial facades of left and right are in support of.

Ideas like killing the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the CIA, NAFTA, oh and the war we seem to be fighting for no real reason which one was it...the war on drugs, "terror", Iraq...either way Dr. Paul wants it dead. Thus, there are many who frankly want his political career dead. This can be seen in the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul in the debates. A couple of examples:

Firstly, in the Fox News South Carolina debate, Dr. Paul almost wasn't invited by the Neo Cons but after enough outrage of their censoring of Paul in New Hampshire they reluctantly let Paul in. During the debate Dr. Paul was treated very disrespectfully by the moderators, being interrupted laughed at, and one moderator intentionally tried to make Paul look crazy when talking about how the Neo Cons are trying to drum up war with Iran.

What took the cake in this debate was when Dr. Paul was asked (with other moderators laughing) "How electable are you sir?" Ron Paul answered the question so well showing that he really is the only true conservative running that when Fox News aired a non live replay of the debate later this specifice enterchange was edited out of the replay. Fair and Balanced right? No just corporate media covering their tracks of trying to destroy a candidate blowing up in their faces. (The Banned question can be viewed Here thank God for the internet)

Not only did this incident show Faux News’ bias (with the moderators laughing, and the fact that they didn't ask such a disrespectful question to Giuliani who has received less votes than Paul) but also how Ron Paul really is the only real conservative in this race. This election there are only two candidates Ron Paul and everybody else (All CFR members both parties).

The latest incident comes from the CNN debate in CA. In this debate Ron Paul was almost completely ignored, instead CNN baptized McCain and Romney as the "frontrunners" and gave them bulk of the questions and rights to talk. There were a number of times where Anderson Cooper stopped Ron Paul from giving a full answer, in one instance Dr. Paul recieved a full 9 seconds to answer whether he supported Reagan’s choice of Sandra O'Connor to the Supreme court while all the others got about a full minute without interruption. (The Ron Paul Highlights from the CNN debate can be found here) BTW, Ron Paul was the only one who had the gall to say Reagan was wrong in electing such a liberal judge to the court, he blasphemed Reagan.

Frankly, it was disgusting watching the CNN debate. Not only did McCain and Romney stink of more of the same, but when Dr. Paul was thrown a scrap from Cooper it was phrased around what he thought about McCain' position on X. It made me realize just how controlled the mainstream media really is. To put it simply, there are a lot of people with a lot of money and power who happen to own these media outlets and don't want some lose cannon Constitutionalist like Ron Paul getting his ideas out there and waking people up out of their left vs. right mirage. All that stuff is just an illusion to get the people to think they have a choice when really whoever they vote for is a CFR member (council on foreign relations) and in the pocket of the big business'.

This is why the Ron Paul Revolution is truly a revolution. I have never been so inclined to donate my time or money to promote a candidate but Ron Paul has really changed that for me. This election is vital for our freedoms in this country, and I truly believe we are at a crossroads. We can either keep going down the path of more Patriot Acts, erosion of individual rights in the name of "security" or "protecting the environment", more endless and winless wars, more globalization, screw ball economics, Socialialism (soft peddled as "Big Government") in the place of Federalism...and whoever gets in, unless it is Dr. Paul, Democrat of Republican will do just that. Whoever wins will be worse than Bush, you heard it here first folks.

Tyranny: Coming to a State Near You!

This article on Worldnet Daily about a boy who was seized from his parents home in Colorado by a swat team is one of the latest examples of the totalitarianism that is coming here in the West. I'll let the reader go through the article to get the appalling details, my point is simply this: This is where we are going as far as the power of the State and I attribute it mainly to secularism's dominance in the public square.


How might that be? Well, simply put, the secular humanists aren't fond of children learning ideas that are outside of their worldview, they are dangerous. This family and their parenting philosophy of homeschooling Christians was out of step with the secular states' religion, teaching radically harmful ideas like people are made in the image of God and there are moral absolutes etc. Just like we have seen recently in Germany families that refuse to bow to the secular government education many have had their children taken away.

Granted, the main issue in this instance was not education and as of right now families can opt out of the government education programs, but the issue certainly is related. Outlawing homeschooling is the next logical progression for the secularists as is taking place in Europe.

Again though, how can I blame this on secular humanism? Well, as Schaeffer argues in "A Christian Manifesto" (the title is a play on the "Humanist Manifesto") that we once had a government that was under the rule of law, meaning that law was king, the state was under the law. God is the law giver. This gives citizens liberty and restricts the government. However, God has been removed from our understanding of law (and thus lex rex) in favor of a secular humanist framework and Christianity no longer is the intellectual and moral framework of the culture in general (aside from whether individuals really were true believers, Christianity still at one time was the consensus). As this has happened the power of the State has become autonomous and has grown tremendously.

That's the nutshell of the argument, and why we are where we are. We are moving more and more into a police state as our individual freedoms continue to be eroded in the name of various "dire causes" like terrorism, the environment, etc. The time will come within my lifetime I believe when Christian families will not be able to educate their children according to their conscience because the State's elites will see that as potentially harmful.

To wrap up, this isn't supposed to be like one of those sandwich board "The End Is Near!" sort of message from the Charles Manson look alike on the street corner. Firstly, we should praise God for the freedoms we still have, secondly we need to in the current freedoms labor to turn the clock back (I wish Christians would get off the Neo-Con bus and wake up to some one like Ron Paul) and lastly we need to be on our knees before our God at whose word nations rise and fall.

Lord's Table

I have been wrestling a bit with the issue of the Lord's table, as a Presbyterian going to a Lutheran university. It has been good and I am more covinced of Calvin's position as I explore the issue, here's my quiz results:

Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Calvin You are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord's Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way. Calvin 88% Zwingli 69% Orthodox 50% Luther 19% Catholic 0% Unitarian 0%

From the Pilgrim's Progress, an Encouragement to faithfulness in Vanity Fair.

The Following comes from John Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress" when Faithful and Christian are put in the stocks at Vanity fair. This is before Faithful is put to death:

Then were they remanded to the cage again, until further order should be taken with them. So they put them in, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

Here, therefore, they called again to mind what they had heard from their faithful friend Evangelist, and were the more confirmed in their way and sufferings by what he told them would happen to them. They also now comforted each other, that whose lot it was to suffer, even he should have the best of it; therefore each man secretly wished that he might have that preferment: but committing themselves to the all-wise disposal of Him that ruleth all things, with much content, they abode in the condition in which they were, until they should be otherwise disposed of.

Then a convenient time being appointed, they brought them forth to their trial, in order to their condemnation. When the time was come, they were brought before their enemies and arraigned. The judge's name was Lord Hate-good. Their indictment was one and the same in substance, though somewhat varying in form, the contents whereof were this: --

"That they were enemies to and disturbers of their trade; that they had made commotions and divisions in the town, and had won a party to their own most dangerous opinions, in contempt of the law of their prince."

Now, FAITHFUL, play the man, speak for thy God: Fear not the wicked's malice; nor their rod: Speak boldly, man, the truth is on thy side: Die for it, and to life in triumph ride.

Faithful's answer for himself

Then Faithful began to answer, that he had only set himself against that which hath set itself against Him that is higher than the highest. And, said he, as for disturbance, I make none, being myself a man of peace; the parties that were won to us, were won by beholding our truth and innocence, and they are only turned from the worse to the better. And as to the king you talk of, since he is Beelzebub, the enemy of our Lord, I defy him and all his angels.

Then proclamation was made, that they that had aught to say for their lord the king against the prisoner at the bar, should forthwith appear and give in their evidence. So there came in three witnesses, to wit, Envy, Superstition, and Pickthank. They were then asked if they knew the prisoner at the bar; and what they had to say for their lord the king against him.

Then stood forth Envy, and said to this effect: My Lord, I have known this man a long time, and will attest upon my oath before this honourable bench, that he is --

JUDGE. Hold! Give him his oath. (So they sware him.) Then he said --

ENVY. My Lord, this man, notwithstanding his plausible name, is one of the vilest men in our country. He neither regardeth prince nor people, law nor custom; but doth all that he can to possess all men with certain of his disloyal notions, which he in the general calls principles of faith and holiness. And, in particular, I heard him once myself affirm that Christianity and the customs of our town of Vanity were diametrically opposite, and could not be reconciled. By which saying, my Lord, he doth at once not only condemn all our laudable doings, but us in the doing of them.

JUDGE. Then did the Judge say to him, Hast thou any more to say?

ENVY. My Lord, I could say much more, only I would not be tedious to the court. Yet, if need be, when the other gentlemen have given in their evidence, rather than anything shall be wanting that will despatch him, I will enlarge my testimony against him. So he was bid to stand by. Then they called Superstition, and bid him look upon the prisoner. They also asked, what he could say for their lord the king against him. Then they sware him; so he began.

SUPER. My Lord, I have no great acquaintance with this man, nor do I desire to have further knowledge of him; however, this I know, that he is a very pestilent fellow, from some discourse that, the other day, I had with him in this town; for then, talking with him, I heard him say, that our religion was naught, and such by which a man could by no means please God. Which sayings of his, my Lord, your Lordship very well knows, what necessarily thence will follow, to wit, that we do still worship in vain, are yet in our sins, and finally shall be damned; and this is that which I have to say.

Then was Pickthank sworn, and bid say what he knew, in behalf of their lord the king, against the prisoner at the bar.

Pickthank's testimony Pick.

My Lord, and you gentlemen all, This fellow I have known of a long time, and have heard him speak things that ought not to be spoke; for he hath railed on our noble prince Beelzebub, and hath spoken contemptibly of his honourable friends, whose names are the Lord Old Man, the Lord Carnal Delight, the Lord Luxurious, the Lord Desire of Vain Glory, my old Lord Lechery, Sir Having Greedy, with all the rest of our nobility; and he hath said, moreover, That if all men were of his mind, if possible, there is not one of these noblemen should have any longer a being in this town. Besides, he hath not been afraid to rail on you, my Lord, who are now appointed to be his judge, calling you an ungodly villain, with many other such like vilifying terms, with which he hath bespattered most of the gentry of our town.

When this Pickthank had told his tale, the Judge directed his speech to the prisoner at the bar, saying, Thou runagate, heretic, and traitor, hast thou heard what these honest gentlemen have witnessed against thee?

FAITH. May I speak a few words in my own defence?

JUDGE. Sirrah! sirrah! thou deservest to live no longer, but to be slain immediately upon the place; yet, that all men may see our gentleness towards thee, let us hear what thou, vile runagate, hast to say.

Faithful's defence of himself

FAITH. 1. I say, then, in answer to what Mr. Envy hath spoken, I never said aught but this, That what rule, or laws, or customs, or people, were flat against the Word of God, are diametrically opposite to Christianity. If I have said amiss in this, convince me of my error, and I am ready here before you to make my recantation.

2. As to the second, to wit, Mr. Superstition, and his charge against me, I said only this, That in the worship of God there is required a Divine faith; but there can be no Divine faith without a Divine revelation of the will of God. Therefore, whatever is thrust into the worship of God that is not agreeable to Divine revelation, cannot be done but by a human faith, which faith will not be profitable to eternal life.

3. As to what Mr. Pickthank hath said, I say (avoiding terms, as that I am said to rail, and the like) that the prince of this town, with all the rabblement, his attendants, by this gentleman named, are more fit for a being in hell, than in this town and country: and so, the Lord have mercy upon me!

Then the Judge called to the jury (who all this while stood by, to hear and observe): Gentlemen of the jury, you see this man about whom so great an uproar hath been made in this town. You have also heard what these worthy gentlemen have witnessed against him. Also you have heard his reply and confession. It lieth now in your breasts to hang him or save his life; but yet I think meet to instruct you into our law.

There was an Act made in the days of Pharaoh the Great, servant to our prince, that lest those of a contrary religion should multiply and grow too strong for him, their males should be thrown into the river. [Exo. 1:22] There was also an Act made in the days of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, another of his servants, that whosoever would not fall down and worship his golden image, should be thrown into a fiery furnace. [Dan. 3:6] There was also an Act made in the days of Darius, that whoso, for some time, called upon any god but him, should be cast into the lions' den. [Dan. 6] Now the substance of these laws this rebel has broken, not only in thought, (which is not to be borne), but also in word and deed; which must therefore needs be intolerable.

For that of Pharaoh, his law was made upon a supposition, to prevent mischief, no crime being yet apparent; but here is a crime apparent. For the second and third, you see he disputeth against our religion; and for the treason he hath confessed, he deserveth to die the death.

Then went the jury out, whose names were, Mr. Blind-man, Mr. No-good, Mr. Malice, Mr. Love-lust, Mr. Live-loose, Mr. Heady, Mr. High-mind, Mr. Enmity, Mr. Liar, Mr. Cruelty, Mr. Hate-light, and Mr. Implacable; who every one gave in his private verdict against him among themselves, and afterwards unanimously concluded to bring him in guilty before the Judge. And first, among themselves, Mr. Blind-man, the foreman, said, I see clearly that this man is a heretic. Then said Mr. No-good, Away with such a fellow from the earth. Ay, said Mr. Malice, for I hate the very looks of him. Then said Mr. Love-lust, I could never endure him.



Nor I, said Mr. Live-loose, for he would always be condemning my way. Hang him, hang him, said Mr. Heady. A sorry scrub, said Mr. High-mind. My heart riseth against him, said Mr. Enmity. He is a rogue, said Mr. Liar. Hanging is too good for him, said Mr. Cruelty. Let us despatch him out of the way, said Mr. Hate-light. Then said Mr. Implacable, Might I have all the world given me, I could not be reconciled to him; therefore, let us forthwith bring him in guilty of death. And so they did; therefore he was presently condemned to be had from the place where he was, to the place from whence he came, and there to be put to the most cruel death that could be invented.

They therefore brought him out, to do with him according to their law; and, first, they scourged him, then they buffeted him, then they lanced his flesh with knives; after that, they stoned him with stones, then pricked him with their swords; and, last of all, they burned him to ashes at the stake. Thus came Faithful to his end.

Now I saw that there stood behind the multitude a chariot and a couple of horses, waiting for Faithful, who (so soon as his adversaries had despatched him) was taken up into it, and straightway was carried up through the clouds, with sound of trumpet, the nearest way to the Celestial Gate.

Brave FAITHFUL, bravely done in word and deed; Judge, witnesses, and jury have, instead Of overcoming thee, but shown their rage: When they are dead, thou'lt live from age to age*.

*In the New Heaven and New Earth. {footnote from one edition}

How the Media is Destroying Democracy

To put it mildly I am rather disgruntled over how the 2008 presidential election is shaping up, or rather falling apart to be more accurate. My annoyance is not the fact that the guy I think would be the best influence in the presidency (Ron Paul) probably won't win. It has to do with that, but the issues are more why this is the case, and how we know who will win at all. In large measure I blame the news media, I honestly think the way elections are covered by nearly all news networks and news outlets is destroying Democracy. I will why explain in this post.

1. The Horse Race Coverage, or "The Polls Show..."

How many times within the past 6 months when one listens to talk radio, reads news, or watches network news have the omniscient "Polls show Guilliani is leading by X points..." or "The latest polls are showing..." talk been used? I have one simple question in regard to this "polls" talk, HOW DOES THAT HELP DEMOCRACY IN ANY WAY?

I can't think of a single positive effect "polls show..." has on voters. Invoking the "polls" seems only to have negative effects by dictating to the public who is the winner before they vote, thus it is really encouraging turning a deaf ear to the "2nd Tier candidates" they don't have a chance so who cares.

This attitude not only is fostered in the public but in the media itself. On Sunday I saw that Tim Russert had a "Open invitation to all the presidential candidates of both parties to come on 'Meet the Press'" I saw that he had Guilliani and Romney coming in the future and wondered whether Ron Paul was coming up as well, or perhaps had already been on. Well unfortunately, The 'Meet The Press' invite isn't as open as one is led to believe. The invite is only for the serious candidates, apparently Paul doesn't qualify as such.

How is such a conclusion reached? Not a serious candidate? The guys out there campaigning every day and is at all the debates what do you mean he's not serious? Well here again comes the "given the polls..." Thus, given the polls the media is justified to intentionally neglect to talk about certain candidates, and thus the public doesn't even know about them.

2. Best Chance to Win

This ties into the previous point about the polls, but one of the major focuses I see in the media is upon which candidate has the "Best chance to win", never mind their policies, ethics, voting record or even competency, "Guilliani can beat Hillary" and that seems to be enough for us to rally around him, so says Sean Hannity. Hannity has been pleading with Christians to overlook the rather blatant moral backwardness of Guilliani and rally behind him or else the Republicans will lose the White House.

Well, I am sorry but as a Christian my political rationale shouldn't be vote for the guy who has the best shot to keep the Libs out of the White house, that is ridiculous. In thinking such way the media encourages us not to vote for a candidate but against the Democrats and their candidate. This hurts democracy.

3. The Focus On Inconsequentials

I can vividly recall a talk radio personality comparing Guilliani's wife to Fred Thompson's as who was hotter and how that effects voting. I have seen similar things on the networks as well. Not only the wives appearance but also the candidates themselves. "Romney just looks like a president" is a phrase I have heard several times.

In the case of this election we also have the gender and even race factors constantly coming up. "It is about time for a women president." Or "We still haven't had a black president perhaps Barack is the guy." While all these issues may seem novel they really are cancerous to a healthy democracy. If you are voting for someone because of how hot their wife is, what sex they are, because their last name is Clinton, or because they have brown skin I frankly don't think your vote should count. Perhaps as a 1/3 vote because you still are a citizen and no matter how empty your opinion may be it should be listened to election day.

My point, simply is that the media fosters these superficial evaluations of candidates. I have above mentioned the more positive superficial treatment of candidates, it goes both ways and most of the negatives are just as superficial. For example the Hillary laugh, while obviously fake and aimed at dismissing the question in itself should be rather moot compared to the actual answer she gives when she stops her boisterous outburst.

Again, when the media harps on the inconsequentials the public does as well. It creates superficial voters.

I can go on with other partiular issues but for the sake of brevity I will only highlight the above. The issue particularly nagging is the polls one. Constant horse race coverage on how Guilliani is up 2 points...Clinton is leading...Huckabee is surging...all of this makes politics a sort of sport and the candidates play the game.