The First Round – Debate in Colorado – Mitt Romney vs. President Obama – Bring on the Popcorn or - Not

The first debate between GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and Incumbent President Barack Obama will be held tonight in Colorado. The media offers this primer: “Five things to watch at First Debate”: A Q&A of sorts from Politico via NJ.com The list in this article includes: “Can Romney win the first half-hour?”, “How hard will Obama attack?”, “How do "47 percent" and Libya play?”, “Who brings up Bill Clinton?” and finally: “Is Obama ready for prime-time?”.

On the first question posed, suggests Mitt Romney must not be overly aggressive for fear of appearing to attack the President. In reviewing all previous GOP primary debates, of which there were, one might think, too many, Romney never seemed to attack at all. His style is one where he weighs a statement, then answers – all without fiery rhetoric, but more to the point. A debate can be won or lost at anytime in the process. One memorable comment in the last 10 minutes may set the course not only for the debate win, but for the balance of the election. The second question is answered by the fifth, following the logic of the 5th questions response that the President may be a little Rusty, (which one cannot fathom, given multiple appearance and a continual debate with Congress and the campaign stump (which to this mind is a debate prep it itself that goes towards both men), would make one believe that the President is incapable of a debate attack. Perhaps the article is referring to the 2008 DNC debates between Hillary Clinton and the Senator Barack Obama. Clinton appeared to be the fire-brand, while Obama more “laid back”. On the “47 percent political strategy of Mitt Romney’s, and Obama’s foreign policy fiasco in Libya”, one can hardly compare the two, and to do so, show’s a great disconnect, between what one might consider a “gaffe”. In the case of Romney’s “47%” remark, he was speaking to a group regarding political strategy – which demographic he would focus on (the Independents), it is much ado about nothing more than a sound bite used by the Obama campaign in order to sway the electorate – (a fair play in political terms). As far as having full knowledge of an impending attack on U.S. interest, weeks before they occurred, and then blaming that attack on the outrage against America in the entire Middle East, for weeks after the world was aware that these attacks were pre-planned by Al Queda is, simply put foreign policy negligence. When the buck stops here, regardless of who dropped the ball in the administration, the narrative of the “movie” at fault, should have been dropped immediately. It is the press comparing apples to oranges, not that a great percentage of the population even is aware of either occurrence, due to lack of interest in watching news. The question of who brings up Bill Clinton first – does it matter? It depends, but one might guess not overly much. The focus will be on the way which both men handle themselves on the stage and the content and delivery of their answers and rebuttals.

The question hat is not asked: How hostile will the moderator be towards one candidate over another? Regardless of what plays out live during the debate, what small segment with opinion by the media will be shown on the evening news cast? Will anyone but a slim majority of the voters actually watch or will it be those who are interested in politics and have no access to alterative programming that will view the first of three debates?

The debate between Incumbent President Jimmy Carter and then Governor Ronald Reagan may have been a factor in Reagan’s sweeping victory in 1980 however,it was considered a victory over job approval in the end game, even though the polls were tied. Reference: Reagan Win Bigger than Prediction from The Evening Independent, November 5, 180. One has to understand that in 1980, there were millions more viewers of the only three available networks, and no alternative stations – viewership of 25 million per network was the rule not the exception. Now, those are entertainment numbers, with major news outlets vying against cable and other sources, including other non-news networks.

In winning the debate, one must not duck a question, answer straight forward, and throw in a zinger (for lightening the mood) and compare and contrast. Calling out one’s opponent for embellishing the truth is also not out of bounds, and worth points. This is criteria, of course, is personal, however, to win over this independent conservative, one must be able to offer more than pat answers, or party lines and deliver policy with conviction and honesty. One might not always agree with the individual standing at the podium, but if the candidate scores on well (by following) the above criteria, then that will indeed be a win. It may or may not matter to those actually watching, one might get the impression that if one is watching this debate, one has already settled on a candidate, despite polls and debates and the media. (Refer to prior paragraph).

Romney Releases Tax Returns – Media Criticizes Romney for Paying Too Much and Not Being a Billionaire!!! – Romney 2011 Tax Returns Show Charity 1st Concern

Who Do You Trust? - Not the Media - Gallup Trust in Media by Political Ideology - graphic image Gallup

GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, is now taking heat for releasing additional tax returns – the American media and Harry Reid and the Obama Campaign’s bluff has been called, the only question was how fast they would spin it to a negative – the answer – seconds.

ABC News suggested that although Romney paid 1.9 Million in taxes in 2011, it was at a tax rate of 14.1%, and shame on him for paying too much! – Seizing on a Romney statement during a GOP primary debate, where he estimated his payment at a lower percentage (sending the same media reeling), apparently, now he’s paying too much, thus the implication – Romney “lied”. They also touch on his charitable giving, the reason his tax rate is higher than it need be – apparently the Romney’s giving is at a higher than average percentage and they claim less than half of what they give to charity. Since Romney does not take all of the available deductions – shame on him!

The Huffington Post is also questioning Romney’s public service, or more to the point, the fact that he abandoned his lucrative Bain Capital gig in order to save the Olympics in Salt Lake, run for Governor of Massachusetts and then for President, which made him a Millionaire – not a Billionaire!!

Of Course the Democrats are up in arms - suggesting that Romney’s releases of income tax returns was purely a political move(Washington Post).

This would suggest that after being harangued by the Democrats, the Obama Campaign for months about releasing tax returns, when he did so – it was political – yet it was not political for Harry Reid, current Senate Majority Leader and nut case, to suggest that Romney did not pay any taxes at all – and the media ran with it as gospel. It was not political for the President to call Romney out for not releasing enough tax returns – only two years, not twelve – and the media jumped on that.

Is it no wonder then that the most recent Gallup Polling - suggests:

Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

Gallup Graph Political News Consumption by Political ID - image Gallup

The trust in media by party is telling: 26% of Republican’s Trust the Media, 31% of Independents feel the news is worthy, and the highest percentage of trust goes to those who identify as Democrats at 58% - In addition, those who watch political news (or pay attention) appears to be in reverse, with Democrats on the low scale at 33%, Independents at 39% and Republicans at 48% (Gallup).

Therefore, across the board, across all news media, two thirds of the nation isn’t buying what they are selling.

According to the Tax Returns Here in PDF via Politico, Romney paid more in taxes as well as gave more to charity than the President because he earned more from investments (well, that explains the taxes, not the charitable donations where by percentage Romney is extraordinarily generous.(President Obama 2011 Tax Returns PDF)which show that the President did, paid less in dollar amounts based on income than the Romney’s in taxes, but had a 5,000,000 deduction (page 4 schedule C – Computation of Generation Skipping Tax Transfer – trust for children), gave a total of 172, 130 in donations, and has an adjusted gross foreign and domestic income of 789,674 (includes the Presidents salary of $364,000 (and change) Investments are, for the most part, in U.S. Treasuries .

Also, Romney’s firm is rumored to be preparing a release of 10 year, and one can bet at this juncture, the media and the Obama Campaign is praying that he doesn’t.

Otherwise, the American People might find out that Romney is successful, Romney is generous, giving more to charity and not deducting all of his charitable giving, as that’s just not done in the true sense of giving, Romney pays his fair share of taxes and then some, Romney could have been much richer, but instead decided to donate his time to the U.S. Olympics and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (where he took no salary).

There’s more to Romney than meets the eyes, acts of kindness, charity, straight up heroics, but he keeps that to himself, which when one considers the mettle of the man, Romney is much maligned for being, in this world, a saint! He’s maligned for following the founders of this nation and making a success of himself. He’s maligned simply because, the media is to the left, and Romney is truly in the center. Therefore, as more and more American’s tune out, drop subscriptions as the media continues to spin out of control, what does that portend for the millions of individuals who are now employed by the demagogues of leftist ideology that run the aforementioned institutions? The media continues to blame the internet, in the same way the Democrats continue to blame George Bush –by wearing ideological blinders. If the aforementioned and this is all media outlets, would being to print and broadcast actual news (not clips designed to denigrate one political ideology, when millions have an entire tape on line to view), or inflict politically charged language into every conceivable broadcast from sports to entertainment, again, at a slant, it is more than probable that they would recover – unless of course, it’s too late.

Mitt Romney and the Media – “Fighting Uphill Battle” Unequivocally Stating the Obvious Negative, or Subliminal Reporting On Mitt Romney the Norm

Romney and Obama - a Tale of Two Ideologies and the Press - image mrmediatraining.com


From Politico: the Headline: “Romney: 'I'm fighting uphill battle' in media” covers the remarks made by Republican Presumptive Presidential Nominee in reference to the type of reporting from what has become known as the “mainstream” media – which is consistently negative, and growing more contentious and sensational by the day.

If one watches the morning news, it is obvious that the President is treated, on the campaign trail, as above the fray, while Romney is consistently vilified – based on remarks or “information” coming from campaign sources. The print press has been relentless, and the blogs that feed the press – even more ridiculous. What the independent sees, however, is a disparity, wondering what those in the media whose obvious support for one candidate over another, is doing – besides alienating at least fifty percent of the electorate – and fueling a greater partisan divide. The fact that Romney has been successful in his career, has been fodder for the media to portray the candidate as an “out-of-touch”, mean-spirited, rich guy – which, when one looks at past presidents from both major political parties, Romney’s “wealth” is sometimes dwarfed by those know by Progressives as coming from the Second Estate – the Robber Barron’s who made their wealth through dubious means, and emerged as the nation’s leaders – the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedy’s. When the last Senator Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980, there was little mention of his off-shore holdings – which is common knowledge in the Bay State. Fast forward to the current contest, and the fact that President Barack Obama is not, decidedly, in the poor-house, but doing quite well in the Millions category – apparently is given a pass. Of course, there is a pass given to this President, not due to the fact of race, or competence, or anything other than a shared ideology – it is a political bent that is fueling the coverage of both Candidates.


The question now remains is the public buying into all of the negatives – it’s quite possible that, unlike the eight years the press hammered away at President George W.Bush, (and sometimes to be fair, deservedly), which was pivotal is allowing John McCain to be painted with the same “Bush” brand, and made it impossible for anyone with an – R – in their resume, to be elected (or re-elected) in 2008. By 2010, something occurred that shocked the media – apparently, this Tea Party thing, and the general public, decided to upend the entire Congress and almost caught the Senate – Now with Romney, there has been a) too much time between Bush and Romney to draw any specific comparison (although they have tried), and b) too little time to do as much damage as they hope. It is a matter of trust, and the trust in the instructions of News, both print and other, is in the tank –and not by half of the nation, but by two thirds or more.

Gallup Polling’s annual “Trust in Institutions” polling from 2011 indicated that merely 28 and 27% of the respondents put their trust into newspapers and televised news. The 2012 poll suggests that the situation has not improve with a 21% suggesting Televised News was trustworthy, and 25% placed their confidence in newspapers.


Gallup is not knows as a politically motivated, rather bi-partisan polling firm, therefore, these numbers should be fairly accurate.


The Headlines:


The Sample of Headlines from Google News alerts regarding Mitt Romney from one alert (an alert may contain one to 10 articles and there are multiple alerts throughout the day) dished up the following:

From the Boston Globe: Romney attacked on Bain Question”

The LA Times: Dick Cheney Hosts Fundraiser for Romney (one must read the article to get the full effect)

The Boston Globe Mitt Romney and his tax returns: Déjà vu?” (Reference to the Obama Campaign requesting Romney release scores of tax returns, which is neither precedented nor unprecedented in the political arena).

Upstate ”Romney gets rocky reception from NAACP”

The Washington Post Mitt Romney’s Cynical Response to NAACP Booing”

New York Daily News: Mitt Romney Uses Old Hilary Clinton Footage to Attack President Barack Obama”

The Dickenson Press: Stinky Economy Plays into Mitt Romney’s Hands”

And on and on and on...

However, if one has a Google Alert set up for the President – one finds the following – far too many mentions to post in one short blog – 99.9% of those in supportive verbiage – rather than any mentions of missteps, such as Solyndra, or Fast and Furious, or the drums of war beating again as the U.S. heads towards the Persian gulf.

It is a divide so obvious and so great, is it any wonder that a) the press has scored so low in Gallup’s polling and b) Romney is raking in contributions, and not, as portrayed in the press, at just those big fundraisers (the President has those as well but they are reported in glowing, rather than “negative” terms) but at the clip of $3.00 to $10.00 per donation, adding up to a net plus in the last reporting to $34,000,000 more than the President managed to amass.


The political cheerleaders in the U.S. media may find a backlash – similar to the one in 2010, but more important, a need to replace the ever decreasing readers and viewers who simply cannot stand another issue/broadcast – regardless of the coupons, crossword puzzles, and other “exclusive news”. It has little to do with the internet, or Fox News (often vilified), or the “blogs” (guilty as charged) – if one reads all material, or one watches all network news (and cable news network’s) one sees a definitive difference in reporting on the same event – from the press to MSNBC in the extreme, to Fox offers straight news, with no inflection of opinion, and opinion programming, clearly marked as not news, yet compared to MSNBC, extreme right, to CNN, where there’s a seeming middle ground. CBS, NBC and ABC, both local and national is clearly in sync and clearly invested in the campaign.

Romney, however, is most likely the least surprised at the fact that he will never be friends with the media, and will have little to no fair coverage, nor would any other candidate who may have been the front-runner and the presumptive GOP nominee. It would not have mattered one bit, the treatment would be the same.


This is why, in a short history lesson, the Founders, in letters published in the Federalist Papers, debated heavily over giving the Press certain rights, there was keen opposition mainly due to the possibility that the press might actually try to change or overthrow the government – from the Federalist Papers #84 – written by Alexander Hamilton

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

To put the essay into perspective, the Bill of Rights was put forth by the State of New York, insisting that the language in totality be included in the framed Constitution. There was a rather heated debate – much of which is available in biographies of Madison, Jay and Hamilton. That said, the questions raised in the past, were not, obviously unfounded. In the end it was included by a vote as well as the need to keep the New York contingent in the fold.


To be certain, the document is timeless and somewhat prophetic – in not the way that the press would cause a revolution, per se, rather in how the press would choose political sides, and a progressive ideology to support and include in their “opinionated straight news”. That is not to say the press is without purpose, nor that the entire body is to be maligned, as there are obviously solid journalists with integrity who will not inflict their personal opinions into an article to make one appear less than perfect, or perhaps use video footage that has been so badly edited, one is immediately caught (Andrea Mitchell, editing Mitt Romney’s on the campaign trail),or consistently being forced to retract incendiary headlines or statements, under threat of law suit (too numerous to mention).





If for example, the media woke up tomorrow, and began to report straight news, and use investigative journalism in reporting for good, or ill, on both candidates, one can bet the house, there would be a renewed subscriber base or viewership – one that had the highest score in Gallup’s trust in institutions polling. That would have a net effect of creating more jobs in journalism and the trickledown effect of an increase in revenue. The aforementioned is, of course, wishful thinking.


Mitt Romney might, in the long run, wish to thank those in the press for being so gung-ho for one political ideology, as only 30% are listening with attention, while the balance are not buying it – like the collective boy who cried wolf, sooner or later, the people will rise up and elect a Republican candidate – just as they did in 2010 and with each negative article or broadcast, as the cash pours into the Romney Campaign, it may represent a return to 2010, at all levels – the only way the press has to prevent this is to treat each candidate – equally.

Palin Tours New England: Politico Whines, the Globe Has No Sense of History, the Press Compares her to Royalty.

If one can make it through the 2 page “bitch fest”Poltico Produced vis a vis the Palin Tour, entitled “Palin's Rolling Menace”, one can begin to understand how truly petty the press has become and conflicted and well, generally worth glancing at more on entertainment than face value. Apparently, Suffolk Polling uncovered an inconvenient truth – no one trusts the press, especially print and braodcast. In fact a recent polls suggests a full 15% of respondents do not trust anyone whose delivering the so called news, and worse, 21% don’t’ know who to trust! (Suffolk.edu marginal’s). Therefore, it’s ok, if say Politico has a bad day trying to catch up to Sarah Palin, especially if not specifically invited, and having to compare themselves to Paparazzi (which they really should not as most Paparazzi one knows are not vicious, hate filled, politically motivated, individuals, out to destroy anyone’s reputation, they are more looking for the perfect shot of this or that starlet) –

So, what’s a group of reporters with no chance of getting near the subject to do? – follow – apparently at speeds which exceed the standard state limit and then the write about how horrid Palin’s tour is for speeding, not for a moment thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that the tour was speeding away (pivotal word here) from these so called reporters, was in order to avoid them and the surely half backed story they would provide (see half baked case in point).

On the flip side in Boston – working for the Globe, yet another trustworthy source, one finds a usual English Major making fun of Palin’s inability to “parse the language” – and her take on Paul Revere and his erroneous reference to of all things, the poem by Longworth “The Midnight Rise of Paul Revere”, which was written a decade after the fact. So much for education – Palin in this instance, correct from the historical point of view, is basically blasted for straying from a myth that all 3rd graders knows..Unfortunately Globe reporters apparently are either too arrogant or too (dare one say) limited) to research – one quick Google search points out the young Globe reporter’s error and vindicates Ms. Palin. (A Fairly decent bit on Paul Revere, his family and yes a reference to that ride :< a href="http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/paul-reveres-ride.html"> here.

They continue (the press) to ponder how anyone can take the likes of Palin or Trump seriously – seriously – they do – while those that actually read, and research, (which by the way, history, is a science and subject to some chances, specifically due to overzealous biographers – which explains Jimmy Carter), know just a bit more, which makes these “reporters” just a little less credible and a little less relevant every day.

It is not whether or not Palin or Trump, (who are both “fun” and “functional” candidates) actually run, it is the hissy fit they are giving the press, allowing those who sit and pontificate on what the masses would or should not know (while knowing not quite as much), to experience the inconvenience of the bus tour or display their total ignorance of historical context that makes both Palin and Trump invaluable contributors to Americana. Imagine if they ran on the same ticket, regardless of who was the VP (would it truly matter?) – How much fun would it be to watch the media implode? – stutter, spew hate-filled mindless rhetoric that no one would obviously believe and more to the point, isn’t’ even watching? Of course, they could drag out the old keyword “racist “and attach it yet again to Trump and Palin, but would it work? Maybe in Hollywood, but do they even vote?

The above: from a hobbyist!