As IF Times

Source: Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence) – The New York Times

To no one’s surprise, the mainstream media have aligned themselves solidly against the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as the never ending US presidential election reaches its conclusion.  We all know that it wouldn’t make a difference if Mother Teresa ran under the GOP banner, the mere fact of the affiliation would make her a target of disdain.   We all recall the last GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, who compared to the tempestuous Trump, really was a prince of a guy.   Romney was as squeaky clean as it gets;  successful, a family man, gracious and articulate.  Still, he was portrayed as an elitist and demonized as out of touch.   They preferred the PC demagogue paper pusher of the day.  What chance does Trump have of getting any boo yahs from the media?

This most recent ‘fumble’ by Trump is more telling of the media than it is of Trump.  Essentially, they are lambasting him for calling a fat girl, Alicia Machado, fat. Trump is hardly the most tactful or articulate of speakers as we all now know, but is this really the disqualifying trait for him?  Does he cheat at golf too? He must have at least a 3 foot long list of personal frailties; calling someone a name is hardly the worst of them.  Is that the card that they want to play, that he insulted an employee 20 years ago?  Well it’s pretty transparent what the strategy is: try to disenfranchise the female vote.  A word to women who may fall for this ruse: snap out of it!  It’s the 21st century;  women are clamoring to equal  men in all aspects of life.  Getting all hurty-feely because someone called you fat is pretty lame.

People may still not understand that the reason for his success with the electorate to this point is that he is a plain talking guy who won’t be bullied to tow the liberal pc lines.  If you’re fat, you’re fat.  A Dale Carnegie graduate, he’s not,  but it’s time to move away from all the double-non speak that terrorizes people today.

Like Romney, Trump has created employment and wealth for thousands of employees.  There is a record of accomplishment and achievement.   Democrats by comparison all seem to be professional government teat suckers who have done little in life other than parlay their law degrees to pander to whatever constituencies’ votes are coveted but have never been responsible for a payroll.  The Democratic presidents going back into history all fit this profile.  Go ahead, check it out, I’ll wait here.

The present incarnation, Hilary Clinton fits this profile on steroids.  Other than the fact that she’s the politically correct flavor of the day, the main rationale offered as her qualification is “experience”, as in over 30 years of being in public office of some kind or other, flying on government planes and attending useless meetings with other useless politicos.  Why anyone would tout that as an asset is odd to me.  It’s as if the ticket taker at the parking lot claimed experience in security.  If her character and history of questionable activity and connections were detailed, it could serve as the operations manual for the Mafia.  If Hilary was around during the day that George Washington’s famous tree was chopped down, she’d have blamed it on mob that was incited by a video.  Hilary is an ideological wind vane.

The media will be and are predictable in whom they support, no surprise there.  The surprise will be if the public decides to ignore their desperate bleats this time and make up their own minds based on the important characteristics of the candidates.  I hope the vast legion of long suffering deplorables make their voices heard.  Trump’s no choir boy, but he’s still better than Hilary.

link Romney energizes campaign with feisty debate performance | Fox News.

By now, the media is all a-twitter about the big collapse.  No, not the Ryder Cup, that’s another story.  We’re referring of course to last evening’s first Presidential debate.  As we skim through the expected comments by pundits in the aftermath of the great debate, the most striking tone that emerges is the surprise at how well Mitt did versus the relatively flat performance of Barack.

This is amusing because Romney did not do anything different than he has been over this entire campaign and really, since he started public life.  It has been the reporting of it and the perception that has been exposed.   There were no surprise policy positions offered at the debate, nothing that hadn’t been pooh-poohed by the media for months.  For anyone who has been paying attention to the content and not the editorials of his positions, what he offered has been there for everyone to consider for at least the past year.

What changed was the stark juxtaposition of Romney’s pragmatic positions versus the ideological ramblings of Obama’s, laid bare for everyone to see, stripped of spin or embellishment.  It’s akin to the old chestnut about how the young man at 25 years of age, is amazed at how smart his once clueless father became over the past 10 years of their lives.

What I find truly amusing, actually alarming, are the comments by the so-called independents who admitted to being swayed by last night’s debate.  It truly illustrates the shallowness of most of the voting public.  It also shows the residual power and influence of the general media which, though subtle can greatly influence opinions by steadily offering a concocted version of events.

Despite inarguably having the greatest access to education and information in the history of mankind, the ability of people to think independently is overwhelmed by an American Idol culture in which groupthink is rampant.  Many people think that popularity equals legitimacy.  It is a particularly unique trait of humans to do things that are actually detrimental to their own survival, something that you would never observe in the animal world, with the obvious exception of lemmings.

Conservatives shouldn’t take too much joy in last night’s debates as far as swaying the hard core liberals.  We know that even if the liberal candidate were found to have bodies stuffed in a freezer in his house, he’d still get the liberal vote. In the 2010 elections, Californians had the choice of candidate A, a person with renowned business skills who ran a multi-billion dollar enterprise employing thousands and who spent their own money on their campaign; versus candidate B.  This candidate was a relic from the past who essentially had no plan but was a darling of the entertainment community.  Californians were faced with crippling debt loads, massive flight from the state because of taxes and regulation and in dire need of proven fiscal management expertise.  Sure enough, the B team won.