• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why does the media smear every Republican EXCEPT Romeny?

Peter Grimm

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We've seen all the hit pieces against Gingrich these past couple weeks.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Herman Cain.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Perry.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Bachmann.

The ONLY candidate that the media never intentionally "smears" is Mitt Romney... and I want to know why.



I would expect there is either an agenda, or there is some money and under-the-table payments going on...
 
They smear whoever is in the forefront of attention (haven't you noticed)

He's not quite there yet.

But he's also run before so it's not like anything new will come out that we don't already know.
 
They dont smear Romney for various reason.. for one he has the brains to keep his mouth shut for the most part, so there is no real ammunition to smear him with. Another reason is probably they want an actual contest next year and Romney is the only that has a realistic chance.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
We've seen all the hit pieces against Gingrich these past couple weeks.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Herman Cain.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Perry.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Bachmann.

The ONLY candidate that the media never intentionally "smears" is Mitt Romney... and I want to know why.



I would expect there is either an agenda, or there is some money and under-the-table payments going on...
Click to expand...

That's because he's the most sensible, the most moderate, and the smartest
 
The same reason the media attacks Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the Kardashians but leave Meryl Streep alone. Think about it.
 
The media hasn't smeared Romney? That's not even a little accurate. The media has pounded Romney. Every time he starting coming up in the polls the media beats him down. So it would seem your real question is why don't they only continuously "smear" Romney every day after week after month and leave Gingrich alone?
 
The real problem here is that when a Republican says something stupid and the media reports on it you think of it as a "hit piece". I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility?
 
I just remember a few weeks ago the media having a feeding frenzy over his "Bet".

The real reason he's not gotten as much "smearing" is that he's been the presumptive favorite but he's not really been the "hot" person over the past 4 or 5 months. He's just been there...Mitt Romney...presumed winner...boring and bland. There's nothing sexy about dirt with him at this point but there is with people who are hot, current, and trendy. When Bachmann was getting popular stories about her equaled ratings/sales, and thus they came out. Same with Cain, Perry, etc. Romney's not interesting, he's not hot, he's not trendy...he's boring, and thus he's bad news because all the news has become now a days is sensationalized business.
 
Let's not forget the media going nuts over his comments about his lawn service where he said he told them "look, I am a candidate, I can't have illegals". This whole thing is silly, just like most media complaints.
 
Zyphlin said:
he's boring, and thus he's bad news because all the news has become now a days is sensationalized business.
Click to expand...
As much as I would like to blame this on the news media in general, I just can't. If you were to open up a news source that was bland and boring, only dealt with fact and left out all opinion and celebrity features and worthless crap I'd expect you to go bankrupt in no time flat. We love sensationalism. Why? I have no idea.
 
roughdraft274 said:
As much as I would like to blame this on the news media in general, I just can't. If you were to open up a news source that was bland and boring, only dealt with fact and left out all opinion and celebrity features and worthless crap I'd expect you to go bankrupt in no time flat. We love sensationalism. Why? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't really blame the media. They're giving people what they, as in the masses, want...sadly enough.
 
(1) While Romney has been running for 2012 since the 2008 election was over, there was no contest for the nomination until the end of this summer. Once the debates began in earnest and the candidates had joined the field Romney consistently ran a close second to the leader - Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich. That the press would attack the leading Republican candidate is quite natural.

(2) The mainstream media views Romney as being the Republican candidate most aligned with their own political point of view. They honestly believe he is the best candidate the Republicans can field and genuinely perceive the conservative and libertarian candidates as being too extremist to run a competitive election. The media believes a Romney candidacy would be the Republicans best chance at winning the White House.

(3) The press is avoiding attacking Romney directly on as fierce a basis as they have the more conservative primary leaders because they are allowing Republicans to attack their own and saving the ugliest dirt for the general election. Let Republicans tear each other apart, they figure, and then build on the mudslinging once the Republicans have nominated their own beleaguered, wounded candidate. It's much easier to skewer a man weakened by the bloodletting that comes from a thousand paper cuts. Think the mainstream press hasn't hopped on Romney enough about his hypocrisy on Romneycare, about his serial flip-flopping and career political opportunism, or his "Wall Street" background, silver spoon upbringing or the racist past of his Mormon religion? Once he's the nominee, you'll never hear the end of it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
We've seen all the hit pieces against Gingrich these past couple weeks.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Herman Cain.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Perry.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Bachmann.

The ONLY candidate that the media never intentionally "smears" is Mitt Romney... and I want to know why.



I would expect there is either an agenda, or there is some money and under-the-table payments going on...
Click to expand...

It is interesting that whoever seems to rise up to pose a serious challenge to Romney finds themselves destroyed. And Romney still holds on month after month after month to fight a different new flavor of the week.
 
I think all of Mitt's negatives have been talked about in the media. Flip flopping, Bain Capital etc. Those are three were gifts that kept giving.
 
The Media...a bunch of gossiping old women...just like the woman (on every block) who peers out her window to see what is going on in her neighborhood, then calls everyone to "spread the news". It's usually not worth your time and if you believe the news, maybe I could sell you a piece of The Brooklyn Bridge.
 
Peter Grimm said:
We've seen all the hit pieces against Gingrich these past couple weeks.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Herman Cain.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Perry.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Bachmann.

The ONLY candidate that the media never intentionally "smears" is Mitt Romney... and I want to know why.



I would expect there is either an agenda, or there is some money and under-the-table payments going on...
Click to expand...
I've heard the Republican elites want Romney too. Everybody wants Romney because he has almost no contrast with Obama.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
They smear whoever is in the forefront of attention (haven't you noticed)

He's not quite there yet.

But he's also run before so it's not like anything new will come out that we don't already know.
Click to expand...
When it comes to "smears," Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign wrote the "book" and elevated it into a political "artform" when they "derailed" the McCain Campaign during the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina.

"Peter Grimm" and "Aunt Spiker" are deluding themselves if they think that its the "liberal" media and/or the Democrats who are orchestrating "smear" campaigns against any candidate who represents a serious threat to Romney getting the nomination.

The Republican "establishment" have already decided that Mitch is the only one of their "stable" of GOP candidates with any chance of defeating Obama in the 2012 General Election.

Despite the fact that Romney is considered too liberal by most Republican/Tea Party supporters, the GOP "establishment have made their decision that electibility trumps ideology, and that they will send out their Karl Rove "types" to undermine the campaign of any GOP candidate who gets in Romney's way.
 
Last edited:
First of all sometimes the word smear is badly placed.

If you mean report on candidates doing, saying or being accused of controversial things, that's not smear, that's reporting.

Second of all if I had a $1 for every time MSNBC showed this picture:

bain-romney-money.jpg


Or constantly lauded his changing of positions every other minute I'd be a pretty rich man.

I suppose many conservatives are pissed that every person who's jumped to the front so far turned out to be a moron, but they didn't get that way because of the mainstream media, or liberal bias, they turned out to be morons because well... that's what they are.

The truth hurts, life sucks.
 
Peter Grimm said:
We've seen all the hit pieces against Gingrich these past couple weeks.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Herman Cain.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Perry.

Before that, the hit pieces were on Bachmann.

The ONLY candidate that the media never intentionally "smears" is Mitt Romney... and I want to know why.



I would expect there is either an agenda, or there is some money and under-the-table payments going on...
Click to expand...


There's a conspiracy to get a Mormon to win the nomination, followed by the Presidency ... and world domination.
 
PeteEU said:
They dont smear Romney for various reason.. for one he has the brains to keep his mouth shut for the most part, so there is no real ammunition to smear him with. Another reason is probably they want an actual contest next year and Romney is the only that has a realistic chance.
Click to expand...

I don't consider portraying him as a flip-flopper with no principle as any less of a "smearing" than the other GOP candidates.
 
jgarden47 said:
When it comes to "smears," Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign wrote the "book" and elevated it into a political "artform" when they "derailed" the McCain Campaign during the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina.

"Peter Grimm" and "Aunt Spiker" are deluding themselves if they think that its the "liberal" media and/or the Democrats who are orchestrating "smear" campaigns against any candidate who represents a serious threat to Romney getting the nomination.

The Republican "establishment" have already decided that Mitch is the only one of their "stable" of GOP candidates with any chance of defeating Obama in the 2012 General Election.

Despite the fact that Romney is considered too liberal by most Republican/Tea Party supporters, the GOP "establishment have made their decision that electibility trumps ideology, and that they will send out their Karl Rove "types" to undermine the campaign of any GOP candidate who gets in Romney's way.
Click to expand...

Explain if you will - as to why you read my two bits and then assumed I was discussing the liberal-camp. . . I said no such thing nor did I try to secretly suggest it.

So why did you jump to that conclusion?
 
Jetboogieman said:
First of all sometimes the word smear is badly placed.

If you mean report on candidates doing, saying or being accused of controversial things, that's not smear, that's reporting.

Second of all if I had a $1 for every time MSNBC showed this picture:

bain-romney-money.jpg


Or constantly lauded his changing of positions every other minute I'd be a pretty rich man.

I suppose many conservatives are pissed that every person who's jumped to the front so far turned out to be a moron, but they didn't get that way because of the mainstream media, or liberal bias, they turned out to be morons because well... that's what they are.

The truth hurts, life sucks.
Click to expand...
And you don't get to vote. Hahahahaahaha
 
These candidates have all been sunk by idiotic things they said on camera. You can't really blame the media for reporting it.
 
I actually don't think smear campaigns will work on Romney anymore. His comments about him being a progressive didn't affect his poll number at all. More flip flopping will not affect his poll numbers, people support him just because they think he can win. The only thing that could hurt him now is a personal scandal.

However, the left is not attacking him, and they are attacking the other candidates more. That is because they believe he is going to be the candidate, so they want to wait with the ammunition.

The mainstream right is not attacking him either, because Karl Rove wants him to be nominated, and the different factions of the Tea Party have a tendency to destroy each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom