Diary

Politico's Hit Piece History

Disclaimer: Politico is a left wing rag…

 

I’m afraid the history of Politico must be called into question as well as the character of their so called journalists. Politico is known for employing hit piece character assassins who disguised as journalists who routinely take comments out context in order to create conflict (Example: Taking Sarah Palin’s “Flavor of the week” comments about Herman Cain and suggesting that Palin was minimizing Cain’s rise in the polls last month when if you actually look at the interview from On the Record Palin says the media likes to prop up different candidates each week in preparation of knocking them down when they get too popular. Hence saying Cain was the new target or, in her words the media’s flavor of the week to prop up and eventually knock down). And boy was governor Palin right on the money about the media propping you up and knocking you down. Cain’s rise was such a baffling and maddening conundrum for the media they had to find some way to knock this uppity boy down a peg you know?

This boy who according to Karen Finney, Democratic Strategist and MSNBC political analyst appeals to white Republicans because the boy knows his place, was simply too confident in his new found success for the media to accept. Herman Cain will fade from memory as a result because if it’s one thing people believe more than the truth that is said once, are lies that are said more than once. And when you’re despised by the Democrat Establishment and the Republican establishment then my friend you have no friends left at that point.  The Republican establishment wants Romney so the likes of Joe Scarborough who declared an end to Cain’s campaign because of this story are probably glad that this came out to be perfectly honest with you, because let’s be clear Herman Cain was the sneak attack the establishment never expected and they don’t like the idea of someone outside the circle infiltrating and causing confusion.

Politico on the other hand met its objective which was character assassination and we all know liberals specialize in such cowardly tactics as destroying one’s character. Think about it: You ever wonder why liberals never attack conservative principles but instead attack the conservative who espouses those principles? The character of a conservative is the embodiment of his or her principles, so you have to attack the character if you’re a liberal in order to discredit the principles because arguing on principles alone spell defeat for the progressive.

Reagan talked about this in his 1964 Republican Convention speech. He said in a sense that liberals use emotional arguments and always accuse conservatives of being against things just because they disagree with the progressive agenda. If you happen to formulate a coherent argument against say entitlements in regards to the national budget, instead of arguing against your views they say we’re anti-poor or that we want children and poor people to starve to death. Since the progressive’s argument is one of childish banter, then we must now treat liberals as children. When they throw their usual played tantrum, calmly pat them on the head and ignore the incoherent ranting and raving.

Let’s as they say, consider the source after all the mirror into a person’s future is their past, and the present is road in which they travel:

Jonathon Martin (often annoyingly referred to by elite corn balls as “J-Mart”) wrote a piece (piece of…it) about governor Rick Perry titled “Is Rick Perry Dumb?” Now, do you think and I mean since we conservatives and libertarians are so dumb who knows what we think or if we have the capacity to think but do you think a man who likes to walk around as some serious journalist should write an article for a so called credible institution as Politico wondering if a politician or candidate is dumb? Would Walter Cronkite spend an entire segment of the nightly news wondering if Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson were dumb?

Then you have Maggie Haberman is the one who tried to stir a beef between Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin during the summer by purposely reporting statements that she took out of context in hopes of igniting bad blood between the two. Fortunately neither Palin nor Bachmann took the bait. Maggie is also the one who selectively reported the so called “Flavor of the week” comments by Sarah Palin. Haberman made it sound like Palin was trying to dismiss Herman Cain’s rise in the polls by calling him a flavor of the week. When in reality Palin said Cain was the media’s new flavor of the week because in her eyes it seemed like the media was picking a new candidate to build up and tear down.

Then you have Palin herself who was the target of many a hit piece from you guessed it, that misfit mentally challenged cast of b-movie characters over at Politico. This time Mike Allen and Jim Vandehai published a story naming many unnamed sources within the GOP establishment claiming they were terrified of Palin and were saying she needed to be stopped. Now, it’s no surprise the establishment hates Mrs. Palin, but there is a damning trend over there at Politico in their nasty habit of never really nailing down the sources of their cow sh*t. Whether it’s the source of the original statement or in Cain’s sexual harassment story the statements themselves seem a little shaky. We don’t know what was said nor do we know what kind of harassment it was since the article clearly states that the harassment wasn’t overtly sexual or consisted of any groping or invasion of privacy.

But hey, consider the source and think for yourself. And it’s like I always say: The best toilet paper is this week’s NYTimes. And if only Politico had its own newspaper or magazine it would make for good jizz rags.