Conspiracies and the Sheeple

Remember when First Lady Hillary Clinton talked about a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'?  Many people believed her, especially in the media, and started looking for Carl Roves under every rock.  This primary season has that same kind of tone, except this time it is mandates under every rock.  And there's another difference.  It's not a trumped -up right-wing conspiracy.  It's a very real media-government partnership to destroy fundamental constitutional rights.

So how does this work?  It starts with someone like the so-called ethicist, Peter Singer, claiming that in reality babies aren't people until they become capable of some self-care, and could therefore should be considered as appropriate targets for what he would still call an abortion.  The next step is to get some government official at a lower level to recommend and support legislation to act on the philosophical statement.  This would be one of the few issues Obama voted on in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate.  You need a non-profit group like Planned Parenthood to herd the sheeple into protest corrals so that it can appear that this kind of state sanctioned murder has popular support.  Finally, primp and preen with your mouth-pieces, making sure that the people who speak on behalf of this genocide do so under the invisibility cloak of concern for women-as-victims.

But both sides use these tactics.  Britt Hume  recently said, "If you look at the coverage we have seen so far this year, there's no evidence that the mainstream media is trying to help Mitt Romney. So, if anything, you know, you think if they were going to be calculating about it they say, 'we ought to help this guy Santorum. He would really be beatable by Obama, so let's beat on Romney,'" Hume told FOX News' Bill O'Reilly.

That would be a reasonable scenario if it weren't for the fact that Santorum was hiding in the curtain folds in the debates until, one-by-one, Romney's other competitors were picked off. Pawlenty, McCotter,  Bachman, Cain, Perry... all gone.  Now Rand Paul says he would be proud to be on a Romney ticket after his daddy Ron and Mitt ganged up on Santorum.  Very interesting.

Also interesting is the George Stephanopolis question on contraception, just before the announcement of the HHS mandate that has the Catholic church, and other defenders of religious freedom, taking up arms against the vast liberal conspiracy.  Given that as a background, is it any wonder Santorum, a staunch supporter of religious freedom, was stealthily  gaining support?

Today, after the most recent debate, Santorum is being criticized for saying he compromised on title 10 by creating title 20, and compromised on funding Planned Parenthood in order to get abstinence education in schools.  Romney, by contrast, is being praised for 'Standing by his Principles' while he allowed a liberal legislature and activist courts strip the Catholic church of its ability to provide adoption services in Massachusetts, and forced Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill.  Romney's record was so bad, he didn't even try for re-election.  And what he was able to preserve was done by executive order.  Now, who do we know who likes to use executive orders?

The current collusion between political operatives and media sources on both sides of the spectrum are making discernment difficult.  And so, the uninformed or the misinformed sheeple will chew on the sweet of the day.  And when the freshness has worn off, they will spit it out. 

Debate Reveals More about CNN than Candidates

I did not watch the whole debate.  I forgot about it until there was only 45 minutes left.  Bachmann has clearly gained ground from it, and Romney held place.  That opinion is based on the assessment of others.  I didn't focus enough on content to come to any determination.  I was distracted.

I was distracted by the moderators ridiculous questions.  As they would cut to commercial, CNN would show questions from viewers on a screen in the hall.  Those questions deserved answers.  They were insightful and important.  The moderators questions were shallow and juvenile.  Answers didn't matter.

I was distracted by the camera angles. 

Tim Pawlenty's camera angle was designed to emphasize his forehead, make his chin look smaller, and his hair look poofy.  The overall effect was that he displayed a recessive gene from an alien as a close relative, the cosmic kind, not illegal.

Michele Bachmann's camera emphasized the fact that she was shorter than the men in a way that suggested dwarfism. They also managed to light her clothes so that what was clearly an expensive suit looked like a threadbare, clearance-rack special from Target.

Mitt Romney, was given the best treatment, which makes him the loser in my book.  If CNN makes him look good, he must be the liberal favorite.  He will not be mine.

Rick Santorum was half in the dark.  Maybe they were running out of fresnels.  It seemed obvious they didn't think him important enough for proper lighting.

Also poorly lit was Herman Cain.  They seemed to want to shoot his angle as straight on as possible to make him look like a cranky bulldog.

Newt is Newt.  They didn't have to mess with his camera.  All he needs is a microphone.

The recipient of the worst treatment of the night by the camera crews was Ron Paul.  They shot him at an angle that left one with the distinct impression of a small deformed troll with crazy eyes. He looked a little hump-backed. His eyes seemed to wander.    It would not have been surprising to hear him say, "Who's that walking on my bridge?"

Having seen all of these candidates when the cameras are kinder, I can say that none of these impressions hold true for the candidates as a whole.  What does hold true is that the liberal media knows that we react to people.  Our assessments are usually based heavily on appearance.  If they can make the field look its weakest, they can weaken our resolve to get Obama out of the White House.

So who won the debate?  The cameras.