I started writing this blog with the idea that I would help to educate America, one uninformed liberal at a time. I, and other conservatives, made some progress this election, but we clearly didn't make enough progress.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment