They pit two people against each other because it is supposed to be a debate, but what it also allows them to do is limit the talk time of the other less desirable candidates. Donald Trump was a sideshow but was afforded more serious discussion than Ron Paul. He was even referred to as a possible frontrunner. In hindsight, it seems silly but the media attempted to run with it. That's how they peddle influence. They float little trial balloons, see if they can get any bites, and if they do they expand on it. If not, they move on and prop someone else up. To them, it doesn't really matter which one of their pre approved candidates gets elected, as long as they play a role in getting them elected. This latest nomination period is a testament to that: First it was Romney, then Trump for about a minute, then it shifted to Bachmann after Iowa, then Perry, back to Romney, and now Cain. Each and every time one of them is propped up it is done in such a way to gauge sentiment. No matter who they prop up, they are still propping someone up when they should remain neutral. It is completely dishonest and, imho, a classic psyop. It is not, as you contend, done strictly for entertainment value (although they have American Idolized process, that much we can agree on).
Washington is not working, period. Kick all the bums out and vote in all biz people. Character is more important and there is none in congress right now. There will not be improvement till there is a third party needed for a majority coalition. Maybe in 2016. People are still stooopid to see that. Unless Cain/Paul are in there is 5 more years of thievery and corruption ahead.
DAS, I don't think you really believe this stuff. Look man, i love Ron Paul and I respect his followers, but all of them say the same stuff. CFR, global world order, media propping up candidates. The one thing all these conspiracies have in common is that they all center around Ron Paul not winning. Look, let's be honest. The blog world is kicking the media's ass both in terms of influence and credibility. Most serious voters get their news from blogs, news sites, even facebook. We've discussed this before. TV is all about ratings. They want to make money. I get all the Ron Paul news items every day in my inbox and they all say the same shit over and over and it's getting tiring. It's like my dad trying to explain why his football team lost on Sunday. It's always bad calls by the refs who are paid off the bookies in Vegas. He can never accept the fact that his team just sucks! LOL. I think both us agree that our media is a joke because they have decided to focus more on entertainment and tabloid news vs hard news. But there is no conspiracy. If I ran a media company I would do the same thing. People would hate me for it but I would be profitable. And let's not forget, the media has stock holders and that's all they want and that is who they answer to. And btw, just to make an argument. In 1992 when Ross Perot ran, he was the Ron Paul of 1992. But the guy was so kooky ( I loved him btw) that the media was all over him. According to you, the "media" should have blackballed him and try to suppress him since he was the "anti-establishment" voice. But they didn't because the ratings were just too good. This guy got on Larry King and Larry never saw such high ratings. It was a sight to see.
You seem to be lumping me into a tin foil hat wearing category and I cannot imagine why. I did not refer to any Alex Jonesisms such as cfr or new world order (actually the first President Bush mentioned the NWO) and I think it's pretty much an accepted fact that the media props up candidates of their choosing. We are in agreement that alternative media is taking the traditional media to the woodshed, and that is a good thing, however, they still have far too much influence over our political process, because a good portion of the electorate either doesn't tune in at all (preferring to read headlines), or swallows whole what they are fed (if they do tune in). And far too many believe meaningless and easily manipulated polling data. I don't think the corporate media is a joke, I think it is dangerous to a freely functioning representative republic; which, in theory is what we have.
Conspiracy is a strong word, but there is undeniably an element of it present between the media and big money. The lever is advertising dollars: they can be withheld.
Cain is not a polished candidate. His 9-9-9 plan was ridiculed as a pizza pricing scheme in the debate and Cain has a tendency of getting too defensive. <iframe id="NBC Video Widget" width="512" height="347" src="http://www.nbc.com/assets/video/widget/widget.html?vid=1361090" frameborder="0"></iframe> Life imitating art with christie romney endorsement.
I wasn't trying to tie you in with the tin foil crowd, but let's be honest, a large contingent of Paul's followers are. I get 50 e-mails a day from these guys and I do read through some of them. I think for the most part we are in agreement on the media, I just differ with you in thinking they have much influence. I mean let's try this. Can you point to me one election in which the media "picked" their guy over say who the public "really" wanted but got swayed. I mean I'm an open minded person and I'll take a look at what you present. So give me a case study and I'll look at it.
Fair enough. It's a fluid scenario. They don't just pick one and hold. They run trials to see who has the most staying power (and says all the right things of course). The important thing to remember is they don't care if any particular candidate wins, so long as the candidate that does win is one of theirs. For all practical purposes, they are stacking the deck. Perhaps I will put together a study on it, because as you may have noticed, it is an issue I take interest in.
I would be interested in seeing that. I thought maybe you had one off the top of your head. I've been involved in politics a little bit at the local level, both US House and US Senate races and I've seen what goes on behind the scenes both in terms of the media and the party structure and the thing is, politics is a lot like sports. It's really competitive. The process is actually pretty efficient and it does a good job of weeding out those that just don't have the goods. Then it's all about networking and alliances. It's very cut throat. But at the end of the day, the right guys usually make it to the finals just as in sports.