Posted on 01/11/2019 6:49:56 AM PST by high info voter
It’s pretty remarkable how the liberal left was able to smear Roy Moore and basically ruin his career after decades of being in the public eye with no problems. But, that’s how Democrats operate. They will do whatever it takes to destroy their political opponents. We recently learned new information about just how far Democrats went to defeat Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race..........
(Excerpt) Read more at governorpalin.org ...
They actively censor all negative information on behalf of the Democrat Socialists.
~~~
This is the corrupt/activist media’s true power.
It’s not in HOW they cover certain topics, or figures. That is because most people recognize a negative hit piece, even if they are a partisan who dislikes the target. They may or may not elect to agree with the hit based on their own personal biases, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know what’s going on.
But they typically don’t see what is covered, and more importantly, what is not covered. People don’t know what they don’t know, and the selectivity about which topics and figures to cover can strongly influence people’s perceptions.
Me neither. I don’t get it.
The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS decision held that politicians and even judges have a huge burden to meet in order to sue for libel. That decision was unanimous, and if presented with the same facts today SCOTUS would not - and should not - overturn it.But.
Viewed from the history of “bias in the media” controversy over the past half century, the case which evoked the Sullivan decision looks quaint. Mr. Sullivan was a Democrat - a Southern Democrat. In 1964 his political persuasion was in bad odor with the national Democrat Party and the Republican Party. Southern Democrats have died off, and the dominant party in the south in modern times is the Republican Party. A further idiosyncrasy in the case is the fact that Mr. Sullivan’s complaint was not about editorial content but about an advertisement.
Three concurring justices wanted to go even further, none expressed objections. A politically unpopular plaintiff made an obvious target for the Warren Court then sitting, and the result was perhaps less temperate than might have otherwise have been expected. IMHO it was a “perfect storm.”
But if I admit that the same facts would have to evoke the same decision, that does not mean that I think that the decision is good law. The reason is that the past half-century has crystallized facts which could, and should, have been known in 1964 - but which were not raised at all in Sullivan. In 1964 Senator Barry Goldwater lost a landslide to President Lyndon Johnson, and it seemed quaint when Senator Goldwater complained about “the referees.” He was referring to what is now referred to as “the media.”
The Warren Court did not have a history of controversy over journalism as an integral part of the national dialogue as we know it today. That only came into focus during and in the aftermath of the Vietnam War; I confess that I became truly conscious and convinced of “bias in the media” during the Carter Administration. The 800 pound gorilla in the room, utterly remarked in Sullivan because not raised by Mr. Sullivan, is the fact that a ruling making it hard to sue for libel affects Republicans - who are libeled mercilessly - and does not affect Democrats at all. Because Democrats are never libeled. It simply doesn’t happen.
The Sullivan decision fully vindicates the black letter of the First Amendment, which is good. But ironically it defeats the intent of the First Amendment utterly. Because the situation feared by the Antifederalists has come to pass, not in violation of the First Amendment but cynically under the cover of the First Amendment. The Antifederalists wanted - all voters wanted - free and open debate (in person and in print) over public policy (and religion). Accordingly the First Amendment tells the government to butt out, and not control that debate.
But the advent of electronic communication has precipitated a situation in which journalists systematically go along and get along with each other. And the Democrat Party systematically goes along and gets along with journalism. And since the Democrat Party is the party of big government, the effect of unified journalism joined at the hip to the Democrat Party is very, very, similar to what the First Amendment sought to prevent.
What then can be done? The problem is caused by journalism functioning as a trust, and the solution is to sue journalism under antitrust legislation.
Roy Moore is suing for libel, but he needs to sue on antitrust grounds as well.
We have ample evidence of election interference and Republicans should be screaming bloody murder but they're not.
It's almost like there's a UniParty out to protect their own.
I’d like to know if there is any connection between HRC and Doug Jones. Both used some of the same methods.
And don't get me started on Sessions. Comey testified that they all knew Sessions would recuse at least two weeks before he did!!!
How did the DOJ leadership know Sessions would recuse so far in advance??? Because he was part of "The Insurance Policy" plan.
Cuckolds.
The only way to describe the GOP. They literally stand by and tut a little as the left rapes us. When its over, they just shake their heads and walk away.
Then they go out and golf with the people who just got through raping us.
It is just as I have described, and worse.
The Democrats - we are the most corrupt organization on the world. Support us, OH ELSE.
We have ample evidence of election interference and Republicans should be screaming bloody murder but they’re not.
It’s almost like there’s a UniParty out to protect their own.
I’ve never been more disgusted with the GOPe in my life. Their arrogance will be the end of the Party of Lincoln if POTUS is not able to pull their sorry behinds over the finish line.
As the story mentioned...here was a good candidate who went for years with no hint of corruption, & then all of a sudden they dig up this garbage on him. You have to look at the people who do this stuff in comparison to what is actually known about the candidate in question. Roy Moore was & still is to my thinking the logical candidate for that office,but not living in Alabama of course I could not vote on it. I would hope he might run again & if possible, put those to shame who shamed him. This isn’t the first example of this kind of corruption,but most of those who we elect tend to participate in it or look the other way. In the end they will pay for their crimes, but some of us wish that time would come sooner rather than later before it’s almost a forgotten story.
Democrats and the lapdog media would have jumped on this and turned it into a 24 news cycle if they could pin to Republicans and Trump.
No Republican is even talking about looking into this.
No Republican is even talking about looking into this.
Just imagine what would have happened if Robert Mercer did this to a losing Democrat candidate with a Democrat in the White House. He’d be making reservations for Club Fed as I type.
Mitch McConnell’s War Machine destroyed him. Will Rush admit that?
With everyone against him, he still almost won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.