What if we picked a candidate who recognized the MSM as our enemy and chose to openly go to war with them?
Would there not be some benefits? After all, polls reveal over 80% of the public doesn't trust the media to tell the truth. Journalists are now held in lower regard than lawyers.
The base would doubtless cheer them on. The vast middle would grant the validity of their argument. The neurotic MSM might even try to over-compensate by giving favorable coverage to the conservative candidate.
O.K., I wouldn't want to count on that last speculation. But the Republican party and Republican candidates must ask themselves if continuing to play footsie with the media offers any benefit.
There's something liberating about calling a steaming pile of crap a steaming pile of crap...
I think that would be great; it would be ideal. Unfortunately, for someone to pull that off, they would need to be a master communicator.
When I watched the Palin/Couric interview, there were multiple opportunities that Palin missed to paint Couric as a shill for the Dems. But, she missed them - she was like a deer caught in the headlights.
If you a Republican at the national level and you don't understand that every interview you do will be hostile, then you ARE and idiot.
We need someone like Giuliani (not Guiliani himself). RG was a spectacular mouthpiece for the Republican party after the convention. Why? Because, as a lifelong prosecutor expected the unexpected and could turn tough questions around and score points against the interviewer and the opposition. He was masterful. I should add, Romney wasn't bad either - and I wasn't a Romney supporter.
Palin's a nice lady with a compelling back story. She also appears to be a successful state CEO and I'm glad she's a conservative but she just doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to compete on the national stage. If you can't beat Katie freakin Couric in the interview game, you just don't have what it takes. Sorry!