|
As an infrequent poster (but very frequent lurker) on this forum, I'll begin with a disclaimer: what follows is an epiphany-of-sorts that I had just now and wanted to share, so it by no means is well thought out at this point. I'm posting this largely because I'd like you to help me think it through. Also, since I myself haven't fully decided for whom I'll direct my full support in this race, my hope is this thread does not devolve into a candidate-specific flame war (I can dream!) - rather, it's just an evaluation of an idea.
*clears throat nervously*
So last night I was watching the primary results trickle in on MSNBC, hoping that the presence of Keith O. would help mitigate the coverage bias of what I like to call the Corporate Owned News/Media Elite (aka the CON/ME). And though I admittedly didn't see more than an hour of their broadcast, I was still struck by how little John Edwards' name was mentioned, what with his latest surge and strong showing in Iowa. Alas, even the mighty KO could not deliver a knockout blow against the mighty propagandic perceptual filters of GE and Tweety, it seems. But I digress.
Today, I've caught up here on a lot of the charts and graphs and ins and outs of the CON/ME Edwards brownout, and it's nothing short of astounding: the more popular the populist gets, the less you hear about him. Now granted, any fan of Kucinich should not be surprised by this. But it still gave to me this revelation, which I invite you to help me dissect: The more a candidate is a threat against the CON/ME, the less you shall hear about them. Therefore, the less you hear about any viable candidate, the more you should look into their positions and consider directing your vote their way.
Not exactly rocket science, I know, but it seems like this could be a somewhat provable rule based on the threads I've read. Please note: I use the word "viable" above because obviously if a candidate has no chance of winning or is a total whackjob, you might not hear about them for reasons other than a deliberate CON/ME ploy.
In closing (and with full disclosure), I ultimately think the entire multi-year presidential election "season" is yet another CON/ME brownout, distracting many from remembering and/or railing against the many easily proven crimes of the Bush administration; the CON/ME is a self-sustaining Perpetual Memory Hole Machine of sorts, I do believe. But as we get closer to Election Day, I might just be convinced that one very good metric to consider in evaluating a candidate is: how much is he or she ignored by the deceptive, anti-Democratic shell game of the CON/ME?
What say you?
|