By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The word “historic” has been stretched far too thin to describe many of the life-altering events that occurred in 2008, both nationally and internationally, in particular with respect to the election of Barack Hussein Obama.

“Historic Hysteria” can be applied to Democrats to depict their “first black president” fervor, and then to the Republican Party that did little to deflate that political balloon.

Republicans were water-boarded by the media for eight years, but unlike Guantanamo detainees, Republicans nearly drowned in the lies invented by that mercurial fourth estate whose mission was to exact maximum damage on George Bush’s presidency.

What the liberal media learned from their efforts is this: They could get away with anything (e.g., promoting a man to the office of president whose credentials and experience are, at best, marginal) – and also, because Republicans did little to stop the bleeding between moderates and conservatives in their own ranks, the MSM could blame the President and potential candidates for everything with impunity.

Obama didn’t win – we lost.

It reminds us of that old greeting card where a man alone on empty acreage is complimented for being “outstanding in his field.” Conservatives were out standing in their field too, but no one was listening because we heard little or nothing from them. They stood silent like hay-stuffed scarecrows flopping in the political winds.

With the exception of Mitt Romney, the GOP candidates looked, sounded and behaved more like leatherhead third-stringers for Knute Rockne than distinguished politicians.

Say what you will about Obama’s questionable alliances, conservative pundits spent far too much air-time energy decimating Obama’s bad judgment rather than understanding that those alliances were the strategic imperatives of a dead-serious politician. In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, we have witnessed the president-elect mow down far left supporters and blocks of his political party standing in the way of his path to glory.

Which is worse – bad judgment or ruthlessness? Or is there a difference?

Conservative pundits also finally realized at the 11^th hour that their ambivalence over the GOP candidates proved to be a mistake of historic proportion.

Adding to the media’s assaults on Republicans was our lineup of candidates - a mish-mash of contradictions, overblown egos, sagging jowls, and a libertarian fervor that captured a flock of loons and thrust them into the limelight. On the plus side, they did raise a lot of money for Ron Paul which is proof positive – if candidates stick to their core principles and make no excuses for it they have a better chance of prevailing.

One thorny issue that contributed to the GOP downward slide was the vote “whores” who pandered to illegal aliens on some imagined future promise of party loyalty. For all his public relations and grandiose advice, Karl Rove, “the architect,” almost single-handedly sank George Bush’s legacy by pushing that future vision. And what did George Bush get for comprehensive immigration reform? It arrived in the form of an embittered and enervated base that left him (and John McCain) in the political wilderness to fend for themselves. The GOP’s money well dried up and shriveled around them.

The President’s pertinacious support of immigration reform eroded what little was left of praise for his outstanding leadership and handling of 9/11. And then, like a free falling guillotine, the Reenactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 sealed his fate with the base.

No amount of reaching across the aisle or congressional glad-handing could have altered the incomprehensible hatred already held by liberals. It is somewhat embarrassing, that even after losing the majority in congress as well as the presidency it did little to illuminate those mistakes as was evident in his final press conference. George W. Bush clearly did not understand how it all came crashing down. He still believes conservatives are anti-immigrant versus anti-illegal immigration. When he said the “party has to be compassionate and broad-minded” he was referring to his beloved immigration reform.

Republicans could have won the 2008 election in spite of an increasing minority vote. Had we not strayed from our core principles, eventually that minority vote would have been ours because those very principles inure to the benefit of immigrants in their quest to achieve the American dream.

What can Republicans do to ensure none of this happens again? The answer is simple: adhere to the golden rule of conservative principles. Period.

We know of no creative writer who could have invented the series of events that led to the near self-destruction of the party and country we know and love. The left-wing media succeeded, in spite of the rules of ethics in journalism, to “recreate” the U.S. government and this country’s social structure to suit their fractured ideology.

by Lance Thompson

Media journalists talk about violence as if it were an unfortunate natural phenomenon, an indifferent ill wind that afflicts all, like a hurricane or tornado.  With suitable looks of concern, they report “continued violence in Gaza” or “escalating violence in Bagdhad” or “renewed violence in Afghanistan” without differentiating between aggressor and defender, innocent victims and guilty perpetrators, reign of terror and rule of law. When it comes to violence, the media are even-handed to a fault.
 
Since the media clearly rely upon graphic images of violence to increase viewership, it’s unfortunate they don’t have the same approach to violence as they do the other media staple, sports.  Why don’t we see military experts like General Petraeus, walking viewers through strategy and tactics with his screenwriter, in the manner of John Madden?   “Here’s the weak spot in the Hamas defense.  This is where the Israelis faked left, then cut right through the line and scored against a tough terrorist line.”

In my town, most of the population enthusiastically support the local Boise State University Broncos.  The local media are no different, covering the game and the players with undisguised favoritism.  Cities with major league ball clubs exhibit the same home-team preferences.  My question is, why don’t American media outlets show the same support for our home team–the American military?   Why doesn’t the Los Angeles Times that rejoices in a playoff victory by the Lakers  also celebrate the battlefield victories of our soldiers or sailors?   When was the last time you saw a banner headline in your local paper proclaiming, MARINES TROUNCE AL QAEDA?  Or NAVY BLASTS PIRATES?

If sports reporters covered their beat like their pals in the world news departments, we’d be treated to headlines like this: “Violence Continues in Pro Boxing.  Casualties Mount in Playoff Race.  Cowboys and Steelers Reject Mediation, Vow to Fight On.”  Instead of highlights of game-winning plays, we’d be treated to close-up coverage of team doctors taping ankles, players carried off the field with dislocated shoulders, and demonstrators protesting the abuse of animals at the Kentucky Derby.    When reporting sports events, media personalities can be as outspoken and openly supportive of favorite teams as any rabid fan.  But when it comes to the truly world-changing events happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and elsewhere, all they can manage is a grim and unrelentingly neutral reporting of casualties.  Just as the diplomats at the United Nations and governments around the world  derive satisfaction by “condemning the violence on both sides,” the news media implicitly denounces violence as the ill, rather than the result of conflicts between forces of very different moral character.

No conflict in history has been waged between two equally moral combatants.  Sometimes those engaged have some principles in common, sometimes they have nothing in common.  But in every case, there is one side that holds the moral high ground, even if only comparatively so.  Why does the media refuse to recognize this fundamental distinction that gives meaning to the violence they so solemnly report?

The reason, of course, is that the media already has taken sides, and it is always the side that opposes the American military.  By treating violence as an affliction, by reporting on armed conflicts with strict moral equivalency, the media place the United States on par with its enemies.  In every case, the media places the defenders of freedom on par with the forces of oppression.  There is no objectivity in such a view.  By elevating the enemy to our level, they are taking his side.  For the news media, the home town team is whoever takes the field against us and our allies.

If you get your news from any other network than FoxNews, you’re hearing about the game from the other side’s press.  If we win a battle, you’ll hear about the costs to our troops, the civilian casualties, the mistakes we made.  If the other side wins, you’ll hear about the hopelessness of our cause, the resilience of the enemy, and, again, the mistakes we made.  What you will not get is an objective view of the contest.

So next time you hear a report on violent conflict somewhere in the world, you might ask yourself if the news reader is giving you the home town spin, or if he really knows the score.