Will they just stand there and take it? Or will the Republican candidates for president push back against the fawning media coverage of Hillary Clinton?
This weekend the many Republican candidates for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination will gather at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Nashua, New Hampshire for the First-in-the-Nation Republican Leadership Summit.
What do we know about these people from the mainstream media? Here’s what we know.
Jeb Bush: The New Yorker headlines: Jeb Bush Resigns as George W. Bush’s Brother. In a tongue-in-cheek article the point is made ever so subtly that George W. is a mammoth liability and if Jeb is ever to stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected he needs to disavow his brother. Mediaite picks up the point, informing us of a “Poll: Jeb Bush Posts Worse Numbers than George W. Bush.” We also know the former Florida governor wants to “avoid controversy” on the issue of vaccinating kids (Mediaite), used his private e-mail to discuss troop deployments and the safety of Florida’s nuclear power plants (Washington Post), and was an arrogant, dope smoking, sit-with-the-freaks-in-the-dining-room rich-kid slob in prep school (Vanity Fair).
Chris Christie: One word: Bridgegate. Or another word: scandal. Over and over and over again one mainstream media outlet after another never fails to inform that Christie was at the very center of a scandal with which he, in fact - after exhaustive investigation - was shown to have had no involvement. From the New York Times (Even in New Hampshire ‘Bridgegate’ Dogs Christie) to the long headline in the Daily Beast -- Chris Christie Isn’t Out From Under Bridgegate Just Yet: Attention, media: The New Jersey governor may not have been implicated so far in the Bridgegate probe, and his own attorney may have exonerated him, but you can’t say he’s off the hook -- to the Washington Post -- What Bridgegate did to Chris Christie, in 1 chart -- Governor Christie is linked with scandal. Yes, he was exonerated, but no matter. The buzzword that must always accompany a Christie story is “scandal.” Got it? Scandal.
Ted Cruz: The Washington Post ponders whether Senator Cruz is principled “or a smug know-it-all.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has - 31 times - compared Cruz to Joe McCarthy. The McCarthy comparison is also a favorite at the New Yorker, the Baltimore Sun, and with New York Times “conservative” columnist David Brooks.
All this vitriol for just three GOP candidates (in alphabetical order) and we haven’t even mentioned the rest of the field.
Carly Fiorina gets lectured by an indignant MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski:“Are you really the right person to be criticizing Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments or lack thereof?”. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal gets scorched by The Atlantic for his “sophisticated bigotry.” Senator Rand Paul is now famously pegged as a sexist who lectures female reporters. Donald Trump? He who built a global empire worth billions? Trump is mocked in Slate as having”covered himself in ignorance” and for being a “carnival barker.”
And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker? He is in the habit of making “flubs” and having another “latest flub” on foreign policy, insists MSNBC. The media message on Walker: clueless on the big issues. All of this before you even get to candidates Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and more.
Get the picture?
The entire field of Republican presidential candidates? A field that includes governors and former governors, U.S. senators, a former U.S. senator, a world famous surgeon (who happens to be black) and two business executives (one of the latter a woman)? A field that between all of its members have serious experience in just about every area of practical concern to a president? The liberal media hates them all. They are, to string the criticisms together: arrogant, ignorant, afraid of controversy, flub, gaffe and scandal prone, bigoted, sexist, and, but of course, racist and homophobic. And don’t forget they have lousy poll numbers.
Compare the treatment of any one of these Republicans with Hillary and it is stunning. For that matter, compare the treatment of Republicans who once ran for president to the treatment of Hillary, who will be 68 on inauguration day. The treatment of the 68 year old Ronald Reagan, the 72 year old Bob Dole and the 71 year old John McCain was radically different. As Noah Rothman points out over at Hot Air uniformly all three Republicans were treated as wheezing old geezers whose age alone should disqualify them for the White House. Here, for just one example, is a Time magazine cover of Dole asking: Is Dole Too Old for the Job? Time insisted “the age issue won’t fade away.” Ironically, President Clinton’s campaign agreed, as Rothman also points out, noting the New York Times reported that “A new Democratic Party television commercial takes a not-too-subtle swipe at Senator Bob Dole, age 72.” Did Mrs. Clinton agree with that commercial on behalf of her husband? We don’t know because she has been asked by reporters.
So there’s apparently nothing left to do other than crown Hillary Clinton and be done with the whole presidential election thing. You think I’m kidding? Just a look at all that press covering her Iowa debut running like panting dogs for a chance to be stiffed by the newly minted candidate. That’s right, at the end of the chase was nothing but a photo op of the candidate with pre-selected Iowa activists.
Meanwhile, the newly announced Republican candidates were all getting grilled by the media on everything from their views on immigration (Rubio) to climate change (Cruz) to his attitude towards female reporters (Paul.)
Earlier this week Senator Paul took a moment to call out the media and their love-affair with Hillary:
Are we going to hear any questions by the media or is it going to be a love fest to Hillary Clinton? Anybody hear a tough question to her so far? You know why? She’s not taking any questions. On the Internet this morning, they show that the media was being kept behind a row of boxes and they can yell out questions but nobody is getting any questions.
He added: "There is a difference in the way conservatives are treated versus liberals, and I say we have to push back."
Exactly.
One of the worst aspects of the Obama era was the intimidation of the GOP Establishment. They were terrified the media would accuse them of being racist - and that is exactly what happened. Not only was it the news media but there was Oprah Winfrey making it plain: “There is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs, in some cases—and maybe even many cases—because he’s African-American.”
The fact of the matter is that the liberal media has always had a double standard when it comes to covering Republicans. They had it as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign when the reporters covering JFK saw themselves, according to the late Making of the President 1960 author Theodore White, as all in some sort of crusade together with the charismatic Kennedy. To cover the Nixon campaign was seen as some sort of journalistic purgatory. Nothing has changed in 55 years - except that the double standard has gotten worse.
This time around the idea is to crown Hillary Clinton as the first woman president - and woe betide the Republican who stands between Hillary and the White House. He - or she (if it turns out to be Fiorina) - will be targeted for the media acid bath of their political life.
Senator Paul has it exactly right when he says: “I say we have to push back.” If there’s one thing all these new Republican candidates should be able to agree with among themselves it should be that.
