After last night’s Republican debate and continuing today, all the buzz from the pundit class about who won had one consistency…it was who showed off the best hatin’.
Marco Rubio is being celebrated as winning the debate for hatin’ on Jeb! who first tried out his weak wristed hand on hatin’ on Marco to win the debate. Marco also spread the hatin’ to the media and all that hate piled up to give him the win!
Ted Cruz was deemed a winner for hatin’ on the moderators and CNBC for asking questions he didn’t like. Chris Christie was the last one named a winner for hatin’ on the moderators’ questions about fantasy football as unregulated gambling.
Go back to the rise of Trump, it’s a track record of his winning the media’s attention and debates because of his hatin’ on Mexicans and immigrants, women, China, Obama. etc.
And what was it that elevated Ben Carson from obscurity in the first place? Hatin’ on Obama at a conference. And what has his campaign been about? Hatin’ on Muslims, gays, women who are pro-choice, blacks, immigrants, etc.
When Carly Fiorina got her bounce in the second debate, she was heralded as a winner because she was the most aggressive in hatin’ on Hillary.
To win a GOP debate, you don’t argue your policies on the issues, you don’t argue principles, you don’t literally win a debate over any particular topic, you simply need to show that you are the best at hatin’.
Why does this go so unnoticed throughout the MSM? They constantly crown debate winners without being even momentarily capable of any self-introspection, they seem incapable of asking themselves, “Why are we saying this candidate was a winner?” In fact, despite Rubio’s outright lying and evading direct responses to the questions he was asked, they called him “the winner” on hatin’ alone!
The corporate corruption of the media is so complete. They have lowered the bar so low that they unanimously cooperate at this level of “reasoning”, that a political party should favor candidates based on how unapologetic and hatin’ they can be.
Fortunately, there is a stark difference between Republican and Democratic debates this season (so far). The preponderance of the discussions are about policy and substance and whether one thought Hillary or Bernie won the first Democratic Debate, the arguments supporting such an opinion has little to do with hatin’.
Is the media simply reflecting what “wins” with Republican voters when it comes to debates or are they enforcing this dichotomy of what makes a Republican a winner in a debate and what makes a Democrat a winner? And when we get to the General Election, does anointing a candidate “the winner” continue to be for Best Hatin’ in a Debate Performance or actually debating the opponent on the issues and winning that way?
I would actually argue that debates don’t necessarily have winners or losers, it depends on what transpires.
If the media didn’t have such a “game” mindset about politics, always needing to call winners and losers, and fairly reviewed the debate last night, I think the conclusion would have been that there wasn’t any winner. None of the candidates debated well, answered questions directly and accurately. None of them inspired viewers about a legitimate view on issues or a concrete and realistic vision for the future.
They just laid out their version of hatin’ and let the MSM and Repub voters serve themselves from that All You Can Stomach Hatin’ Buffet.
But instead, the MSM trumpets Rubio as the winner, that influences Repub voters to support him more then next week the MSM will announce a poll that basically shows the results they’ve helped create, that his numbers have gone up thanks to their declaration about who won. So the MSM is manipulating the race, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps to keep the level of competition high so they can get more viewers tuning in and make more on advertising, perhaps because their corporate executives would prefer a specific outcome (any question about Fox News on this front?).
Imagine if the majority of voters thought the same way and that their choice for President would be the candidate who showed in debates that he/she was the best at hatin’. That’s who they would really want making huge decisions that affect their lives? When it came to Social Security and Medicare, the poor and immigrants or serious matters of war? The one who’s the best at hatin’ should have the nuclear codes? I don’t think so.
Hatin’ may be the central competition for Republicans in a primary but using that as the basis for selecting a nominee will eventually lead to their waking up the morning after the 2016 election…and hatin’ life.