September 28, 2015 at 5:23 pm #44068
I’ve had a strong feeling for many months now that Hillary will go down in flames, Bernie Sanders will never rise above a level of support that could never get him elected, and whatever happens with Joe Biden won’t result in his presidency. What I’ve suspected for quite a while now (and recently there have been a handful of little-publicized stories suggesting the same thing) is that Elizabeth Warren will come riding on in to save the day when it seems the Democrat Party is about to become irrelevant in the next presidential election. I would not be surprised if Bernie, the independent self-proclaimed socialist, is merely a means of detoxifying the label “socialist” once and for all, in preparation for the “savior” candidate – Warren – to appear on scene. (She makes Bernie look moderate.)
In addition to the fact that coverage of her has, for the most part, largely gone dark outside of Massachusetts news outlets like WBZ and the Boston Globe, the acceptance of her claim that she isn’t running for the presidency has just been too easy. The news media never make it that easy on potential candidates. She said “no” a couple of times, so they just went away. That’s not normal press behavior for someone in a prominent political position.
So yesterday, she gave a speech at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in which she championed the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s really a sickening speech for anyone other than a far left liberal who either is too uneducated to know the facts, or too lacking in ethical thinking processes to care. But two things stood out for me with the speech (besides the obvious FAR far left positions she took – nothing at all surprising there). First, the coverage is carried by VOX, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Salon, The Nation, and many others, not just in Boston. She normally does not get that kind of coverage. Yet here she is praising Michael Brown and his ilk, praising the Black Lives Matter movement for “just” peacefully marching down the street with their hands in the air shouting, “Hands up, don’t shoot!” as they “fight for their lives.” She calls the BLM movement the new civil rights movement 50 years after the days of John Lewis marching with Martin Luther King.
But two “little” things also caught my eye. First, the Christian Science Monitor opened its story with the statement, “Though not a candidate for president, she called for broad policy reforms to post-Civil Rights era racism in the United States.” Why the disclaimer about her not running for president? That isn’t done with other senators and representatives when they make policy speeches. Maybe nothing, but I tend to notice what is either NOT said, or what’s denied in news stories.
Then came the one that really grabbed my attention. The Vox story says, “The full-throated defense of the movement contrasted with comments from other national politicians, whose remarks on Black Lives Matter have ranged from cautious to missing the point … .” And the Christian Science Monitor story contains the following: “But no candidate has yet been as full-throated as Warren in her defense of the Black Lives Matter Movement, which she links to the Civil Rights movement from five decades earlier.” Both stories were dated today – 28 Sep 2015.
When was the last time you heard something termed a “full-throated defense” in a news story? And that description was applied to the speech with specific reference to the BLM movement being the civil rights movement of 50 years earlier. Plagiarism? Perhaps. Coordination? My paranoid, aging, conspiracy-theory brain (with many decades of experience observing how things work) would bet on the latter (coordination), particularly given the 45+ stories on Google News about Warren’s speech as I type this. Sudden coverage of her when there’s been none? The media assisting her in her denial that she’s not running for President, instead of trying to weasel some kind of clue out of her to the contrary (standard media procedure with anyone else)? And now even the same word-descriptions of how she sounded embedded into a sentence saying almost the same thing in two different stories? Yep, it might be just a coincidence. Or not. Regardless, don’t let Elizabeth Warren out of your sight.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.