The tone of “change” is covered a lot different depending on who is winning. For example, when change came in 2008 it was greeted by the press with open arms and leg tingles. It was the Hallmark movie of the week. 2008′s version of change was labeled “hope.” 2009′s version of change is branded as “anger.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 1994 the late no-so-great Peter Jennings summed up the Republican wins with this bias tirade:
“Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”
Are current voters angry? Yes, but they were angry in 2008 as well. Liberal journalists live in an isolation chamber. In the shallow way of thinking no one can logically vote against a liberal. Only something sinister can drive the voter away from socialism. Evidently anger is the least offensive sin. For the Keith Olbermann’s of the world voters are fueled by homophobia (whatever that is), sexism (except for Sarah Palin), and racism. It’s almost like some liberals are suffering from rightphobia.
Recent Comments