The Bias By The Media On Romneys Wealth

Romney donated $4 million to lower his tax liability.

And what does that have to do with the basis of this post? The basis is the media bias. I suspect Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and Obama all took advantage of every tax break they had to lower their tax liability. As do 100% of everyone I know. Now why not address the real premise of this post.

the real premise of Romney donating $4 million is to lower his tax liability and to win more votes, not to look a kind and nice person.

That is not the premise of this post. Try to stay on topic.

I remember hearing plenty about Kerry's wealth. And he lost. This isn't the first time I've seen parallels drawn between Romney and Kerry. Is Romney headed down the same road?

I don't remember much on Kerry's wealth. I remember the swiftboat controversy but not much if any on this wealth. In fact after Kerry lost the media tried to give him a pass on screwing his own state out of the sales tax on his new multi million dollar yacht.

As for Romney heading down the same path. Considering he keeps climbing in the polls and Obama is spiraling downward I don't think so. The tide is slowly turning and I have a feeling Obama is going to be a one term President.

I remember lots of barbs being thrown about Kerry's wealth. Romney was one of the ones throwing them, apparently: ""There’s a senator from my state, you may have heard, that wants to get elected president," Romney said, according to a videotape unearthed by Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski. "And I don’t know why he wants to do that because, of course, if he won, he’d have to move into a smaller house."" http://articles.latimes.com/2...

What polls are you referring to? There's not much of a gap between Obama and Romney. In most polls, there is less than a 4 point difference, and there are polls showing each of them in the lead. Looks pretty close to me.
http://www.realclearpolitics....

First of all trying to use Romneys statement about Kerry moving into a smaller house as a comparison to what they are saying about Romney is far from apples to apples. Furthermore Romney was not and is not the media. The premise of this post is the bias in the media. Now where did I elude to what the candidates are saying about one another.

Secondly. Take a look at the bottom of the page of the link you provided. Compare Obamas previous standings in the polls and where he is now. It proves that his numbers have been spiraling downward since February. The facts are right there in the link you provided. From 2/1 through 2/29 Obama was ahead in almost every poll by anywhere from 2 points to 10 points. He is going down on a weekly basis in his lead and losing in some polls that he was leading in. The only poll showing him with a substantial lead is Bloomberg and anyone that takes their results seriously is not being realiistic.

That was only a small example showing that Kerry's wealth was an issue that was brought up in the '04 election.

Wasn't the choice of Republican nominee still up in the air in February? Not exactly apples to apples. ;-) You can change the dates on the graph to look at the average over particular periods of time; the numbers bounce around, as is to be expected. I expect to see more bouncing in the next few months as the election gets closer.

I don't know what's up with the Bloomberg poll--I tend to pretty much ignore the ones that look like large outliers.

I would like to see more examples as I have researched it and found virtually nothing. And in the links I provided is shows his wealth was pretty much ignored by the media. The paragraph I copied and pasted pretty much sums up the total bias by the media in this matter.

As for the polls, Obama had a very wide margin in February and it has diminished in a large scale. I think there will be a large fluctuation in the numbers as we head towards the election, I just think they are going to favor Romney. There are too many things happening with Obama's administration that are detrimental to his campaign and they have yet to be brought to the forefront. The Fast and Furious matter is going to be a major problem for him and it's not going to go away. The Democrat Govenor and Senator from WVA and the Senator from PA boycotting the DNC is not helping his cause as they are also not endorsing him. The mayor of NYC Bloomberg (although I think he is not wrapped all too tight) is not endorsing him and has been stating Romney is more qualified to deal with the economy. Six months ago I would have said Obama was guaranteed a second term. Today I don't see it that way.

Also heres a few links mentioning the disparity of the medias coverage on Kerry's wealth as compared to Romney's:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/...

"But it gets better. Newsbusters did a little research and came up with this tidbit. From January to April, 2004, when John Kerry (whose estimated net worth is $194 million) ABC and CBS evening news mentioned John Kerry’s wealth once each, while NBC didn’t mention Kerry’s wealth at all. So while Kerry’s wealth was not an issue worthy of discussing during the Bush-Kerry 2004 presidential campaign, that’s not the case this year with the Romney-Obama presidential campaign. Newsbusters found those same three networks have discussed Romney’s wealth 27 times during the same period, or more than 13 times the coverage given to Kerry’s wealth".

http://www.michaelbrowntoday....

http://freedomslighthouse.net...

Again, we are talking about the media.

And lets look at the actual numbers: 27 stories about Romney compared to 2 stories about Kerry, and only counting ABC, CBS, and NBC's coverage on their evening news programs? Only 3 networks, and only during a certain part of the day? I don't think that is a significant finding at all.

You have got to be kidding! There were 25 more stories about Romneys wealth during the same time period and you feel that isn't substantially more? And was just the three stations. I didn't research any further. You have to be being facetious. What would be significant to you 2500 stories to 2?

OMG HE ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING WITH HIS LIFE????? HE KNOWS WHAT CAPITALISM IS AND HOW IT WORKS????? HOW EVIL OF HIM!!! 4 MORE YEARS OF DUMB!

You nailed it.

You do realize that during the Kennedy presidency and campaigns social media and a 24 hour news cycle didn't exist, right? There fore there the Kennedy comparison is irrelevant. As for Kerry, there was a TON of criticism of his wealth. He was such a dud as a candidate that the Heinz fortune is almost all I remember hearing about during his campaign.

I would disagree with you on the Kennedy presidency. The social media hid their bias more so in the 60's than they do nowaday. Hence the bias was not as apparent. As for Kerry I remember hearing more about his 'swiftboat' exaggerations as opposed to his wealth. In fact after he lost the presidency the mainstream media looked the other way when he tried to shaft his own state out of the sales tax on his multi-million dollar yacht.

The media has become more and more biased and not just in regards to Romney's wealth. Why don't they report on the Fast and Furious situation? Why haven't they reported on Bernake's cut of the estimated economic growth? Why haven't they reported on the dismal job numbers? Why haven't they reported on the increase in unemployment claims? Why haven't they addressed Obama condemning Bush for using the executive privledge in 2007? This list could go on and on. They mainstream media is so biased towards the left and Obama it is ridiculous. But there bias appears to be working the opposite as Obamas numbers continue to go South.

Can You Spell?


H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S,

Oh it is just the progressive bent now - divide, hate, envy and greed, oh forgot complete loon talk thrown in. Sad to see the once noble democrat party falling into this but they have and they do find an audience unfortunately

hopefully an ever smaller one