H.G. Wells provided a masterpiece on stretching the limits of societal judgements in the interest of science when he wrote The Island of Dr. Moreau. The treatise by Wells concerning the morality of whether a human can become some demi-God/creator describes a science-fiction process of "vivisection" where animals are given human forms through surgery, and rehabilitation. Wells, a social reformer, was a very didactic writer, and this novel reflects his thoughts and theories about humanity and godliness, by using the ideas and arguments of his time to create a luster about the idea that seemed tantalizing to scientists at the time. During this time Darwin’s theory of natural selection and descent with modification was all the talk in the scientific industry. Darwin’s findings spawned a great debate as to whether or not mankind was among the evidence of natural selection and descent with modification.
The fact is there are two kinds of scientists, those that believe in God, and those that don’t. From there it is up to society to judge for themselves who among the scientific field practices science with intellectual honesty and a degree of acceptable social morality.
Here we are, so much confusion among the electorate of conservatives in the republican primary, we have about a month and a half of solid campaigning prior to the first primary come Jan. 3rd, 2011 in Iowa. There is no consolidation as of yet behind the conservative candidate of choice. There likely won't be, and we have our collective "selves" to blame for that problem, but I digress.
The Vivisection of the GOP Field
There are great qualities of personal character in each of the GOP candidates. Each candidate has the demonstrated ability to lead to some extent or another. They themselves have repeated the confidence that each has in one another regarding the ability to govern in the Office of POTUS rather than rule in the office of POTUS as our current Dear Leader does. Wouldn't it be great if we could take the best of each candidate and surgically implant that portion of their brain or heart into some sort of super candidate vessel?
The fact is there are two kinds of electoral voters, those that Deify their candidate, and those that don’t. From there it is up to society to judge for themselves who among the primary field practices politics with intellectual honesty and a degree of acceptable social morality.
Unfortunately we can't take "the best" of what each candidate can offer and piece them together into some super candidate without baggage. Vivisection is junk science, and its also junk political-science. Shall we weigh our conscience and vote for the person we believe best represents us in the primary? Shall we forgo our hopes for our favored candidate to support a more likely to win conservative candidate, that we may consolidate the base and prevent the media from picking our candidate? Shall we reject the idea that any decision MUST be made before the votes are tallied in the first few contests if we live in a state that has a latter primary date?
I am of the opinion that unless I have distant relatives that live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Michigan, et al states prior to Super Tuesday, that I am able to directly influence with negative comments about the competition, then it may be a waste of time to tear down other candidates in contrast to my favored candidate (Rick Perry) for "personal" or "persona" issues. Instead I enjoy watching the debates, and seeing where the discussion leads. There are great distinctions in their policies and views, but not so significant that they are totally out of line with conservatism (Even Romney *sounds* conservative at times).
To Err is Human, but to Forgive is Divine
It won't matter which candidate ends up as the nominee, get used to paying the baggage fee when we send our nominee to the White House for inauguration folks. So what baggage is socially and morally acceptable in your world? We conservatives need to be careful about creating a "malaise" issue when it comes to political confidence in our candidates. Otherwise we may find ourselves completely short of a win against the much more important Obamanomic Malaise which I believe we can all agree its time to rid ourselves of that.
I think its time we took an honest look at ourselves and figure out 'what manner of electorate ought we to be'? I think its ridiculous how the 'candi-bots' have salivated and come out in droves, to bemoan the weaknesses of some other candidate as the MSM has spoon fed the machine of chattering class morons with the pot-stirring stick called negativity. The candi-bots prove to be as vicious with their commentary as liberals on a foaming mouthed rant.
Wherein lies the forgiveness for the baggage? Are we looking for some puritanical political virgin? Or are we the type that seems to think our candidate is Superman/woman sent to rid America of the evil that prevents our exceptionally American Greatness? Is it possible for each of us to back off a little bit from our extremely high expectations for a candidate to qualify for 'nominee that I could support'? And where are the electoral voters that repeat the mantra: "the person I 'really' wanted to run was candidate x, but they declined, so I'm just going to sit back and laugh with schadenfreude as each of the declared candidates proves themselves 'less worthy' of my vote". As if the outcome of the nominating process is below them.
I wrote about Media Bias and its effects in the 2008 election:
Bias in the media whether real or perceived tends to be more systemic wherein events and subjects are selected for coverage by agenda and purpose. Media bias is the abject representation and/or framing of an article by a journalist regardless of tone where an absence of objectivity is detected. Sometimes this bias is individually created by a journalist. Sometimes it is the cause of editorial work that prevents the unprejudiced consideration of subjects related to political and social issues. Admittedly, there are many limitations in journalism that prevent total objectivity, which is why bias is more the complaint of subjective writing rather than objective. However, in our free society, the United States, we experience freedom of the press that offers a free market for journalists to present both their writing and opinion. Journalists are often employed or syndicated and in order to get published they must write the types of articles that editors and news outlets desire to publish.
The Society of Professional Journalists states,
The duty of the journalist is to further [public enlightenment] by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with throroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. (Society of Professional Journalists)
Examples of the device of bias in journalism are substantiated when one detects the following: stereotypes, loaded language, double standards in juxtaposition, unchallenged assumptions, or when stories on important issues are omitted. When journalists do not disclaim a writing as opinion it is assumed they are writing an objective and comprehensive article, and when devices of bias are employed and detected in said article it becomes an issue of journalistic integrity and is labeled as bias.
It should be clear to discerning conservatives that each and every narrative that is framed by the Media after each debate is purposed to cause infighting. They hope to discredit all conservative candidates. They do not want a stark contrast to Obama, they hope to see Romney go up against Obama, this is the safest bet for them. Is it not clear that the "supposed" front runner of the week that is challenging Romney in the "not-Romney" polls, is immediately caught up in some ridiculous controversy that is conjured up by the standing "Journolist" media membership?
Regardless of who the nominee shall be, the MSM will drudge up our vomit bags and remind us of some controversial comment/policy position/personal baggage/perceived persona flaw etc. They will attempt to suggest that all that makes Obama great, is all that makes Republicans awful. They will attempt to deflate the Republican party base with every attempt to play on emotions that are insignificant. They will rehash every issue that pits Conservatives against Republicans against Independents and so on. They will do all of it using the devices of bias, which to the untrained eye, is just another news report.
Remember, they'll Bork you and your candidate and the nominee any way they can.