Breitbart Fail: Turning into Paul-bart?

The nominations for the 2016 Presidential election is already drawing in heated opinions and large funding streams.

The Marginalized Media is pushing for Hillary, and pulling apart Jeb Bush. The same Media has already trashed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, even as they had cozied up to him for two years, following his stellar standing against teachers unions and standing up to Garden State denizens in town halls.

NJ Christie got built up then torn down by media (Bob Jagendorf)

The chattering classes in New York and Washington DC build up moderates then demolish them, all in the end to promote then coronate a liberal. Christie was one of them. He went from gracing the cover of Time Magazine to featuring on a cover in silhouette: "The Elephant in the Room"

The feature was rude and trite, not even remotely accurate. Ultimately, Christie is not only not the elephant in the room (he has lost weight), but he does not look remotely like a contender for 2016.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton disgraced the New York Times Magazine with her face imposed on a planet, and constellations orbiting her.

Now the leftist elements in the media, particularly MSNBC, have gotten bored with Clinton (again) and want someone purely progressive. Clinton's server scandal over a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State will not go away, the way that the media dumbed down the VA secret wait lists, Operation Fast and Furious, and the tragic massacre of four diplomats in Benghazi.

Now, with a new media rising, democratized, leaning right, and in some cases partisan to the point of inflammatory, the same faults of the Left toward promoting one candidate at the expense of others has emerged.

Breitbart has helped free up the media monopoly which benefited the Left, the Establishment, and Big interests taking advantage of political power and government favors. Sites like Truth Revolt and CNS News.

More right-leaning news sources hold Republicans accountable as well as Democrats, and they should. A free press cannot be essentially partisan, if the media wants to engage readers or maintain lasting influence. The downfall and resignation of Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois, for example, follows from Breitbart and other news sources holding him accountable for his questionable spending habits.

Regarding the potential presidential contenders, however, it appears that Breitbart is embracing one candidate (or a set of candidates) at the expense of others.

Disclaimer: This author supports Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for President in 2016.

Matthew Boyle

Matthew Boyle, one of the writers/journalists for the New Media newsite, demonstrates a strong affinity for US Senator Rand Paul. Just looking over the list of his recent articles, Boyle has extensively followed and promoted the junior senator from Kentucky. This Senator has done a number of noteworthy things, not just on the floor of the upper chamber (where he successfully filibustered the nomination of an Obama appointee to force an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder) to strong relationships with Democratic Senators to push moral reforms of the criminal justice system. He also supports defederalizing the War on Drugs, Right-To-Work legislation, and has voted his conscience in alliance with the same Tea Party principles which brought him to office.

He also voiced support for a pathway to citizenship, once calling illegal aliens "undocumented citizens." This rhetoric vividly offended supporters and constituents.  Paul has also denounced institutional segregation in the criminal justice system, yet ignored the cultural pathology in certain black communities. He even rejects Voter ID, while these political statements are viewed as mere posturing to secure the African-American vote.

Clearly, US Senator Rand Paul has his failings. Yet have Breitbart editors and writers exposed these issues? Why do they spend so much time slamming Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker? Conservatives get faulted much of the time for turning on their own. Does this criticism now apply to Breitbart?

Even Twitchy asked: why is "investigative journalist" attacking one of Governor Walker's staffers? No one can ignore "investigative journalist" in quotation marks. In 2014, Boyle relentlessly hammered US Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS), who still ended up winning his Senate seat against primary challenger state senator Chris McDaniel. Evidently, Boyle was deliberately interested in helping the state senator defeat the US Senator.

Now, is he trying to upend Governor Walker's chances? His means of doing so are starting to put his integrity and viability (along with Breitbart's) into question.

Breitbart turning into . . Paul-bart? (Truth Revolt)

The latest attack against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker focused on one of his staff members. The attack was neither relevant nor informative, and almost tabloid in nature. The overextended of the piece, nearly two thousand words, discourages any in-depth appreciation for the column. Editing, conciseness, and direct reporting are key to engaging any audience.

If Breitbart turns into Paul-bart, one has to wonder if anyone is going to read it anymore, or at least no one should be surprised at its diminishing influence to detonate false narratives and reinvigorate free markets, free enterprise, and free people in our Constitutional Republic.