Yesterday, while watching the financial news channel, Bloomberg, a discussion of the GOP primary race began. During this discussion, which focused on Rick Santorum, the word "legitimate" was uttered. The reporter and anchor were not talking about whether Rick Santorum was a legitimate candidate, they used the word legitimate to justify their discussion of Santorum's income since he left the Senate.
I counted five or six times that the reporter and anchor said that "these are legitimate reasons to look at Santorum's...". Obviously, the DNC talking points were sent and this reporter and anchor received and executed their marching orders.
Please refresh my memory, but when did any mainstream liberal media outlet ever discuss the "legitimate" income sources of Barack Hussein Obama when he was running? What liberal media organization covered the "legitimate" voting record of Barack Hussein Obama in the Illinois State Senate or the U.S. Senate?
Any news organization that states the story they are reporting is legitimate because ..., is clearly trying to deflect the real reason they are doing the story. It's like going to traffic court and hearing someone caught speeding justifying why the ticket isn't "legitimate". The more they justify their stories, the more their guilt shows.
The reason Bloomberg and others will cover "legitimate" stories on Rick Santorum is because the DNC was caught by surprise of Santorum's finish in Iowa. They've already destroyed Bachmann and Newt, now they have Santorum in their sights.
This begs the question - why do the Democrats fear every candidate other than Mitt Romney for an opponent? Hmmm?
