Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Mainstream News Media "Traitors" at ABC
Outrage on the left
I find the liberal reaction to the ABC debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be truly amazing. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are being excoriated by their colleagues for having the temerity to ask Barack Obama some hard questions about Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, his comments about small-town folks and the flag pin flap. Obama didn't handle the questions well and had a generally bad night in the last debate. He is not happy about it and neither are his supporters in the Mainstream Media and on the left.
The day after last week's debate, Obama was in North Carolina complaining to a rally of his supporters about the questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos, for their part, are being blasted by the left for being virtually the first representatives of the MSM to ask hard questions of Obama. How dare they? ABC is being swamped with emails complaining about their two reporters. The left-wing blogs are furious. Air America is furious. Working people everywhere are furious.
Today, while driving from Phoenix to California, I tuned in to a liberal radio talk show called Action Point with Cynthia Black, whom I had never heard of before. She and her callers were angry about what Gibson and Spephanopoulos had done. She was encouraging people to complain to ABC as she railed about the "Foxification" of ABC. Then, she spent the next hour "educating" us about the Weather Underground. According to Black, they were simply idealistic young people fighting back against an oppressive government, the Viet Nam War, racism and sexism. They never killed anybody (except other Weather Underground members). According to her, Obama was being "smeared" for his connection to Ayres.
Ms Black and all the other Obama supporters are missing a very important point, which Hillary Clinton has now only belatedly learned. Both of these people are running for the highest office in the land. Why should they, their statements, their beliefs and their associations not be examined? When Hillary complained about always being asked the first question in the debates, many (including me) reminded her that she could never be expected to stand up to Iran and Al-Qaida, if she couldn't stand up to questioning in a debate.
The same is true of Obama. Up until this week, he had gotten a free pass from the media, which had ignored or tried to ignore questions about his associations, from Tony Rezko to Jeremiah Wright to William Ayres. It was Sean Hannity, after interviewing Wright last year on the Hannity and Colmes Show, who had been sounding the alarm about Wright and his views. Similarly, up until this week, it was Hannity who was sounding the alarm about Obama's relationship with former Weather Underground fugitive William Ayres. Only now has someone from the MSM dared to bring it up and ask Obama about Ayres. Obama's answer was horrible. He described Ayres as "someone who lives in the neighborhood", with whom he does not consult with on "a regular basis". Then, he had the nerve to invoke the name of Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK), with whom he was also on friendly terms, but who had once said something about giving the death penalty to abortion doctors. This was to make some sort of comparison with his connection with Ayres and his relationship with another senator. It sort of reminded me of how Obama threw his grandmother under the bus during the Wright storm.
The result was that millions of Americans had to now ask themselves who this guy Ayres was because finally, someone in the mainstream news media had done their job. And for that, these two reporters are being crucified by the left and their own colleagues. They are being condemned for using the first 45 minutes of the debate asking Obama (and Hillary, for that matter), about character matters as opposed to "sticking to the issues that the American people really care about".
With all due respect; that argument only goes so far. A candidate's character is absolutely an issue. The "sticking to the issues" phrase is the last refuge of the corrupt politician. That would mean that as Hitler was rising to power in Germany, if he had been asked about his statements about Jews and the Nazi street brawls, that wouldn't be fair. No, let's stick to the issues that the German people really care about, like the economy, the price of beer, etc. (No, I am not for one minute comparing Obama to Hitler. I am just using an illustration to make a point, so save your cards and letters.)
The reaction of Obama's supporters, especially in the MSM, speaks volumes about their true nature. When the media goes after the Republicans, that is just fine and dandy. When someone other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox News raises legitimate questions about this man Obama, of whom we have known so little, it is considered treason.
Tell me what is your priorities to be a President? Are they the quantities of Bible thumpings, the people who you know, the size of your family, the numbers of church you attend, the pastors of those church? If a person who is not going to church often can he be elected? Does the serial murder BTK qualify as a good candidate since he was a very active member of his church and I'm sure that he can quote more from the Bible that you? Do you really think that all your friends, associates, and colleagues have absolutely lean past history? Do you really think that YOU, yourself, are spotless? Don't wave the word "liberal" because it's shown that you're a moron. The misusing word liberal was one of those inventions by the current administration personels, such as Karl Rove, to create a division between American people so that they could fought among themselves and forgot about the real issues. Thus an idiot, such as G.W.Bush, could win the election. The scheme worked out perfectly, hence Rove was called "the boy genius". You got to either be a moron or a fool to believe that acts, such as flag waving or magnitic patriot sticker...., are most important things as candidates. Based on your believes, person, such as G.W.Bush, is qualified to be President again.
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteMy priorities for president are how he/she stands on the issues I care about and character is well. I don't believe I said anything about religion in my posting other than to mention Jeremiah Wright (for obvious reasons.)
I find it amazing how so many people like you have bought into the demonization of Karl Rove. I never said a word about him, yet you draw his name out of nowhere. What does he have to do with the current Democratic Primary?
Last point: Before you call someone a moron, you might want to do some editing of your post before you send it into the blogosphere. I have gladly published your message because it just helps prove my points.
It doesn't seem like the guy even read what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's because he can't read-judging by the way he writes.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know it's a guy? Just asking.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just assumed it was a guy. Something in the language.
ReplyDeleteThe other day Obama said he just wanted to eat his waffle. Did you catch the way he said it?
ReplyDeleteYou can tell Obama has contempt for people - including the press - who don't just fawn over him. That was part of Obama's "bitter" remark recently. Obama is bitter when he realizes he actually has to earn some Whites' votes. And Obama is bitter when some in the press have the gaul to ask him a question.
I don't disagree with everything you and/or other conservatives say about Obama, but I'm sorry, this whole thing about his being an elitist over his comments are much ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's the second coming, but I don't agree with fromwembley's analysis either.
I also think the elitist talk is overblown. Let's face it-most of these pols are people full of ego and ambition.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not just conservatives who are leveling that charge. Hillary's campaign and Hillary herself jumped all over the SF remarks.