If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway?
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths201g10 Excerpts: 12:15 July 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey "Richard Cohen delivers one of the better analyses of why Obama finds himself falling in the polls and flailing as he approaches the midpoint of his term in office. The truth is that no one really knows Obama, and his initial failures have eroded confidence in his abilities to lead the nation, a point Obama’s apologists obfuscate in a blizzard of Reagan references and polling comparisons. However, as Bruce McQuain points out, Cohen comes to his conclusions by a process that should have taken place in 2007, when Democrats began rallying behind a candidate with no track record, no executive experience, and nothing but a narrative to recommend him for the highest executive office in the land... ...That’s precisely the problem — the media is waiting. While they parachuted dozens of reporters to Wasilla in order to investigate a Vice-Presidential candidate in the general election, the media didn’t bother at all to trek to the much more accessible Chicago to get any sense of Barack Obama’s politics or connections to the corrupt Daley Machine. It’s not as if the issue of corruption in Chicago was an arcane political topic, either, but the only mainstream media interested that topic were the newspapers in Chicago. Nor did the media exactly fall all over themselves to look at Obama’s track record of leadership, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Obama rarely if ever led on any legislative activity that had notable controversy. Instead, he preferred to vote “present” on those issues, an option afforded by the Illinois legislature, and did so over 130 times during his seven years in the state Senate. In one famous encounter, an Obama campaign surrogate couldn’t name a single legislative accomplishment of note for Obama during his time in either the state legislature or the US Senate that would provide a basis for voters to trust him with an executive position at the top of the American political system. Yet the media acted as if Obama had credibility and refused to report anything that contradicted the notion....." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway?
On Jul 20, 1:57*pm, PJ Himselff wrote:
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway? http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths201g10 Excerpts: 12:15 July 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey "Richard Cohen delivers one of the better analyses of why Obama finds himself falling in the polls and flailing as he approaches the midpoint of his term in office. The truth is that no one really knows Obama, and his initial failures have eroded confidence in his abilities to lead the nation, a point Obama’s apologists obfuscate in a blizzard of Reagan references and polling comparisons. However, as Bruce McQuain points out, Cohen comes to his conclusions by a process that should have taken place in 2007, when Democrats began rallying behind a candidate with no track record, no executive experience, and nothing but a narrative to recommend him for the highest executive office in the land... ..That’s precisely the problem — the media is waiting. While they parachuted dozens of reporters to Wasilla in order to investigate a Vice-Presidential candidate in the general election, the media didn’t bother at all to trek to the much more accessible Chicago to get any sense of Barack Obama’s politics or connections to the corrupt Daley Machine. It’s not as if the issue of corruption in Chicago was an arcane political topic, either, but the only mainstream media interested that topic were the newspapers in Chicago. Nor did the media exactly fall all over themselves to look at Obama’s track record of leadership, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Obama rarely if ever led on any legislative activity that had notable controversy. Instead, he preferred to vote “present” on those issues, an option afforded by the Illinois legislature, and did so over 130 times during his seven years in the state Senate. In one famous encounter, an Obama campaign surrogate couldn’t name a single legislative accomplishment of note for Obama during his time in either the state legislature or the US Senate that would provide a basis for voters to trust him with an executive position at the top of the American political system. Yet the media acted as if Obama had credibility and refused to report anything that contradicted the notion....." Good article. I am sure the Ilk will poo-poo it. Jigsaw1695 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway?
On Jul 20, 1:57 pm, PJ Himselff wrote:
Say, who is this fellow in the White House, anyway? http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths201g10 Excerpts: 12:15 July 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey "Richard Cohen delivers one of the better analyses of why Obama finds himself falling in the polls and flailing as he approaches the midpoint of his term in office. The truth is that no one really knows Obama, and his initial failures have eroded confidence in his abilities to lead the nation, a point Obama’s apologists obfuscate in a blizzard of Reagan references and polling comparisons. However, as Bruce McQuain points out, Cohen comes to his conclusions by a process that should have taken place in 2007, when Democrats began rallying behind a candidate with no track record, no executive experience, and nothing but a narrative to recommend him for the highest executive office in the land... ..That’s precisely the problem — the media is waiting. While they parachuted dozens of reporters to Wasilla in order to investigate a Vice-Presidential candidate in the general election, the media didn’t bother at all to trek to the much more accessible Chicago to get any sense of Barack Obama’s politics or connections to the corrupt Daley Machine. It’s not as if the issue of corruption in Chicago was an arcane political topic, either, but the only mainstream media interested that topic were the newspapers in Chicago. Nor did the media exactly fall all over themselves to look at Obama’s track record of leadership, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Obama rarely if ever led on any legislative activity that had notable controversy. Instead, he preferred to vote “present” on those issues, an option afforded by the Illinois legislature, and did so over 130 times during his seven years in the state Senate. In one famous encounter, an Obama campaign surrogate couldn’t name a single legislative accomplishment of note for Obama during his time in either the state legislature or the US Senate that would provide a basis for voters to trust him with an executive position at the top of the American political system. Yet the media acted as if Obama had credibility and refused to report anything that contradicted the notion....." Andy comments: Let us hope we all give more thought to our next vote.... Fool me twice, shame on you.... Fool me three times ...... Phuk you !! Andy in Eureka, Texas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
L.A. TIMES: "Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds noObama White House impropriety on Sestak." | Tis PJ Odonovan | Europe | 3 | May 26th, 2010 03:28 PM |
Cannibals In The White House (etc) | Hatunen | USA & Canada | 2 | October 11th, 2007 08:13 AM |
White House Jamaica | rose ricciuto | Caribbean | 5 | May 16th, 2006 01:32 AM |
We need a NIGGER in the White House! | [email protected] | Air travel | 6 | November 18th, 2004 10:38 PM |
White house visit | Mads Vestergaard | USA & Canada | 27 | August 27th, 2004 07:53 PM |