It's official -- the MSM/Obama honeymoon is over
Man, I didn't want to spend all day today focusing on Obama, but it seems that this may be the case. Glenn Reynolds notes that the press is starting to pile on Obama. Bob Krumm noted it last night:
I’ve noticed over just the last couple days that Barack Obama is falling under media scrutiny for the first time–and he isn’t bearing well under the pressure.
First there was his campaign’s leaked conversation with the Canadians: “Don’t worry, I’m only anti-NAFTA so that I can get the votes of the rubes.” Then his Rezko dealings got some long overdue notice. Now he is actually getting fact checked on the things he is claiming. And guess what? The facts don’t check. And it’s being reported. In San Francisco of all places.
We conservatives like to deride the media as being liberal conspirators. The truth is that they love controversy far more than conspiracy. And they absolutely love piling on. If–and it’s still a big if–Hillary wins Ohio and at least comes close in Texas, I suspect that Obama won’t enjoy the press pile-on he will soon receive.
The question then will be: How will his followers take it?
Here are some of those "facts" being checked by Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle, reported by Don Surber:
The always good Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle caught Barack Obama with his facts wrong.
First the quote from Obama: “Now, I have to say, when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, the decision to invade Iraq, Sen. Clinton got it wrong.
“She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate. Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn’t read it.”
Rockefeller is a voracious reader. It was a 90-page report.
Rockefeller supports Obama.
Rockefeller also voted for the war.
Oops.
Saunders pointed out that about half the Democratic senators voted for the war. Since then, they have said Bush lied.
Which makes them dupes.
I am curious, what makes the public think that Obama would have read a report that maybe a dozen senators read?
Has he read any good NIE reports lately?
Or has he been busy traveling the country for the past year, maybe year-and-a-half, occasionally dropping by Washington for important votes?
Based on what?
Reading 90-page reports?
Or based on what Harry Reid tells him?
Obama is taking the easy way out. He firmly stands behind a non-existent vote against the war as proof of his superiority — that he is somehow wiser and more learned than Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who actually read the 90-page NIE report.
Obama’s claim is easy money.
Obama might as well be telling me he would have voted against Smoot-Hawley.
The point is not going into Iraq, but how do we get out? So far, all Obama has said is with our heads hung low and with our tails between our legs.
That’s dangerous.
Now, this marks the third MSM outlet digging into Obama. The first was the New York Times piece reporting on the trial of Tony Rezko and their asking some uncomfortable questions about Obama's ties to him.
The second was Chicago Sun-Times attempt to get answers to questions involving Obama's ties to Rezko.
Yes, the stories seem to be revolving around the Rezko trial, which is a rather important story. But this won't be the only thing the press decides to investigate. Seriously, they will begin to dig up information about him that will be suspect to most voters, including his followers. To date, the press hasn't asked him about his proposed spending if he should win the White House. There are also questions regarding his weak Second Amendment stance, his obvious refusal to deal with issues of life, and there is the war (mentioned above).
When the media does start asking questions, you can be sure he won't have answers, or at least the answers voters want to hear. And you can expect his supporters to throw a hissy fit that the media is being unfair. If life were fair, we'd all get along. So if Obama and his supporters don't want the press asking questions, and digging up embarrassing information, maybe he should bow out, and they should go back home.
Publius II
I’ve noticed over just the last couple days that Barack Obama is falling under media scrutiny for the first time–and he isn’t bearing well under the pressure.
First there was his campaign’s leaked conversation with the Canadians: “Don’t worry, I’m only anti-NAFTA so that I can get the votes of the rubes.” Then his Rezko dealings got some long overdue notice. Now he is actually getting fact checked on the things he is claiming. And guess what? The facts don’t check. And it’s being reported. In San Francisco of all places.
We conservatives like to deride the media as being liberal conspirators. The truth is that they love controversy far more than conspiracy. And they absolutely love piling on. If–and it’s still a big if–Hillary wins Ohio and at least comes close in Texas, I suspect that Obama won’t enjoy the press pile-on he will soon receive.
The question then will be: How will his followers take it?
Here are some of those "facts" being checked by Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle, reported by Don Surber:
The always good Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle caught Barack Obama with his facts wrong.
First the quote from Obama: “Now, I have to say, when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, the decision to invade Iraq, Sen. Clinton got it wrong.
“She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate. Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn’t read it.”
Rockefeller is a voracious reader. It was a 90-page report.
Rockefeller supports Obama.
Rockefeller also voted for the war.
Oops.
Saunders pointed out that about half the Democratic senators voted for the war. Since then, they have said Bush lied.
Which makes them dupes.
I am curious, what makes the public think that Obama would have read a report that maybe a dozen senators read?
Has he read any good NIE reports lately?
Or has he been busy traveling the country for the past year, maybe year-and-a-half, occasionally dropping by Washington for important votes?
Based on what?
Reading 90-page reports?
Or based on what Harry Reid tells him?
Obama is taking the easy way out. He firmly stands behind a non-existent vote against the war as proof of his superiority — that he is somehow wiser and more learned than Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who actually read the 90-page NIE report.
Obama’s claim is easy money.
Obama might as well be telling me he would have voted against Smoot-Hawley.
The point is not going into Iraq, but how do we get out? So far, all Obama has said is with our heads hung low and with our tails between our legs.
That’s dangerous.
Now, this marks the third MSM outlet digging into Obama. The first was the New York Times piece reporting on the trial of Tony Rezko and their asking some uncomfortable questions about Obama's ties to him.
The second was Chicago Sun-Times attempt to get answers to questions involving Obama's ties to Rezko.
Yes, the stories seem to be revolving around the Rezko trial, which is a rather important story. But this won't be the only thing the press decides to investigate. Seriously, they will begin to dig up information about him that will be suspect to most voters, including his followers. To date, the press hasn't asked him about his proposed spending if he should win the White House. There are also questions regarding his weak Second Amendment stance, his obvious refusal to deal with issues of life, and there is the war (mentioned above).
When the media does start asking questions, you can be sure he won't have answers, or at least the answers voters want to hear. And you can expect his supporters to throw a hissy fit that the media is being unfair. If life were fair, we'd all get along. So if Obama and his supporters don't want the press asking questions, and digging up embarrassing information, maybe he should bow out, and they should go back home.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home