*****-gate

Yesterday’s article at Media Matters said:

Media pick up where they left off 8 years ago

To anyone who lived through the media feeding frenzy of the 1990s, during which the nation’s leading news organizations spent the better part of a decade destroying their own credibility by relentlessly hyping a series of non-scandals, the past few days, in which the media have tried to shoehorn Barack Obama into the Rod Blagojevich scandal, have been sickeningly familiar…

By portraying Arkansas as thoroughly, and uniquely, corrupt, the media (and Clinton’s political opponents) tied him to a long line of misbehavior that had nothing to do with him — and created the impression that Clinton must be corrupt merely for being from such an ethical cesspool…

No surprise here. As I have watched the silly stuff on right-leaning web sites about Obama’s constitutional qualifications for president, I felt a premonition that we would be reliving the “permanent campaign” mode of government again. Let’s hope that the lack of substance in these stories will eventually make everyone sick of it. At least solid Democratic majorities in the Congress will keep them focused on governing rather than trashing the president.

About Kevin

Just an old guy with opinions that I like to bounce off other people.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to *****-gate

  1. TRUTH says:

    “I did NOT have sex with that woman” …….

    “It depends on what your definition of IS is”

    Whatever the media did from 92-2000 wasn’t enough, but we only heard what Washingtion wanted us to hear anyways. Now, 2008 the media is scared to do their jobs, “investigate”. True or False, Authentic or Hyped, it is their JOB to investigate. Unless your last name is Obama. GOV. Blag is free game for them, it just happens to be BHO is tied to the idiot.

    Stop crying about “trashing” the President. WHO said something to “TRASH” him? People have just been asking to show proof of documents that he has yet to do. Not as if everyone is calling him names. And if there are people calling him names, 1) There are nutcases in every party that say stupid stuff, that doesn’t represent the entire party. 2) George W Bush has been called everything in the book by all democrats, hows it feel.

    Media left of ” 8 !!!! ” years ago?!?! They didn’t miss a beat the last eight years, WHERE have you been? But what have they done with Mr. Obama other than kiss the ground he walks on for the last 2 years? OMG, they say his name once in a bad story and your crying the Media is against him. Get back with me in a couple years THEN lets see if there is anything worth crying over.

  2. TRUTH says:

    LOL!! Speaking of LIBERAL Interpretation I like the Moderation of the posts now. Why not just Delete them all? You know the game, HIDE the facts, don’t let people see the truth.

  3. Kevin says:

    Truth, Blog or Die! has gotten over 70,000 spam comments since I started counting. There are filters in place that look for certain characteristics common to spam messages, and the software automatically moderates based on these rules. No change in moderation rules has been made in months. Most of your comments get through without moderation.

    Nothing you have said has ever been deleted.

  4. Kevin says:

    Truth said: “Stop crying about “trashing” the President. WHO said something to “TRASH” him? ”

    I find it hard to understand that comment from someone who has read “The Case Against Barack Obama”.

  5. Kevin says:

    While Bill Clinton did lie about some things, he was also investigated for things he didn’t do and in particular hounded about things that were unrelated to his execution of the office of President. I don’t defend Clinton for what he DID do wrong, but the story is more complicated.

    In the case of George Bush, I personally find enough undisputed actions in his official job performance to provide all the justification necessary for criticizing him. One doesn’t need to speculate to know that his administration started a war in Iraq based on bad intelligence, which at best is negligent.

  6. TRUTH says:

    Reading “The Case Against Barack Obama” is considered trashing in your viewpoint? There are many forms of information in the world, and it may be a surprise to you but BLOGGING isn’t the only means I did information research. I looked in many places, including yes READING. For a man to put into print information, which to the best of my knowledge is information he found in other documents, records and/or newspapers, I take that for what it is, neither true or false but INFORMATION. Nowhere in the Book were words written calling him bad names or similar demeaning adjectives that would be defined as TRASHING.

    I guess it depends what your Definition of “IS” is….. or your definition of TRASH is…… Slick Willy.

    To say something about a Conservative is to Judge him, say the same thing about a Liberal is to Trash him.

  7. Kevin says:

    Truth, you misunderstood what I said:

    You said: “WHO said something to “TRASH” him [Obama]?”

    I said: “I find it hard to understand that comment from someone who has read “The Case Against Barack Obama”.”

    Meaning that someone like you who had read “The Case Against Barack Obama” would have first hand knowledge of a specific example of someone who had trashed Obama, the author of that book.

    Measure twice, cut once.

  8. TRUTH says:

    HE DID NOT TRASH HIM. “YOU” Misunderstood what “I” said, or it just doesn’t soak in.

    Did YOU READ the Book? NO! You read what some Libs said about it. 2nd Hand information.

    Because it is not Positive Information about Obama doesn’t me he is Trashing him. The man collected data and published a book on his findings. SORRY it doesn’t conform with your view of the world. Obama isn’t really the Savior, that is just a nickname, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

  9. Kevin says:

    Truth, actually all I know about The Case Against Barack Obama I got from you. And by the way, phrases like “savior” and “messiah” come exclusively from the right when making derisive remarks about Obama supporters. We don’t use these words and don’t think that way.

  10. TRUTH says:

    WOW!!, Do I need to define why conservatives use those words? I mean really, do I? You don’t think THAT is trashing do you?

    And that is right, you did NOT read the book, and you can’t say “ALL” you know of the book you got from me, PLEASE! Don’t make me go search through your posts and find the comments you pulled from other liberal posts elsewhere of the misquotes in the book, or at least what they think is misquotes. You passed judgment on that book from what other liberals said, not because of me.

  11. Kevin says:

    Truth, if you read back, I believe you may find me critical about Obama Nation or other misinformation floating around, but I really don’t ever recall anyone but you saying anything about the contents of The Case Against Barack Obama. It may be that that book is similar in content to stuff in Obama Nation.

  12. TRUTH says:

    Uggg… your better at looking up past posts than I. I distinctly recall you dogging David Freddoso for a couple of specific reasons. Hmmmm…now I gotta think where it might be.

  13. Kevin says:

    You can search main articles using the search tool on the left panel. It doesn’t search comments, though. I can, however, search them and the only time I mentioned Freddoso was here:

    http://www.blogordie.com/2008/08/anti-books/comment-page-1/#comment-52322

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *