Skip to comments.Will the press ever turn on Obama…
Posted on 07/30/2013 1:15:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
the way much of it has now turned on Weiner? Thats the question asked by a commenter at this post about The New Yorkers new cover mocking Weiner.
My answer, in a nutshell, is no.
After all, there is no real cost to turning on Weiner. The election is not a national event. No one seemed to like Weiner all that much to begin with; perhaps the only people getting thrills up the leg about him might have been a few of his sext partners. Weiners misbehavior was sexual and simple to conceptualize, and most especially it was not political in nature (except for the over-arching issue of lying). Those who supported Weiner earlier and excused his personal failingsoncecould rest easy in knowing that had shown them to be personally magnanimous. They had given him another chance, he blew it, and now by turning on him theyre showing they have morals and standards. Win/win.
And besides, his offenses had nothing to do with politics or policy. Abandoning Weiner now threatens no particular political or theoretical belief system of his previous supporters, and helps them look righteous and even-handed. And it doesnt hurt that his activities lend themselves quite easily to mockery; the double-entendres just keep coming (oops!).
Nor is there any racial angle with Weiner; hes Jewish, and therefore not of a protected group.
Obama is very different. For him, the press has compromised every ideal it professes to have. His sins are not personal, they are political abuses of power, and the abuses of power are for the most part in furtherance of the agenda of the left. For supporters and press to turn on him now would mean a re-organization of their much more basic belief system and perhaps even their politics. Even worse than that, it could mean saying the right was right about Obama all the time. That would be most threatening of all.
No, the only way the liberal press would ever really turn on Obama would be for not being leftist enoughfor joining the conservative enemy, as it were. And although there were moments of that with Obamas policies on Guantanamo, drones, and NSA spying (all of which involved him appearing, in the eyes of liberals and the left, to be too much like Bush in fighting Islamic terrorismeven though Obama refused to call it that), the Obama-dike of the MSM held.
Its hard to imagine anything else that could ever threaten it.
Is that a rhetorical question.
Because if they haven’t yet, I don’t know when they would.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
If they turn on OBAMA things will have to get real bad...Next up Hillary
Is the earth flat?
Once you admit it, the press has no further use of you. They admire liars. They gushed over how GOOD Clinton was at it.
I don't see Ubama ever admitting anything, either.
That’s like asking will Obama ever turn on Obama?
With 80-90% of the MSM left wingers?
People don't often turn on their progeny. For starters, it makes them look bad.
The MSM understands perfectly who controls the checkbook. The self-acclaimed elite wannabee MSM cannot afford to do their job with honesty, integrity, or ethics .... they sold out a long time ago ... and they are treated just like the slaves that they have become.
“Will the press ever turn on Obama ”
Sure, Obama turns the press on, doesn’t he?
It's nearly impossible for Marxists, secular humanists, and postmodernists to give up their world views because they are based on the results of the choice to not think, which means they are based on emotionalism and concrete bound mentality, which means that they do not have to be compatible with reality and can avoid thinking in principles of cause and effect.
To paraphrase and old saying: “Is the Pope Muslim?”
For them to turn on Obama would be like taking a whole lotta cyanide capsules. They are the bigger part of the monster and can’t turn on him without some serious self-flagellation. I don’t see it happening because of how invested they have become.
1. Weiner's initial lies in Congress WERE political. Weiner at first arrogantly accused the press of making up the story and tried to bully them into backing off. Then he claimed that his phone had been hacked, and only backed off of that when others demanded that the FBI investigate the hacking of a sitting Congressman's phone. Anyone who supported Weiner during this also supported his blaming of others, including bullying the press.
2. We need to redefine "the press" to include British and other foreign news outlets, too. Let's get the UK Telegraph, and even the Guardian to write what American outlets refuse to write. I recall press conferences from the past when a question or two was always reserved for a foreign journalist. Let's try to get the British press to write the pieces that Americans refuse to write.
How do you turn on your paymaster?
You’ve seen what this Marxist does to his “enemies”.....
” the Obama-dike”
Okay, I’ll bite. Who is it?
I remember a few months ago reading an article about the large number of White House and campaign staffers who were married to people working for the alphabet networks; big name reporters and on air talent. I thought I had it bookmarked but now I can’t find it, even on the web. It explained how Obama had such an iron grip on the press. These people were not going to jeopardize their spouses jobs.
Well since the MSM created the myth of Obama it would be like them shooting themselves in the foot and exposing themselves as co-conspirators to the fraud.
They would turn on him only if he violated a sacred covenant of the Left (e.g., smoking in public; denying “global warming”). Anything else is of far, far lesser importance (e.g., honesty; leadership; rational thought ...)
The press WILL turn on Obama as soon as Hitlery announces her intention to run.
They seem to be back to wiping his a... as they were last year.
The Media : ‘Please give it to me again Barrack, it hurts so good’
if they didn’t turn after learning of Eric Holder’s fishing expedition against the AP....they likely never will.
It took 40 years for Pete Seeger to turn on Joseph Stalin. Figure about that kind of a timeline for the turn of events.
The MSM threw the Clintons under the bus in the Spring of 2008. That’s when tongues started to wag and resentment against those corrupt carpetbaggers came out.
Of course, Hillary was a threat to the candidacy of the Golden Child at the time. Now she’s the last great white hope of the Democrat Party.
They got sober for around 30-60 days, and are now back on the bottle.
I think it’s the old “No enemies to the left”. Either Hussein would have to tack visibly to the right (ain’t happening) or something would come along that’s markedly to the left of him (ain’t happening either). Failing either of these two things happening, no.
It turned on Weiner because the alternatives are more to the left than him. He would have been bad, but the other candidates are worse.
Another slur by another racist pig in the media.
Not until AFTER 2014 election. Then Obama Fatigue will be in vogue, because they’ll be busy reporting on Hillary and whoever else is running. AND it’ll give this denizen the opportunity to shove more sh** at us because they won’t be paying ANY type of attention.
That’s a classic...........
That is right, they will NEVER turn on him.
They may have ruined America with their slavish devotion to this bad, incompetent, corrupt man.
But they don’t care.
I’m convinced there is NOTHING he could do that would make them turn on him. NOTHING. He could strangle his own daughters on the white house lawn and they’d say, so what?
Look at what he’s done and they’ve got NOTHING to say about any of it.
Nope, live boys, dead girls, roasted puppies, we are stuck with him for the next 3 years; we very well may never recover.
And I love, love, love how they are lining up to crown Hillary! as the next president.
Think how great it will be to have Bill Clinton back in the WH, with nothing but time on his hands.
Sheesh, we better find somebody good to run this time. And no, it’s not that fat cow Christie.
Back in the 80's it was a joke.
My answer, in a nutshell, is no. After all, there is no real cost to turning on Weiner. The election is not a national event. No one seemed to like Weiner all that much to begin with; perhaps the only people getting thrills up the leg about him might have been a few of his sext partners. Weiners misbehavior was sexual and simple to conceptualize, and most especially it was not political in nature (except for the over-arching issue of lying)... Nor is there any racial angle with Weiner; hes Jewish, and therefore not of a protected group. Obama is very different. For him, the press has compromised every ideal it professes to have. His sins are not personal, they are political abuses of power, and the abuses of power are for the most part in furtherance of the agenda of the left. For supporters and press to turn on him now would mean a re-organization of their much more basic belief system and perhaps even their politics. Even worse than that, it could mean saying the right was right about Obama all the time.
But seriously...maybe, JUST MAYBE some will turn on him when their friends are thrown into re-education camps for writing a slightly critical article about il Duche.
When that happens, they'll either TURN on him or they'll become even more devoted bootlickers.
Either “O” goons will have come after you at home or U.S. enemies will have delivered the coup de gras ... and it won't matter any more.