Posted on 01/04/2015 6:03:18 AM PST by HomerBohn
The difference is in the way the MSM reacts. They hated Nixon so they were like vicious, starving sharks, constantly circling and ripping Nixon to bloody ribbons with any tidbit of negative (or perceived negative) info they acquired. By contrast, they love Obama, and rip to bloody tatters not Obama for any, and certainly not all, his wrongdoings—and there are more of them than Nixon ever dreamed of. Rather, they rip to shreds anyone who attempts to bring out anything negative against Obama.
It is a mirror-opposite media culture. If Nixon had had one-fourth the MSM support Obama has, he’d never have resigned. Anyone who needs this pointed out, and who can’t see it for themselves, is either not very perceptive, not very bight, or an Obot.
There are certainly enough conservative media outlets these days who don’t love Obama, from Fox News to conservative talk radio to internet blogs to foreign conservative media like Canada Free Press or the London Daily Telegraph to start a fire under this issue, often the mainstream media is forced to come kicking and screaming to covering Benghazi, Lois Learner, Fast and Furious or the failure of Obamacare by the attention that the conservative media gives to those stories and the audience (and ratings) that are drawn from them.
In Nixon’s Day, the National Review was just about it from a conservative point of view. But Nixon was primarily done in by the White House tapes where the nation could hear him obstructing justice in the famous “smoking gun” tape. After that tape was released, Republicans deserted Nixon.
‘But Nixon was primarily done in by the White House tapes where the nation could hear him obstructing justice in the famous “smoking gun” tape. After that tape was released, Republicans deserted Nixon.’
Nixon was done in by a ruthless, biased, bloodthirsty MSM. Had the MSM of his day been half as accommodating of him as they are of Obama he would have survived unscathed. Conversely, were the MSM half so critical of Obama as they were of Nixon, Obama would be long gone.
The conservative press has covered Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS and other Obama scandals. With the MSM running 24/7 interference, the traction is not there. Again, if the MSM gave Obama one tenth of the grief for his most egregious crimes as they gave Nixon for his trifling-by-comparison wrongdoing, Obama would be toast.
Even on the view that media coverage has to now been different, the CCP has claimed that their so-called "universe shattering evidence" is so compelling that the "world media" could not ignore it and that "major media" were "heavily involved" and interested in the release of the information.
But then they delay and delay and try to cover that delay on the premise that unless they release their supposed information at precisely the right time, it stands to be ignored ("we have only one chance at this"). Zullo and Gallups talk about both sides of their mouths, yet there are Birthers who continue to swallow their B.S., waiting for that mythical "A&Z Day" to arrive.
I have no inside info on the CCP. What I do have info on is the relationship between the MSM and Republicans vs. Dems.
Namely, that the MSM is as shamelessly pro-Obama as they were rabidly anti-Nixon. No, the media is not, as a particularly clueless individual once again, ‘against all.’ Rather, they are all in for the Dem candidate and all attack all the time for the GOP.
It’s worse than it’s ever been with Obama. Only one MSM reporter even attempted to investigate him. The name is Sharyl Attkisson. For her trouble she was frozen out of her job and burglarized by the Fed Gov.
Think about it for a minute. The Fed Gov broke into Attkisson’s house and commandeered her computer. Nixon never dreamed of such lawless abuse. But how are the MSM handling the story?
They are making fun of Attkisson. So much for your Watergate comparisons. Even Woodward said there was a lot about Obama that needed to be investigated. Then he ***claimed*** that if he were younger he’d do it.
What a hoot. Nobody in their right mind would risk the Attkisson treatment. The level of fraud, illegality and skullduggery perpetrated by Obama & his minions is off the charts. & you sit there and dare to ask why, if there are major issues with Obama’s pathologically ubiquitous lies, more reporters are not investigating.
Nobody can be that clueless. Not even an out-off-the-closet Obot.
The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during Watergate. They held congressional hearings in the House and Senate which were the first EVER live coverage, gavel to gavel of congressional committee hearings. But it was both Houses of Congress that permitted the television networks to cover the hearings live and gavel to gavel. There was 319 hours of televsion coverage which made Watergate the most televised event in history up to that time.
The vote in the Senate to allow the live television coverage was 77-0 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 31-7 to allow their hearings to be televised. There were 17 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
In contrast, there has never been a congressional hearing on Obama’s eligibility. There has never even been a speech on the floor of the House or Senate about Obama’s eligibility.
If media attention is important, those trying to advance an issue have to give the media a reason to cover that issue.
A grand jury investigation, like the Clinton Arkansas Whitewater or Paula Jones grand juries or congressional hearings could have drawn national and international media attention.
Can you imagine Barack Obama appearing before a grand jury like Bill Clinton’s Paula Jones deposition and his personal appearance?
My post to Nero was centered on the CCP:
Yet the ones who claim to have investigated and discovered "universe shattering evidence" haven't published such in the way the Woodward and Bernstein did.
That was the first sentence I wrote. The two other sentences also were about the CCP. But as is typical of you, you jump in and try to drag the discussion in some other direction.
Oh, BTW, my prediction to you made last February 4 was on target in predicting the claimed "March release" would not happen:
Based on CCP history, my guess is that between now and mid-March, the CCP will indicate that a "Super Secret VIP" is advising them that the moment is not yet opportune, that it's vitally important to get all the players lined up, that they have but "one chance" to make this all happen, etc., etc. And July or so will become the new 'target date.'Not March. Not July. Not autumn. Not year-end. (And the "we have but one chance at this" has come out of Zullo/Gallups since in explaining the endless delays.)
You should be asking yourself: "What great insight did Hook have to so confidently predict that the CCP would not meet it's claimed March release date?"
If you really supported Palin as you claim you do, you could answer your own stupid, idiotic points. You either have no idea she has even spoken about the Permanent Political Class or you have no idea what she means. Either way you are a poser. You ***claim*** [lol] to be c conservative Palin supporter yet you cannot process her major complaint re: DC. It is either stupidity on a level only rivaled by one of your fellow anti-birthers, or it is fraud close to Obama’s level. A or B; there is no C.
‘You should be asking yourself: “What great insight did Hook have to so confidently predict that the CCP would not meet it’s claimed March release date?”’
You have portrayed the MSM as ‘against all,’ as opposed to the liberal/Dem-anti-conservative leftist political organ that it is, and you have portrayed Obama as favorable to American citizens simply because he hasn’t put out a memorandum advocating the deportation of ***American citizens*** with criminal records.
You have no insights. No one who makes two such brain-dead assertions has insights. You have only flaming leftist moonbat liberal bluster. If I wanted that, I wouldn’t come to this site to get it.
On February 4, 2014, I correctly forecast that the "March release" (which had even been foretold in January at PPSIMMONS, the Zullo-designated 'official source') would not take place.
I call that insightful.
You’re missing the point. There are occasions, admittedly rare, when a person says something so incredibly, indescribably stupid, it nullifies all other ‘insights’ they may claim to possess. You recently qualified yourself for that category.
First, rather than acknowledge that in the Obama vs. Romney election, the MSM was wholly in Obama’s camp and acted as an arm of his campaign in relentlessly supporting him/attacking Romney, you claimed the MSM was ‘against all.’ That comment is so lacking in insight as to call into question anything/everything else you say.
But it gets worse. You actually claimed that Obama favors US citizens over illegal immigrants because while he [falsely] threatens to deport the latter, if they are criminals [hint: they became criminals when they illegally entered the country—but hey, Obama lies], he’s made no similar threats to US citizens.
& this, in a nutshell, is why you are an Obot. You actually believe Obama has the option to deport legal US citizens if they commit a crime. But benevolently he allows them to remain, even if they are convicted of, for example, tax evasion.
Wow. Words fail. In your mind, then, Obama favors Americans by allowing even those convicted of crimes to remain in the country. What a guy! Btw, you never did say where he was going to deport them to, should he change his mind about ‘favoring’ American citizens. I.e.: if he has no options for deportation, then your comment is flapdoodle. Well, ok; it is flapdoodle. But still, you might at least try, and *suggest* a place to deport our millions of convicts. It would be interesting to read, to say the least.
Anyway, once you cited that example, your value as a provider of insights dropped to nil. A blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. But no one looks to a blind pig for guidance. Thus it is, and will always be with you, after that thunderingly idiotic comment about Obama deporting legal American citizens.
Again, in your desperation to have a comeback all you can do is rip one 3-word phrase from within a longer parenthetical series and try to make it that is was some large point in the discussion. It wasn't. And beside, that parenthetical comment wasn't even specifically about Obama v. Romney, it was about a consistent history of presidential elections of nominating and electing eligible candidates. You can't read.
And the immigration thread I wasn't even posting till you out-of-the blue dragged me into it. My point was that legislation/actions affecting immigrants doesn't normally pertain directly to citizens and vice versa, so the two categories aren't easily compared. Again, you rip a sub-point out of context and flap your wings with your usual hysterics and rant to try to make a point.
But, do tell me, when a poster first tries to claim she answered to a person's MAIN point, but then can't back up that claim, only later to take a different approach and claim she had ignored the point because it wasn't important, what would you call that?
Dishonest? Self-contradictory? Lame? Inept?
I think any of those tags would fit your argument style well.
Our recent interactions have come about when you've jumped in to reply to posts I've made to others (Ray76, Nero G.) My earlier suggestion you take your 5th grade level debating skills and pester someone else still stands.
The context doesn’t change the idiocy of your comment. It’s a stupid exercise you’ve forced onto the conversation before, and it accomplishes nothing. But for the record:
“No. “Evidence” is simply something that tends to prove (or disprove) a matter. One bit of evidence doesn’t preclude the existence of contrary evidence. (In a legal case, both sides can submit evidence that points to differing conclusions.). I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.”
‘the media versus all’ is as stupidly out of touch with reality in context as quoted by itself. The MSM is not ‘versus all.’ It is entirely biased toward the liberal candidate and against the conservative. A conservative would know this. You, however, being a flaming liberal Obot, take advantage of FR to disseminate the ludicrously false idea that the media doesn’t play favorites. It’s a stupid point at best and an anti-conservative point as well. Denying the left-wing bias of the media is one of the worst kind of liberal dirty tricks. Not surprised to find you doing it.
Your other comment in context:
‘Your question is a poor one (no surprise) as actions which pertain to illegal/immigrants don’t really pertain to citizens and vice versa. So making the comparison you want doesn’t make sense (again, no surprise). But even within Obama’s recent executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably. So your question is answered.’
What I originally said was true. Everything Obama does and says favors foreigners and illegals over American citizens. [This is because he IS a foreigner, and he acts like what he is. That is why I brought it up originally, and why you scream like a scalded cat over the mere fact of having been pinged to it. You cannot rationally explain Obama’s pro-foreigner/anti-American bias with lies; only the truth explains it, and the truth to you is anathema.] That statement is true, your misunderstanding of it notwithstanding. If it were not true, you could offer a better example of Obama doing or saying something that put the interests of the American people over that of foreigners and illegals. But you can’t.
Nor can any of your irrational, illogical tap dancing change what you said. Indeed you did say that since Obama proposes to deport illegals with criminal records and doesn’t similarly propose to deport American citizens with criminal records, he is treating illegals less favorably than American citizens. It is still the single stupidest comment to be posted on this site. No wonder you’re in a blind panic. If I’d posted something that stupid, your head would explode from the effort of attempting to sufficiently mock my cluelessness.
‘My earlier suggestion you take your 5th grade level debating skills and pester someone else still stands.’
Oh, I get it. You’re supposed to be able to answer my posts to you, but I’m not, in your warped, delicate mind, supposed to be able to answer your posts to me. How Obama-esque of you. You get to write all the rules, and you get huffy if you don’t get your way.
Too bad.
& btw, as the one who made the suggestion that Obama’s failure to deport American citizens with criminal records proves his pro-Americanism, it’s unseemly of you to disparage anybody else’s debating skills. You’d need at least an entry-level proficiency in the subject, before you start handing down sweeping judgments of others.
‘‘Your question is a poor one (no surprise) as actions which pertain to illegal/immigrants don’t really pertain to citizens and vice versa. So making the comparison you want doesn’t make sense (again, no surprise).’
Let’s clear your fundamental misunderstanding up right now with one simple example. Obama’s continued release of extremely dangerous anti-American killers from Gitmo. The high recidivism rate of these murderous psychos has been proven. Every batch of released Muslim killers means more American deaths. This is not in dispute.
However, the more this fact is brought to Obama’s attention, the more eagerly he releases another batch of killers. For him, you see, the future deaths—often horrific—of Americans, (often US military) is a feature, not a bug. Otherwise, he’d stop doing it.
He continues to release some of the most dangerous anti-American mass-murderers in history, however, because he’s on their side. They are ‘his people.’ I.e.: they are foreigners with Islamic loyalties. Obama is a foreigner with Islamic loyalties. So he delights in a policy that favors ‘his people’ and lethally harms the people—Americans—with whom he neither identifies nor likes.
This, CpnHook, is what a real example looks like. It is one of thousands of Obama’s decisions that favors foreigners and illegals at the expense of American citizens. & I can see why you cry & whine at being pinged to the original thread. My ping was not an invitation to debate. It was simply an invitation for you to see how overt and in-your-face Obama’s favoritism of foreigners and illegals over American citizens has become. That you have yet to stop wailing about even being invited to view the thread is telling. Your guy is pro-foreigner & anti-American (as per his birthright roots) & you don’t like it. So you childishly insult me instead.
& then you anoint yourself a great debater. Well, if you don’t do it, nobody else will.
I still find your attempts at insults and ad hominems to be cute but irrelevant.
My money is on there being other individuals posting here and lurking here who, like me, want to see the Obama eligibility issue resolved once and for all, either by congressional action or by a grand jury investigation and possible indictment but not by these (226 and counting) interminable lawsuits.
The latest civil suit appeal just arrived at the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday of this week: Dummett & Noonan v. California Secretary of State Padilla, Obama, et.al. They want the liberal Democrat politician who is Secretary of State in California to investigate Obama’s credentials. Yeah right.
Suprme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has already denied an application to extend the time to file a Petition For A Writ of Certiorari and the petition was then filed on time.
A president will be removed from office via a lawsuit.
‘I still find your attempts at insults and ad hominems to be cute but irrelevant.’
Examples?
Look, NG, all I am doing is pointing out the inconsistency between ***claiming*** to support Palin and then going against her most fundamental political philosophy. According to Palin, DC is the problem. Specifically, Boehner is a problem. Palin, and indeed, the owner of this site, argued very recently that he needed to go.
Yet in your scenario, Boehner is the hero. He is the one who, according to you, should have called hearings on Obama’s eligibility. Yet he didn’t. So does this mean you agree with Palin, that Boehner is an ineffective and self-serving Speaker who needs to be replaced ASAP?
Or are you arguing that Boehner is doing a good job of being GOP Speaker? If it is that, when why didn’t you stand up for Boehner during the recent FR drive to have him ousted? I didn’t see you posting comments in support of Boehner anywhere. Where were you?
I.e.: you can’t have it both ways. Either you agree that Boehner is the problem—in which case it is stupid to keep harping on the fact that he didn’t call hearings on any of a hundred important conservative issues—or you support him. If B, then you are aligned against Palin and the owner of this site.
So which is it? I’m all ears.
I don’t consider John Boehner any kind of a hero. I don’t think he is doing a very good job as Speaker. I see him as an accomodationist at a time when the Speaker should be a Newt Gingrich-like confrontationalist.
Boehner however has not interfered with the House investigations into any of the Obama Administration scandals.
My point, one more time, is that I would like to see the House take up the Obama eligibility issue although I will be the first to admit that its much too late in the second term for such an investifation to have any real impact.
If a Grand Jury were to hand down criminal indictments that might force an Obama resignation.
Why in all of your scenarios is the Permanent Political Class the solution? Palin says the PPC is the problem. Yet again and again you propose scenarios in which the PPC is the solution. How can the Permanent Political Class be both the problem and the solution?
I’d be interested in your suggestions on resolution of the presidential eligibility issue that doesn’t involve the judiciary or the legislative branches of government.
I would have no problem at all with having elected state judges and prosecutors and term limited members of the legislative branches at the state level take the lead, thus avoiding the permanent political class.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton began with a local prosecutor in Little Rock, Arkansas looking in to the billing records of the employer of Hillary Clinton, the Rose Law Firm’s work with the Whitewater Development Corporation.
Have you ever heard of such a thing as an entrenched political system so corrupt it is without internal remedy? Such things exist, whether you are aware of it or not
Take the recent re-election of Boehner as Speaker. He had promised, as you recall, to relinquish this post after one term. This is his third term. Conservatives and the GOP base went into overdrive. We contacted our Reps. We called DC. We lit up the phones. We overwhelmed the system. It was a tsunami of anti-Boehner protest.
The Reps united hard and strong behind this corrupt, ineffective, pathetic and dysfunctional man. The gave the base/their constituents the middle finger. & instantly the few who dared to honor their constituents were bounced off plum assignments and consigned to ongoing ‘punishment.’
The word was out. Come to DC to represent the wishes of your constituents, and you are a traitor and a turncoat—and the punishment will be severe. Come to DC to kowtow to and serve Boehner, and you are a Team Player who will be richly and ongoingly rewarded.
This is the Permanent Political Class. They are corrupt and entrenched. The idea that they are going to resolve any problems but their own is naïve at best.
As to term limiting them, you and whose army? They are in control, and they don’t want term limits. Case closed.
Appointed judges are beyond hope. Elected judges can be booted, if the LIV ever get a clue. Same with the PPC. The only hope is to vote them out en masse. But by their design, most voters only care about their bennies. So long as the EBT card works, the PPC is safe.
You don’t have to like that answer. But you can’t change it. Not and stay consistent with the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.