Obama and the AP Sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G
Editorial Commentary from TBeagle ~
From the Associated Press headline: Obamas visit aquatic park, eat shave ice on outing
Once again we're regaled with hard-hitting reports from the Associated Press on the whereabouts and activities of your new president and immaculately conceived messiah, Obama. There is no doubt in my mind after reading the content of this latest piece on the blessed one, that the reporters are fully expecting him to walk on water. And soon we will likely see a picture of him doing just that.
Now here's the thing about this organization which I can't really call a news organization, because the AP only pretends to report news. They are the leaders in what we shall now call Printed Positives when it comes to Saint O and the band of Merry Pelosi/Reid Democrats. The doctrine goes like this, if you can't find something good to say about a democrat then make it up. And if you can't find anything bad to say about the republicans, then you can't work here anymore.
So this doctrine is why we will likely see a picture of (I have to pause here and take a deep, deep, breath in reverence before I write his name), Obama walking on water. Because the AP, The New York Times, CNN, NBC, and all of the pretend news organizations have for years tried to find something good to say about the democrats since Bill Clinton, and as a result have had to make it up and are now conditioned to do so. A quick review of election coverage can confirm this assertion.
Recently a few random people have asked why the media hate republicans so much, and Brit Hume summed it up nicely. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the media kind of wants to get back at the republicans because they view them as a goody-two shoes group, and here's the kicker...with democrats it's more expected that they tend to not be. Now I'm being polite in this reference since I can't quote Mr. Hume, but you can quote me in saying that it is better understood that democrats are generally cheaters and expect a stupid public to absolve them. Remember the true meaning of Is?
Cases in point:
Lott says the country could have been a different place if Thurmond had been elected President then is labeled a racist and asked to step down. His comment was on Thurmond's career as an administrator. Carter wants the Dixie flag to stay in the Georgia courthouse and he's considered non-racist?
Gingrich taught a class and was accused of using it as a political forum with non-profit funds and stepped down as speaker. He was found innocent by a bi-partisan committee but while the accusation was front page news his innocence was page nine on some news paper.
Contrast it with Clinton caught red-handed in a lie (he lies about something as silly as sex with an intern, so the public thinks he's telling the truth when he says he's not for sale), and he stays in office? He loses his right to practice law, is fast becoming known as the best president money can buy, and he's being considered to take over Hillary's Senate seat?
Blago is on tape trying to run a blue light special on Obama's Senate seat, proclaims innocence and he won't step down? Not surprisingly there's no particular outrage from the press, no doubt because they think that Blago may taint their blessed one and they need time to write his spin.
So we read about Barry O eating shaved ice and healing people with his presence. And we read that a whopping 32 percent of Americans are inspired by BHO, but it's strange to me that when 40 percent of Americans approved of Bush, the AP reported those numbers as dismal. Yep, I guess it just matters whose side you're on. 32% O is good, 40% Bush is bad.
Ok then, I guess this pretty much sums it up. Now the AP will have get to the hard job of figuring out a way to blame the Blago Scandal on Bush, they'll probably have to enlist the support of Key Democrats to rally the base that they care so much about. I call them stupid, Reid calls them smelly. Go figure.