Posted on 07/31/2013 4:56:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.
Wrong. Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks. Their stories focused on Obama's accusations that (a) the Republicans are liars about Obamacare, (b) the Republicans exaggerate the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline and (c) the Republicans oppose his use of executive power because he has the "gall to win the presidency."
The national media are faithfully executing their Obama second-term call to preserve and protect his legacy. They are steering clear of any story that might imply that the president has in any way cut an ethical corner or abused his power. More: House Republicans investigating Obama scandals must be viewed as an assembly line for organized character assassination, not congressional oversight.
This is especially true at the Times, which sees the president as a far too special historical figure to get the punishing scrutiny applied to people the Times thinks are slack-jawed country bumpkins, such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. They see Obama as a Jackie Robinson figure, a racial pioneer who endures the angry, spitting fury of the right-wing mobs with great courage and flair.
The tea party apparently deserves punishing investigations by the IRS because their opposition to Obama is clearly based on racism, just like the people who spat on Jackie Robinson. In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret." He added: "But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."
Instead of asking one solitary question about scandals, the Times decided it was more important to ask the most obvious question imaginable about Martin Luther King: "March on Washington coming up soon. Are you going to do anything to mark it? Are you planning on being a part of the 50th anniversary?" Why, yes, Obama stressed: "I have a copy of the original program in my office, framed."
Obama's critics on the Left were upset that Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Michael Shear failed to ask about surveillance programs and the Snowden case. They failed to upbraid him about his Justice Department's crackdown on journalists or requiring Bush-trashing/Pulitzer-winning Times colleague James Risen to testify in court. What about drone attacks? These lines of inquiry are reserved for the dreaded warmongering "neoconservatives" of Team Bush.
Obama isn't the only Democrat who is being awarded with feigned ignorance by the Times. The "newspaper of record" looked ridiculous when disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to admit he kept right on "sexting" strange women who were not Mrs. Weiner after he resigned and promised to end his creepy online sexual misbehavior with strange women. In April, they published a gooey cover story in The New York Times Magazine titled "Huma and Anthony: The private life of a former power couple."
All three networks picked up that soon-to-unravel Happy News. The author of that cover story, Jonathan Van Meter, sympathetically recalled on NBC that Weiner was "still wracked with a sort of shame and pain and guilt about it, and -- and he cried, I think every time I interviewed him, at some point." But in retrospect, Van Meter claimed when challenged on whether he asked Weiner about a relapse: "Never even occurred to me to ask!"
Was Van Meter that clueless? Even Politico media reporter Dylan Byers, nobody's idea of a right-winger, wrote at the time that Van Meter "seems not only sympathetic to Weiner, but uncritical and unquestioning." But it's also very likely that the Times editors ordered and expected a Weiner-on-the-rebound piece, and it made no sense to resist that template. The face-omelet of embarrassment should be theirs, as well.
Both of these storylines reveal that just as the Times tried to move mountains to ruin President Bush, they are also rabidly partisan in seeing themselves as life preservers for Democrats. Why anyone would see this as a "prestige" newspaper while its news coverage careens wildly from abuse to neglect is a mystery.
New York City has two newspapers, the New York Daily News and the New York Post...........the NYTimes is simply the political Organ and Outlet for the Liberal Democrat faction of the Abortion Party.
My uncle from Jersey told me years ago the Times was a Democrat rag sheet, and he’s a Democrat
He is a wise man
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward “B. Hussein Obama,” formerly known as Barry Soetoro, currently a Legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
They did tell us what was going on with thesoulfully beautiful Huma...
This idiot Obozo is “ate up” with himself. Why isn’t he “speshul”, he’s a lawyer! I bet his degree has a “speshul” affirmative action gold star from teacher on it too! I swear, he sounds like a first grader saying “My daddy can beat up your daddy”.
well if his daddy is the devil and our daddy is God... he’s bad wrong. however our daddy won’t step in till we ask him to.
What would you expect from the Liberal Lickspittle? I was waiting in an airport the other day and I saw a guy reading the Times. I asked him if he was from New York and he said no. So I asked him why he read a New York paper and he looked a little sheepish and said “It used to be about the whole country.” I responded that that hadn’t been true for at least 40 years, ever since the Pentagon Papers, and he — sadly — agreed with me.
The Times and its colleague propagandists are dinosaurs. And the meteor is coming.
As far as the US (well, the whole world) is concerned, I think we may be at the stage where Our Father is only going to step in to redeem His Own, and after that, the deluge.
obamacare? Simply consider this. If it is all they said it is, good for all age groups’ healthcare coverage, reducing debt, helping the middle class, etc etc. (To hear the libs speak you’d have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, dolphin-friendly, etc.) But as the economy continues to falter, parts of obamacare start kicking in, and oh yeah, there is a midterm election coming up... Now suddenly the rats are falling all over themselves to delay and cut back obamacare. What the times should have asked is why they (the rats) are now delaying such a good thing, and why they fear losing control of the Senate soon too.
It’s been essentially a bolt-on appendage of the Democrat Party for my entire lifetime. Not sure that it’s ever been otherwise. Perhaps back when the competition was telling Virginia there was a Santa Claus.
Because the US had been blessed with a foundation by gospel believers (or at least believers in some variation of the bible) we do tend to feel in the USA, now that its government has reverted to stark worldliness, the rapture and/or tribulation is at the door. But I put no miracles consistent with His promises past the Lord. Actually per the bible I’d peg the time for such an event to be at some time when things have gotten pretty nice again worldwide, at least from a worldly view, and right now the chaos in the US would seem to make this implausible. (”Peace and safety.”) I see the chaos as God still stirring the pot to make the evil of evil obvious to serve as a warning for the need to go back to Him as refuge. The clock still has some more time to go, as I read it. Your read could differ but it does need to be bible based to be worth consideration.
Mine is Bible-based. I believe that it will come in a time of chaos, mainly because when it happens, people will be looking for a leader and will be so desperate that all their mental guards will be down. That usually happens in turbulent times. They will want someone who promises to restore order, never dreaming that their “savior” is going to be the instrument of the very one who will unleash the most turbulent chaos they could ever imagine.
From my point of view, you haven’t accounted for “Peace and Safety” being claimed when the Lord comes like a thief in the night. So I can’t believe your scenario applies to the return of the Lord.
Yes, evil can produce chaos. It can also produce a thick veneer of smug pride that, for a while, suppresses chaos because the people think “oh, we’re too GOOD in ourselves to do things like that.” Chaos is the devil’s second choice because it contains within itself its own warning. His first choice is to mimic God’s majesty and serenity without obeying God (this is how the devil is depicted, in his personage via the King of Tyre, at his fall).
It does seem POSSIBLE, however, that your scenario could be a lead up to the “Peace and Safety” era. More things would have to happen worldwide to deal with the dislocations and imbalances we know now. China is a major issue due to debt and that doesn’t go away overnight.
Anyhow, keep yourself in God’s blessing, search the Word, and keep on sharing the gospel (as Francis of Assisi put it, if necessary use words).
the NYTimes is simply the political Organ and Outlet for the Liberal Democrats
So is NBC. I hope they crumble from their treason!
well ok. something COULD get China off our back real quick... California “volunteers itself” to be New China. They own almost everything in California. Debt problem solved!
They own => They would own
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.