Skip to comments.How the Liberal Media Ruined Obama
Posted on 10/06/2012 11:34:26 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Watching the debate reminded me of a child set out on his own after being raised by parents who failed to teach him responsibility and accountability and let the child think that he was above being corrected or disciplined. This was the time that Chris Matthews could not jump in and tell the people what Obama meant to say." Indeed, Obama has been brought up by an adoring and overindulgent liberal media who have coddled him for the last eight years on everything from his appearance to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and his caught-on-a-live-microphone secret handshake with Russian President Medvedev, where he promised that he will have "more flexibility after the election" to work with the Russians on missile defense. Additionally, we have the age-old public displays of media affection, including Dave Brooks' awe over the crease in Obama's pants and the "thrill up" Chris Matthews' leg. With a sycophantic media like this, who needs accountability?
Until Univision took Obama to task over his promise on immigration, Americans had rarely seen President Obama being held accountable by the media to match his word with his record. An unsteady, flustered, and out-of-gas Obama was bewildered as to how Univision's Jorge Ramos could have missed the "how to conduct an interview with President Obama" memo.
Wednesday's presidential debate revealed the same tight-lipped, flustered president -- unprepared for Jim Lehrer's reluctance to intervene and stop Romney from daring to question and attack his record.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I have said it before- Obama was never taught HOW TO think, only WHAT TO think.
He has one solution to every problem (more government) and applies it to every situation.
The four legs of the empty chair are ABC, CBS, NBC, and last but not least NYT.
I'd be willing to bet that the next four pres/vp debates will show a much more rigid moderator. Mainly because axelrod called each of them and TOLD them how to treat obummer.
“You mean Christian.”
And none of those legs are tingling.
Romney was polite but insistent. He was there to debate and no amount of moderator manipulation was going to prevent him.
I’ve heard lots of liberals are upset at how Lehrer moderated the debate.
Could it be that, even though Lehrer is liberal, he really wanted to give both candidates room to speak fully on the issues? That he wanted to be something of an honest journalist in this debate, and not want to do what he could to help Obama???? And what does it say about liberals who apparently expected Lehrer to run the debate to help Obama????
Live by the media, die by the media ... heh, heh.
Great article, thanks for posting.
The next debate will probably get even more viewers; many who were tuned out will want to see what all the fuss has been about. I relish the thought of watching the putzident endure another thrashing in front of all those millions.
Lehrer is nowhere near as smart as Romney. Lehrer never had to negotiate anything. That is what business managers are for. Lehrer hires someone like Romney when he needs someone to negotiate his contract with PBS and to prepare his taxes.
Maybe these MEdia shills are in for a shock when they are actually up against a guy who has made a fabulous fortune with his negotiating skills, and with politely but firmly not tolerating fools.
Unless the fix is in, like 2008, and Romney rolls over in the next debate.
This problem is eliminated by the British system, in which Ministers are required to routinely face hostile questions from the opposition at Question Time.
Those who can’t handle the pressure well just don’t make it farther up the ladder. Obama would never have made it to PM in UK.
BTW, during his campaign McCain wanted to implement something similar to Question Time in the American system. Whether this would be constitutional or not is debatable, but I think it a good idea.
Oh, the media didn’t ruin 0bama.
He was ruined by his mother, his grandparents, Frank Marshall Davis, his muslim caretakers in Indonesia, his muslim patrons in college etc. The media has been complicit in covering up for his faults, but they aren’t what ruined him.
You had to go and ruin a perfectly good thread by bringing him up?
Peggu Noone in this morning’s ESJ (Posted somewhere here last night):
“Jim Lehrer has been criticized as an inadequate moderator. He was old-school and a pro. He didn’t think it was about him. How quaint. He asked questions, allowed a certain amount of leeway to both candidates, which allowed each to reveal himself, and kept things moving. Most of the criticism seems to have come from those who hoped Mr. Obama would emerge triumphant. Mr. Lehrer should not take it personally. Every shot at him was actually a warning shot aimed at the next moderator, Martha Raddatz. She’s being told certain outcomes are desirable.”
I don't know about that. The first debate was viewed by more that 70 million viewers. That's a poopload.
Many people may have been curious about that there rich Mormon feller. Now they've seen him and Bobo is toast.
Agreed. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think he’s been taking debate tips from Newt.
Wow. She kinda cute.
Sometimes I'll turn that on (CSPAN?) just for a laugh. It's fun to watch them go at each other, complete with all the hrmphing from each side.
Osambo will come on strong during the next debate. Strong and attacking Romney personally. Bet on it. His problem is, and Americans who haven’t experienced or understood Communism don’t understand how those gensecs speak, his problem is a limited, ideology laden speech and think. It is and has always been empty, predictable sloganeering speech of a neo-Marxist demagogue. There is not there there. Shocking, I tell ya, jus’ shocking!
..and more than “kinda” smart.
IMO, zero is doomed. Zero has no substance, you can’t polish a turd and Romney knows how to get his point across. Romney is becoming a ‘polite’ Newt.
Yeah, no kidding. I was browsing the threads, and there's her picture, and right away I thought: " No way she's liberal... She's got to be a conservative... She's too nice looking, and she looks happy, liberals always look like they just swallowed something nasty..."
You think they'd have some kinda advertising campaign that convinced women all over the country to become conservative, just because what it does for your looks!
There is evidence the MSM are starting to desert, tails atwitter.
It can't be good to be a Democrat president and have Newsweek run a cover story calling for you to go. And just now the New Yorker has gone Eastwood on the Won:
I think you are correct...and I think Romney will be lying in wait for such attacks.
Thanks for posting that picture. She’s quite good looking. And it’s a great article.
And not to mention listened to by additional millions via radio.
Give it enough time and the right conditions and you can.
Quite true, there is nothing there with leftism, except the mistaken notion they are morally superior. Without that they are dust in the bin.
Yes but that debate just proved that CBS did not rig the debate. You should still give them some credit.
Romney’s been dealing with tough business leaders for many years. Because the liberals marginalize these types, and therefore have no awareness of them, the media sillies are thus ignorant of Romney’s ability to cheerfully and aptly talk over jerks who try to take over the presentation.
They have no idea what they’re up against.
Corporate types are quiet humble and busy, if they are successful. Numbers don’t lie (not to be confused with statistics). Oh, and except if they are The Donald, God bless him.
And these guys are not going to be quiet nor humiliated when it comes to preventing more and much more of what they’ve experienced with OB.
Wait ‘til after the next debate.
The media will not know what hit them.
The next debate is a townhall where the candidates respond to audience questions. It may be difficult for Obama to go on the attack against Romney while attempting to respond to an audience question. It will appear forced and contrived, IMO.
I believe Romney will focus intently on the person asking the question and pretty much pretend Obama is not there. Romney has been criticized for being aloof and not personally connecting with people. This format provides him with a great opportunity to debunk that image of him as painted by Democrats and the media. He won’t pass it up.
The real story is that the media's wasn't there to keep convincing the public that
the world is flat Obama is the greatest and we're all blessed to have him as our leader. For an hour and a half the media couldn't spin a web of lies around the Chosen One. He was without his phalanx of palace guard and subsequently exposed as the king with no clothes. Naturally his courtesans in the media are upset at Lehrer for not jumping in and providing Obama with a fig leaf, since not only was he revealed but so too were they for not having exposed him themselves long ago as the failure of a president that he is.
Nevertheless, if it’s close, as in the townhall format could very well be, or be easily judged as such (because it will also depend on the level of stupidity of the questions - the stupider the better for the POTUS), the MSM will be all too eager to declare the Kenyan the winner, who, you already know the line but I’ll type it anyway, “has recovered”.
Martha is going to dominate the debate. That’s what feminazi’s do. I hope Ryan has one coaching him on how to push back without being a jerk.
She is. And the article is worth reading twice. She nails it.
They usually have.
The expression on Lehrer’s face - at times - was full of fear.
He didn’t want to look like he had to save Obama - but Obama clearly needed rescuing.
It was like Lehrer was on a sinking ship and didn’t want people to notice he was bailing out water.
Personally - I haven’t had that much fun since the Wisconsin recall election.
As a form of argument, debate is supposed to be a productive thing. One party takes one side of an issue (that cannot be proven definitively, e.g. 2+2=4) and another party takes the other side.
Aristotle believed that rationality is our final cause and that our highest aim is to fulfill our rationality. The party realizing truth, or saved from error—even if he took the side shown to be wrong—was described by Aristotle as having won the argument because where he was in error, thanks to the argument he was led to truth.
Obama did a great disservice to the country by either being unprepared—lazy, disinterested? drugged?—or unqualified—baffled? offended at being challenged?—or both, to argue his part on the issues served up to him like slow pitch softballs. As I see it, we all lost but he lost in both senses of the word.
As someone on this thread wrote, Obama still believes that the answer to all problems is more government, while Romney argued specifically that if we have to pay China in order to watch Big Bird and Michelle Obama advise us to eat our vegetables, then Americans can learn to live without either of them. At least that’s the enthymeme Mitt left with us, while Obama left his wife and Big Bird hanging. Why should we keep funding PBS with public money?
Unfortunately I believe the next debate is going to be more of the same. Obama surpassed his level of competence about three offices ago.
I was thinking Newt and/or Chris Christie. Last week when Christie was so adamant that Mitt would be great at the debate, I was thinking that he had to know something about how this would play out. He knew, and may have been coaching.
I don’t expect Biden to collapse like Bozo, and I don’t expect Ryan to dominate as fully as Mittens did, but all Ryan has to do is seem competent. The only way the rats recover from that first debate is for Ryan or Mittens to screw up big time, and that isn’t going to happen. Millions of voters were looking for an alternative to Bobo and they now have one.
I wonder if the questions will be liberal attacks, and I wonder if the moderators will over-compensate and attempt to hog tie the pubs?
“you cant polish a turd”
In Alaska, they actually polish moose turds for tourist souvenirs. Earrings. Swizzle sticks. A lot of weird stuff.
Romneys been dealing with tough business leaders for many years. Because the liberals marginalize these types, and therefore have no awareness of them, the media sillies are thus ignorant of Romneys ability to cheerfully and aptly talk over jerks who try to take over the presentation.
They have no idea what theyre up against.
Corporate types are quiet humble and busy, if they are successful. Numbers dont lie (not to be confused with statistics). Oh, and except if they are The Donald, God bless him.
So true. Also Mitt doesn’t need “ crowd adoration” to charge him up.
He is a man of conviction, with a sense of humility.
Look at what he’s done for others for proof. O can’t even help out his brother
who lives in a hut, and he’s deemed to be more likable and caring.
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.