Friday, August 06, 2004

The Difference

Currently, Democrats and liberals constantly attack the President and continually look for more conspiracies, they spread these theories, and call the President names, a liar, etc.
 
Much of the explanation for this, they will say, is that turn-about is fair play. Republicans ripped Clinton for getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and sought his impeachment. Thus, liberals say 'we can, we should, we will' rip the President.
 
That is all politics to an extent. That is their choice so whatever. I don't think it is right to just attack back. But whatever.
 
The difference for me is in the media coverage. The media never questions all the criticism of the President. The media is not questioning all of these attacks and all of the rhetoric.
 
During the Clinton saga there was a TON of coverage about the other side of the coin. There was a TON of coverage about how it was a viscous political attack by Republicans. Republicans were constantly scrutinized as to why they kept pressing for Clinton's impeachment.
 
Today, you don't see any media coverage of progress being made in Iraq even though good things happen every day. No coverage of smiles on kids and women's faces in Iraq-- even though they are there on days when great, new things come about-- like the opening of a new school for all of the local kids.
 
You didn't see economic stats as a counterweight to Democrats fear-mongering about the economy.

1 Comments:

Blogger Kat said...

yeah...I was just thinking about that. When President Clinton was being attacked by the Repubs, the news was all over them about "daring to impeach a president for sex" when the real story was his lying like hell under oath about the gifts that he gave her that came from ambassadors and other lobby groups, the privileges, the sneaking her into the grounds at weird hours.

YOu see, the problem with Clinton and the Dems was that they thought the impeachment was a personal attack on the President regarding his personal choices.

The problem with this is that the President, as a head of state, that has sex with some intern and gives her gifts and breaks the security ring of the white house, is open for blackmail. This was not about Clinton himself so much as his placing the Presidency under such a risk. It's really about the hypothetical. If some country floated some bimbo into the president's path and then used her to gain information or to otherwise blackmail the president into making decisions on foreign policy, security or economics in that countries favor, the Presidency is compromised. so, it was never about Clinton personally.

That is why he was impeached. And he perjured himself in the process. He should have been impeached or resigned.

The media assisted him in keeping his job by not putting out the truth about his lying and the reason it is a problem beyond "extra marital sex in the oval office".

August 6, 2004 at 5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home