The Most Revealing 4 Minutes in US Political History

[onmyknees]

RL asked rhetorically about some of the nuances of American Politics. I really don't think he, nor the rest of the progressives ( do I really need to make a list..........surely you know who you are) on here have all that much intellectual curiosity insofar as Barrack Obama is concerned. So the point is....even if confronted with facts, it wouldn't really much matter. Their ideology and their emotion trumps everything....even an objective viewing of the facts. This sycophantic behavior goes way beyond partisanship....so this post is not aimed at them since they don't process the characteristics needed to calmly and objectively look at a set of facts without attacking those who present those facts. They adopt the MSNBC line of thinking....attack the messengers. So for some of you who still do have an open mind...this short clip might help to answer why some of us are so angry at the US Mainstream Media and how they were co-conspirators to the election of Barrack Obama. They willingly engaged in a code of omerta.

Would the election results have been any different had they responsibly done the work of real journalists....had they put the same effort into looking into some of these things with the same vigor and curiosity that the Wash Post recently exhibited when composing a 5000 word story on a 16 year old Mitt Romney ? The point is.........now we know where Mitt Romney was at 16....but we still don't know where B.O. was.

The set up.....Here we have 2 of the (so called) giants in media, Tom Brokow and Charlie Rose in a most revealing and ironic discussion. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest they're liberal and were huge B. O. supporters in '08. The amazing thing is not so much their words, but the timing. It's one month before perhaps the most important election in generations . Two wars were raging, and financial calamity was knocking at the door. ...and the 2 guys most responsible for providing the public with information are essentially telling us they don't have a clue who Barrack Obama is, yet on their daily news telecasts, saw fit to slant the coverage, or even vilify those who would dare ask the very questions they themselves are pondering.

So if you wonder why many of these questions about Barrack Obama persist four years later....here's your proof. These guys went along for a fanciful ride in 2008, as did you all.....I agree it felt good, but now you're stuck with a hangover. I get that it's easier to call me a racist, or to call others birthers for questioning these things....but it's going to be a very different ride this time. Not because of Brokow and Rose, but rather in spite of them. As for the rest of you....you'll have to come to terms with all this on your own, but I'm guessing it won't be anytime soon.


Brokaw and Rose Admit They Don't Know Much About Obama. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw)

[Stavros]

How much did anyone know about Barack Obama? He had been in public for years, he had written two books, he was an elected politician in Chicago. What is it that you want to know? Why not check his record? Or better still, interview him.

How much did George W Bush know about foreign policy -a tricky question for most candidates in a Presidential election going back decades. Richard Nixon throughout his entire Presidency spent one hour in Africa, referring to Africans as 'jiggies' -was that something that bothered you? You might as well wonder why it was that Tony Blair had been seeking high office for years before he became Prime Minister in 1997 but didn't know a damn thing about the Middle East except that Israel was the good guy, which is why he was a member of the Labour Friends of Israel (along with many in his first cabinet) -at least Gordon Brown had been a regulat visitor (with his father) to Israel. How much do any Presidential candidates know about the nuances of Scottish politics, the difference between Glasgow and Edinburgh, or the difference between the Flemings and the Walloons, or the potential collapse (politically and literally) of the Maldives?

Which American Presidents we know about have told lies? How about Richard Nixon (Republican) denying there had been a 'cover-up' over Watergate in the White House? How about Ronald Reagan (Republican) stating as a 'fact' that his government did not do 'deals' with terrorists and had not traded arms for hostages with Iran? How about George W Bush (Republican) justifying the invasion of Iraq to dismantle 'weapons of mass destruction'? Curious...there seems to be a pattern here...

On the other hand, we know what it is that you want us to know: you don't like Obama. Fair enough -but at least unravel the policy reasons for it. And you do have a vote in November, as do your fellow Americans. Enjoy your weekend.

[trish]

I see our self- professed Christian and culture warrior is back on a Sunday morning spreading his special brand of stupidity and hatred agian. Have an nice morning in Church today OMK? Do you even go?

[lumberjack]

"How much did anyone know about Barack Obama? He had been in public for years, he had written two books, he was an elected politician in Chicago. What is it that you want to know? Why not check his record? Or better still, interview him."

Well now we know Obama fabricated things in his books (i.e. the girlfriend stories), so once you start finding falsehood, you start to question what is real in those books.

His voting record as a state senator? We know he voted 'present' an awful lot.

"I see our self- professed Christian and culture warrior is back on a Sunday morning spreading his special brand of stupidity and hatred agian. Have an nice morning in Church today OMK? Do you even go?"

Didn't OMK mention that your reaction would be to attack the messanger?

[trish]

Pointing out the holes in OMK's story is not attacking the messenger. Moreover OMzk is no messenger, he's a trolling, blustering culture warrior.

[broncofan]

"How much did anyone know about Barack Obama? He had been in public for years, he had written two books, he was an elected politician in Chicago. What is it that you want to know? Why not check his record? Or better still, interview him."

Well now we know Obama fabricated things in his books (i.e. the girlfriend stories), so once you start finding falsehood, you start to question what is real in those books.

His voting record as a state senator? We know he voted 'present' an awful lot.

"I see our self- professed Christian and culture warrior is back on a Sunday morning spreading his special brand of stupidity and hatred agian. Have an nice morning in Church today OMK? Do you even go?"

Didn't OMK mention that your reaction would be to attack the messanger?
Not only does he do the same thing himself by attacking others, but he also doesn't answer fair questions put to him. He doesn't stand up to very minor challenges to his stated views, even when phrased in a nonpartisan and non-threatening way. So it's understandable that there would be a little frustration when he disappears and then posts a thread full of partisan talking points but without any desire to flesh out the arguments.

The attacks on Obama tend to be of the braindead variety. One such argument you make in your post is the credibility argument, which can be fair, but only if there's no independent verification of other things they say and they've made numerous misstatements. You say that he said one thing that wasn't factual in his book and so therefore everything he says is untrustworthy. Does this mean that you do not need to address anything he says as you can dismiss it without consideration? There's nothing more partisan and unreasonable than that line of argument.

Additionally, when Barack Obama has his citizenship challenged, and he meets the challenge by providing a long form birth certificate, suddenly new challenges crop up. Some were convinced the birth certificate was a forgery despite expert authentication. I have never in my life seen such a witch hunt regarding someone's past, their past alliances and allegiances, as well as unfounded claims about their religious background and upbringing. It's not a stretch to say that some of the loony tunes in the Republican party are motivated by racism. Not everybody but some of the most extreme crackpots for sure. This, as well as many of the labels applied to Barack Obama (I read a Republican insider planned an attack on him as the metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln) are all ways of avoiding real issues.

[buttslinger]

OMK's knight in shining armor. Romney's brain. The reason why the Republicans can save the USA. Romney in black and white.
Romney insists the ECONOMY is the one reason you should vote for him. And the Paul Ryan Plan is his solution!!!????!!!!!
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Stavros]

I must admit though, setting 'The Most Revealing 4 Minutes in American History' would make an interesting essay topic. I wonder what William Appleman Williams, or Carl Degler, or Allen Matusow, or any other fine American historian would provide as an answer.

Americans, this is your chance! I don't award prizes, but would be interested to know what you think are the Most Revealing Four Minutes in American History...!

[Prospero]

is is remarkable how OMK will attritbute to his political rivals the very things of which he is most guilty - and always refuses to engage with serious questions asked of him in other threads. This man is a poisonous demagogue. That's it really.

[Prospero]

And thank you Stavros for an eloquent and informed response to this drivel.

[broncofan]

I'm a political neophyte, so I'm going to choose something fairly recent. This is the most shocking moment in my lifetime following politics. I realized our country had been attacked and that we had a figurehead in office who was incapable of doing the job he was (almost) elected to do. Precarious times.

Bush's Seven Minutes of Silence - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI)

In his defense, I've heard My Pet Goat is a very good read.

[Odelay]

^^^^^^^^^^
Devastating video. I have no idea why anyone voted for Bush again after he cluelessly walked back into that classroom after hearing the news and sat there looking like a dumbass for 7 minutes. And here's a died-in-the-wool Republican (beyond OMK's protests otherwise) trying to drum up a debate how we don't know who Barack Obama truly is.

[Odelay]

Besides, I don't understand this thread at all. Doesn't OMK make the case in all other threads that FOX rules. Their ratings are like 95 and the other million networks share the remaining 5. Brokaw and Rose? They're like insignificant ants that OMK can squash with his big motorcycle boots.

In other words, if Obama wasn't vetted properly, isn't it FOX news' fault? 'Cause if Bill O'Reilly properly vets Obama, a trillion and a half people would have known that he was a dirty muslim skank. Amirite?

[hippifried]

^^^^^^^^^^
Devastating video. I have no idea why anyone voted for Bush again after he cluelessly walked back into that classroom after hearing the news and sat there looking like a dumbass for 7 minutes. And here's a died-in-the-wool Republican (beyond OMK's protests otherwise) trying to drum up a debate how we don't know who Barack Obama truly is.
In defense of President Bush, When the first plane hit, nobody knew for sure that it was an attack. It didn't take too long to figure it out, but it was what, 45 minutes before the second plane made it obvious? We don't know what he was told, but you can be sure it was real soon after the event. There were children, teachers, & TV people in that room. If he'd done anything different, it would have been a total fiasco. Probably on advice from his people on the scene, He managed to segue out of the school event without allowing the media clowns to get everybody (including the kids) all worked up without the full story. I think this is a bum rap.

[robertlouis]

I must admit though, setting 'The Most Revealing 4 Minutes in American History' would make an interesting essay topic. I wonder what William Appleman Williams, or Carl Degler, or Allen Matusow, or any other fine American historian would provide as an answer.

Americans, this is your chance! I don't award prizes, but would be interested to know what you think are the Most Revealing Four Minutes in American History...!

Tend to agree, Stavros. Washington crossing the Delaware, the Gettysburg Address, the Kennedy assassination, FDR's "Fear" speech....

I don't think I need to go on.

When it comes to mad hype, omk is (thankfully) in a class of his own. What a closeted (and I choose the word deliberately) life he must lead.

[broncofan]

In defense of President Bush, When the first plane hit, nobody knew for sure that it was an attack. It didn't take too long to figure it out, but it was what, 45 minutes before the second plane made it obvious? We don't know what he was told, but you can be sure it was real soon after the event. There were children, teachers, & TV people in that room. If he'd done anything different, it would have been a total fiasco. Probably on advice from his people on the scene, He managed to segue out of the school event without allowing the media clowns to get everybody (including the kids) all worked up without the full story. I think this is a bum rap.
He sat there for seven minutes after being informed that the second plane hit the tower. At this point, all thinking people knew it was unequivocally an attack, or an enormous coincidence. Nobody is going to believe that two large skyscrapers being destroyed is going to be any less devastating to our morale and our national security because the president continues reading a book as though nothing happened.

I gotta disagree here. This was an instance where the veil was taken off his presidency and people got to see that he did not make decisions himself and couldn't even respond as an adult to an emergency.

[broncofan]

Besides, I don't understand this thread at all. Doesn't OMK make the case in all other threads that FOX rules. Their ratings are like 95 and the other million networks share the remaining 5. Brokaw and Rose? They're like insignificant ants that OMK can squash with his big motorcycle boots.

In other words, if Obama wasn't vetted properly, isn't it FOX news' fault? 'Cause if Bill O'Reilly properly vets Obama, a trillion and a half people would have known that he was a dirty muslim skank. Amirite?
I think you're right. If there's something to know about Obama and it hasn't been discovered it couldn't be for a lack of looking. Certainly not a lack of incentive to look either. Republicans hear that Obama was at the same dinner party as someone who knew someone who talked to someone and it's usually enough to support the charge that he's a terrorist in some parts. If they actually had something on him, they could publicize it and emphasize his middle name from now until November.