That's what we were promised.
To this date, I think we're still hoping and waiting for change to come.
I'm not a Republican. As I've said many times, I'm a Marxist: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member. But I am a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility, a strong military, social liberties that are fair and balanced, less government, less taxes, a foreign policy that protects the United States and its interests but stays out of foreign squabbles and sensible immigration laws. I'm sure I'm missing some things, but those are the things I can come up with right now.
In the last nine months, we have had scandals or controversies involving: The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, the use by Secret Service members of prostitutes in Colombia, the IRS profiling conservative groups, the seizure of the Associated Press logs, the gun control debate, the Verizon wiretapping and now a whistleblower who's leaked information to The Guardian. Taken individually, none of them is good. Taken collectively, and it's a wonder that there aren't calls for the President's head.
But it's not that surprisingly, really. Remember, the MSM is coopted. It's been in the President's hip pocket since he made his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. For the MSM, he can do no wrong. If you doubt this, watch as the MSM bends over backwards to explain away any involvement he may have with any of these controversies. It's always lower-ranking bureaucrats who take the fall. Both he and Cankles are made of Teflon; nothing will be allowed to interrupt their marches into the glory of history.
Is it fair? Ask yourself this: Were George Bush at the helm for any one of those incidents, much less every one of them, would the MSM have treated him with the kid gloves that it uses with both Obama and Cankles? That the MSM has to cover these stories puts it in a very difficult position, one that is like a cheerleader having to report on the star players' indiscretions to the principal. Whether the MSM treats the controversies with the same aggressive spirit it would had a conservative been in the White House remains to be seen.
Another group put in a terribly tough position by all this is Hollywood. Hollywood loves the President, so much so that Jamie Foxx once referred to him as our Lord and Savior Barack Obama. Lest you think I'm making this up, check this out:
Hyperbole aside, it's evident that for Hollywood, Obama is the Second Coming, if not of Christ, then at least of John F. Kennedy.
That begs the question: Is Hollywood going to treat these issues, and if so, how? It has never had a problem dealing with conservative missteps: All the President's Men dealt with Watergate, Rendition and Lions for Lambs about Iraq. Despite plenty of evidence about Kennedy's infidelities, treatment of them waited until he was long dead. His apathy regarding civil rights has never been addressed, the preference being to tout him as a supporter of civil rights despite the fact that authors whose works focus on the Civil Rights Era, like Juan Williams in Eyes on the Prize, paint a much more Machiavellian picture of the Kennedys' approach to equal rights.
So what is Hollywood going to do about this? For that matter, where is the rage that would certainly be palpable were the aforementioned scandals and controversies the result of a conservative president's administration? Why aren't more people asking these questions?
The answer to that last question is simple: To whom can they ask that question and receive a critical, meaning analytical, investigation? The MSM is already doing the President's bidding. Hollywood won't do anything to besmirch the administration. Its silence so far is deafening. To expect anything in the way of criticism, either disapproval or analysis, is foolish. The very same organs that would have lynched a conservative president immediately upon the release of the information are, at best, taking a wait-and-see approach, preferring instead that it blows over and they can ignore it.
Although there is no direct link between the government and the press, the way the two seem to be operating in an almost symbiotic fashion does remind one of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. To mention any by name risks treading into Godwin's Law territory, which I've done in the past, but the similarities are starkly present. When the Fourth Estate voluntarily ceases to do what it considers to be its most important function -- keeping the government honest -- is loses all credibility.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment