Bob Schieffer is retiring- thankfully. At one time he was a good newsman but as he got older he succumbed to Cronkitis. Cronikitis is an affliction that creates the sense of omnificence in the liberal media. They think they know it all and abandon journalistic ethics and begin to lecture the country. Cronkite is widely credited with turning the US against the Vietnam war and squandering a victory.
North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap:
Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. … The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory….
The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.
That marked the death of the real news. From then on, it was opinion.
Schieffer, as did Walter, came to think he knew it all and it too was all liberal. In 2008 Schieffer came to believe that Barack Obama should be President of the United States. Schieffer was awestruck by Barack Obama. He turned into a one of those little girls we saw watching the Beatles perform on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. And he has more or less admitted it.
Schieffer argued that “the whole political world was struck by this fella who sort of came out of nowhere with this very unusual name and when he won out in Iowa, I think people sat up and took notice.”
When he says “people sat up and took notice” he means “I sat up and was in awe.”
Schieffer’s starry eyed romantic bias has been painfully obvious:
2. An obvious example of Schieffer’s partisanship was the question he asked about whether either candidate could balance the budget in four years. When McCain stated succinctly, “I will balance our budgets and I will get them and I will…” Schieffer blurted out unbelievingly, “In four years?
Then, when McCain finished, Schieffer turned to Obama and asked, “Barack?” Not Senator Obama, but Barack. To cap it off, Obama never answered the question.
Schieffer was quick to whip out the race card to defend Obama:
Donald Trump has moved on from the “birther” conspiracy to allege President Barack Obama didn’t get good enough grades to warrant entry to Harvard Law School, an assertion that CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer called absurd on the “CBS Evening News” on Wednesday.
“That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that kind of comes to an end too, but we’ll have to see,” Schieffer said.
Thing is, Obama has admitted being the beneficiary of Affirmative Action.
“I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.”
Not once did Schieffer ever ask Obama about releasing his school records so the matter to could be put to rest.
Schieffer often kept his eyes closed when race was involved and it could possibly affect Obama negatively.
Bob Schieffer is the poster boy for the left wing press. And for Kardashianation. The news media has been slowly degrading over time. The line between the CBS Evening News and Entertainment Tonight is increasingly blurred. This morning the Today Show spent a long time gushing over Kim Kardashian’s second baby, as if it was a national holiday.
Kardashianation gave us President Barack Obama. No one said it better than Geraldine Ferraro:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ferraro told California’s “Daily Breeze” newspaper. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
The country has seen black candidates before such as Jesse Jackson. The problem for Jackson was that he carried with him the baggage of being a race hustler who liked to spit on the food he was to serve white people.
Being black wasn’t the only necessary qualification. A potential media winner had to be black AND in harmony with the liberal media. Justice Clarence Thomas:
“I always knew that it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites and the media. Any black person who says something that is not the prescribed things that they expect from a black person will be picked apart. Pick anyone who’s decided not to go along with it—there’s a price to pay. So I always assumed it would be somebody that the media had to agree with.”
Liberal media elites were thrilled about a black liberal President- so much so that they aggressively supported him. A full accounting is here. It’s enough to make you harf:
Over on CBS that night, the mood was nearly as ecstatic. “From Europe, to Asia, to Africa,
his inauguration is seen as a new beginning,” Evening News anchor Katie Couric celebrated.
Reporter Mark Phillips surveyed the globe and found only admirers: “Never have so many felt
so close from so far….The world seemed to stop to watch the man many see as their new leader,
too….He will inherit the world’s problems, but Obama, perhaps more than any before him, is
being carried along on a river of good will.”
Evan Thomas suggested Obama was “sort of a god.”
And of course, there was the ubiquitous and loathsome halo:
Barack Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism but he does believe in Saul Alinsky. The media had no interest in Obama’s past, no interest in the truth. They had no interest in the fact that while he was proclaiming that there is no red or blue America he had lived his entire adult life being a divider. They paid no attention whatsoever to what Obama did to Grove Parc or what he did for the people involved in the Chicago mortgage redlining case.
Schieffer now seeks absolution for his abdication of journalistic ethics:
CBS’ Bob Schieffer says that perhaps reporters in the media “were not skeptical enough” of President Barack Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008, telling Fox News’ Howard Kurtz that the whole political world was struck by the sudden rise of the senator from Illinois.
Asked whether the media gave Obama an “incredibly easy ride” when he broke onto the scene, the veteran newsman acknowledged that it’s the job of reporters to be skeptical of political figures.
“I don’t know. Maybe we were not skeptical enough. It was a campaign,” Schieffer said in the interview, which aired Sunday, adding that it is the role of the opponents to “make the campaign.”
“I think, as journalists, basically what we do is watch the campaign and report what the two sides are doing,” he said.
Yes, that’s what you should have done but failed- miserably. democrats offered us one unqualified and inexperienced novelty candidate in 2008 and are teeing up another. The Hill:
Although Hillary Clinton holds wide support from Democrats in Iowa, a new poll shows those voters believe her use of a private email address, the Benghazi attacks and donations to the Clinton Foundation could dog her in a general election match-up.
Forty-one percent of Democrats in a new poll by The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg News said her exclusive use of a private email address on a private server will hurt Clinton’s general-election efforts. Thirty-nine percent said the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, will do the same, compared to 37 percent who believe the foundation will become a general-election issue.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the Kardashianation, liberals do not care about Clinton improprieties or malfeasance.
But Democrats on the whole aren’t bothered by those issues. Just one-fifth of Democrats are bothered by her use of a private email address and her response to the Benghazi attacks, while 27 percent are worried about the Clinton Foundation’s contributions from foreign governments.
Seven out of 10 Democrats also said the Clintons have simply gotten a bad rap, while 14 percent said that they’ve shown a pattern of unethical behavior.
They don’t care if she’s sold her country out.
Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.
While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
They don’t care. They don’t care if Hillary waged a war on the women her husband assaulted. They don’t care if Hillary was in charge of bimbo eruptions. They don’t care that Hillary’s capos were trashing Paula Jones and the rest of Bill Clinton’s enamoradas. They don’t care if Hillary would be absolutely nothing without a man. They don’t care that Hillary got where she is by sleeping with a Governor and a President. They don’t care if she’s achieved nothing on her own. They don’t care if she screwed up the Ukraine and handed over Libya to ISIS. They don’t care if Hillary is a 1%’er who got wealthy raping schools and selling policy and would service her wealthy friends over everyone else.
Because she “represent(s) their political beliefs” in the Kardashianation.
The Kardashianation is the consequence of the idolatry of Hollywood. The citizens of Kardashianation know what kind of underwear George Clooney wears but ask for a Hillary achievement?
How about DNC members?
State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki?
How about Hillary herself?
They can’t name a Hillary achievement but Hillary “represents” their views. Romney was old and too rich and did not represent their views. Hillary is older and just about as rich and she represents their views.
What comes after Hillary? Novelty after novelty after novelty? I have no doubt that democrats would support Katy Perry or Kim Kardashian for President and then probably Kanye West. Kim Kardashian has 32 million Twitter followers. democrats are infected with notoriety. It is all they know. It is their only guiding principle. It’s high school homeroom all over again. The popular girl can do anything she wants.
Jon Hamm has it right. Being a f*cking idiot is a valuable commodity and the rolls of democrat voters are replete with them in the Kardashianation.