How dare she?
by Greg Krehbiel on 29 January 2013
I’m shocked. Appalled. I … simply don’t know what to do.
A journalist actually has the audacity to question an assertion made by the president of the United States.
Who does she think she is, anyway? Whatever the president says we are obligated to accept with docility and full acceptance of the will. That’s right there in the journalist charter.
-- 2013-01-29 » Greg Krehbiel
29 January 2013 @ 5:58 pm
slow news cycle, eh?
29 January 2013 @ 6:58 pm
I think that what is more relevant is that it seems the only arenas on which just about any politician is questioned is not matters of meaningful policy, but about irrelevant personal issues.
I could give a rip if Obama is a skeet shooter. I’ve never fired a weapon in my life, yet I’m a defender of gun rights. While few would call Obama the same, I don’t think whether he’s an avid skeet shooter is really relevant.
Yes, I don’t like him lying, but I’m not nearly as concerned with whether he is embellishing his shooting credentials than whether he is hook-winking the nation on what the legislation he is promoting and signing is really about.
But all we ever get is skeet-shooting and extra-marital affairs and “I can see Alaska from my house” and “I invented the Internet” and all sorts of stuff that are so inconsequential that it sickens me.
29 January 2013 @ 8:29 pm
Sure, Ken, whether he shoots skeet or not isn’t that relevant.
What is relevant is that we have a lap-dog media that doesn’t ask questions.
29 January 2013 @ 8:52 pm
I’m with Ken here. This is an absolute non issue. He made an anecdotal ‘small talk’ statement with no consequence of import, and really not worth all the attentions and media intrigue. Nobody cares. Nobody cared about Benghazi either, and it was arguably a more legitimate issue to parse words on. Lame attempt to concoct a ‘news story’ where there isn’t one.
31 January 2013 @ 1:39 pm
I guess my point didn’t come across that well, because I was agreeing with you Greg in a tangential way. We definitely have a lap-dog media and one of the ways they protect themselves from charges of being a lapdog media is by going after the politicians on occasion to “prove” they aren’t. The result is that they only go after skeet-shooting, who invented the Internet, where people’s houses are, how to spell potato and what have you.
What’s even more scary to me is that is some miraculous way, that seems to affect how people vote.
I want a media that goes after all the politicians, but does so with substance, not trivial garbage.