There are more ways to look at this than just looking at Obama and Immelt. They appear to be following in the footsteps of Clinton, Gore, Schwartz and Armstrong. (You can find that story just below this one, on this blog.)
Both of Georgia’s Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have been in Washington long enough to know what goes on. I have never heard either one speak out against the corruption, deceit and dishonesty, which caused the halls of power to reek with the odor of corruption.
If we look back at Senator Zell Miller of Georgia who was appointed to the United States Senate by Governor Roy Barnes we can see the difference. In an article by Jim Galloway with AJC (Atlanta Journal Constitution) Senator Miller is quoted as describing the Washington political climate. Galloway says:
“‘The process has become so politicized and so polarized and so ingrained that we cannot even put it aside in time of war’ Miller said. ‘One of these days someone … is going to get through to the American people just how really messed up it has become. And when that happens the American people are going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both teams off the field.’”
We are told that Miller talking about money in Washington says “soft money – big money – from special interests to both parties controls things in a way that is nothing short of bribery,”
Surely if Miller could figure that out in a couple of years, we have to ask what is wrong with Senator Chambliss and Isakson, can’t they figure it out? And if they have figured it out are they participating? If they are not participating, why are they not speaking out about it. If they know about it and turn their head, why is that not like the Cardinal who turns his head at the priest who is a pedophile?
Like all politicians if you read their bio they are lily white and as pure as the mountain dew.
By the way that is the image portrayed by President and Publisher George McCanless, Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall and Editorial Page Editor Charles E. Richardson of The Telegraph.
As recent as this morning, August 25, 2011 @ 0840, Editorial Page Editor Charles E. Richardson was telling the listeners of News Talk Central that “If we couldn’t confirm it we would not have printed it.” Charles E. Richardson of News Talk Central was talking about the McDaniel case.
Kenny Burgamy (the ex-banker) and cohort filled his roll to a “T” he did not say a word. It should be noted that in the past when some doubt has been expressed, Burgamy the ex-banker would pipe up with “They only print it.”
We do not know about the McDaniel case, but if Charles E. Richardson has a few weeks we can go back to the days when they first endorsed Bill Clinton for President and start there.
We will see just how much they have printed that they did not verify. While we are at it we can look at some of the things such as the low-grade scam he attempted when he was trying to convince us “that Bush has attempted to tie the 9/11 attacks and al-Qaeda with Iraq.” (That is the reason we sometimes refer to Charles E. Richardson as Low-Grade)
We can look at the late Phil Dodson’s “The Lesson of Watergate”, where we are informed that all Clinton did, was, he “lied about an illicit sexual affair with a woman…”
Although it was not in print Dodson was the one who screamed into the phone “No one can tell me anything about the impeachment [Clinton’s impeachment] I don’t know.” However as we continued the conversation it came out that he had never heard of David P. Schippers who was the “Chief Investigative Counsel for the Clinton Impeachment” and he along with Alan P Henry, wrote the book “Sellout” about the Impeachment.
We think that Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall’s “To Endorse candidates or not” also qualifies as a Low-Grade scam.
In it, Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall tells the reader how the Newspaper “…can research candidates’ voting records, read archived stories about them, even tell readers whether candidates have been fiscally responsible by say, avoiding bankruptcy or paying their taxes on time.” She then goes on to insinuate that “(Of course, voters have to trust the candidate isn’t loading up on the good stuff and omitting things that might give voters pause.)”
We could never be sure where she thought the “loading up on the good stuff and omitting things…” might be the sole prerogative of The Telegraph or what. After all she did say, “Editorial page staffs (sic) can research candidates’…” She did not say they would do that and then print the results.
Anyone can go back and look at the endorsements of Bill Clinton, especially the second endorsement and wonder why The Telegraph didn’t use their ability to “… research candidates’ voting records, read archived stories about them….” etc.
The same would apply to Al Gore, John Kerry and most especially Barack Hussein Obama.
In their endorsement of Obama the biggest thing they cited for their endorsement was “future historians.” Does that make sense, maybe they will explain it for all of us which do not understand it.
Then perhaps the research was to determine what they would have to cover up. And perhaps this is what Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall things is “…the newspaper’s role as a leader and critical voice in the community.”
Have a nice day
No comments:
Post a Comment