Back on Jan. 23, 1992 when the Star broke the story abut Gennifer Flowers and Bill Clinton’s 12-year affair The Telegraph and the AP settled in for the long haul. After a few days to get their bearing they picked up the bucket and they have been carrying the water for the Clintons and the democrats to this day.
By Jan. 28th The Telegraph had put both feet firmly on the ground and was ready to run with anything the Clintons and the Democrats handed them. Nothing makes this more evident than their editorial on Tuesday, Jan. 28 titled “ Can one sleazy story destroy Clinton candidacy?”
The Telegraph began to issue instructions to the people of middle Georgia on how they were to handle what they characterized as “one sleazy story.” Their instructions were “Let’s be very careful and very specific in judging Gov. Bill Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate in trouble with his past.”
The Telegraph in the editorial assures us that “Clinton’s problem is not so much that his marital background includes infidelities; he’s admitted rough spots in his marriage.” But Clinton, the poor thing, “His problem stems from allegations in a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.” We must note that the messenger has progressed from the Star to “a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.”
Clinton’s problem is not that he is dishonest, willingly tells lies and indicates he is more than willing to tamper with witnesses both now and in the future, and among other things, its those “…allegations in a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.” It is the messenger that is at fault not Clinton’s actions!
The editorial apparently can not or does not want to pin down the amount of “big money” so they settle for what is an apparent rumor. It is “(reportedly anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000)” Of course “Clinton has denied the affair ever occurred.” Therefore it must not be true. However, The Telegraph has to cover their ass, (considering the subject we trust the word ass will not offend anyone) so it’s “Of course we don’t know whether it did or didn’t. [affair] The question is whether allegations – and that’s all they are – from a source paid big bucks by a scandal sheet are enough to derail a presidential candidacy. If that’s the case it would seem the political process itself is in big trouble.”
Then it looks as if they feel they have to justify Gary Hart. They point out they have “…serious doubt that he had the necessary judgment and self-discipline to be president."
However in the case of the poor guy Clinton it’s “With Clinton, we have a man whose survival as presidential candidacy hangs on accusations via ‘checkbook’ journalism from a questionable source.”
We can see the tears flooding down their face as the editorial continues with poor ole “Clinton’s personal-past is not irrelevant. But if his candidacy can be blown out of the water by one allegation, priorities are askew. What happened to judging a candidate on his governmental record, programs and ideas?”
This one editorial established the way The Telegraph would handle anything the Clinton administration would peddle for the next eight years, it continues to this day, and it is not honest and it is not pretty.
Now let us fast forward to Nov. 18, 2011 when we are heading into the 2012 presidential election. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is leading in the poles so The Telegraph and the AP attempt to answer the question asked on Jan. 28, 1992. Can one sleazy story destroy a presidential candidacy? They launched a story in an attempt to answer the question.
The title of that attempt by AP and The Telegraph is “Gingrich’s presidential bid on rise – Former House speaker carrying loads of personal, political baggage”.
With Gingrich it does not matter specifics “be damn”. We are told he has “…some supersized luggage…” and the fact that “He’s got truckloads of personal and political baggage.”
Now that is a far cry from The Telegraph’s “Lets be very careful and very specific in judging Gov. Bill Clinton, a leading presidential candidate in trouble with his past.”
The Telegraph and AP go on to tell us that: “policy flip-flops, inopportune moments of candor, two failed marriages, admissions of adultery, fits of petulance and a tendency to suggest he’s the smartest person in the room.” See it right here.
Yes this is a far cry and completely different standard from the “lets be very careful and very specific in judging… a leading presidential candidate in trouble with his past” that was applied to presidential candidate Bill Clinton.
Is this a different standard, hardly, just a bunch of bigots carrying out their agenda.
The article goes on to drag out more accusations and innuendo, which are insignificant when compared to what Clinton went on to do. Granted we did not know then but we do now and even after a great deal of it had come out The Telegraph went on to endorse him for a second term.
Their excuse was: “Sometimes it seemed the inmates had taken over the asylum. In taking responsibility for his own household, Clinton often has been put in the untenable position of admitting either incompetence or skullduggery.”
The AP went on to try and slam the door on other accusations. For instance Larry Nichols and the six women he said Clinton had an affair with.
Then there is Presidential Herman Cain whom The Telegraph and the AP launched a crusade for what can only be considered character assignation. The first few days there were no names, no facts only innuendoes and accusations. To this date they have not offered any definitive proof that these accusations were true.
The Telegraph and AP wield the power of the pen and it is amazing what they can do. Especially when honor, honesty, integrity and ethics do not inhibit them. If so we have found no evidence of it.
Have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment