Vetting the Democrat Candidate for President — the DMC

The traditional role of the press includes investigation diligence and balanced reporting. In 2008, America’s elite legacy media gave up those principles when they avoided vetting then-candidate Barack Obama.  They traded the highest standards of their once-noble profession for their own parochial purpose — namely, partisan political advocacy for their favored candidate.  The late Andrew Breitbart appropriately named these media the Democrat Media Complex (DMC).

So far, it appears that the DMC will do the same in 2012, distracting voters from core issues like debt bondage for our children in favor of ginned-up crises built atop absurd lies like “Republicans want to outlaw contraception“.  That obfuscation strategy worked last time, and the DMC is certain to double down on it now that they need to obscure Obama’s dismal 3-year performance record.

Of course, the DMC still controls most of broadcast television and the print media, including the venerable New York Times from which so many DMC camp followers take their cue.  The Times, in my opinion, long ago traded its motto All the News That’s Fit to Print for a tacit, new de facto motto “The News We Choose that Fits Our Views.”  That much better describes the current modus operandi by which they hope to achieve their self-assigned sacred mission to re-elect Barack Obama.  The revised motto even sounds better.

All that just means it’s up to the New Media, including citizen journalists, to vet the Democrat candidate for President in the 2012 election.  A Gateway Pundit example appears below — an unearthed Illinois Daily Herald interview with Harvard student Barack Obama from May 1990.  Obama’s words speak volumes about who he is, where he comes from, and what his life’s ambitions are.

Will the DMC print and analyze this interview?  Will they ever ask President Obama to explain it to us?  Don’t hold your breath.  But do read the interview to learn more about the Democrat candidate for President in 2012.  Don’t miss the passage at the end that reads:

“… we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous”, Obama said.  “I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”  And the future of black people and of America generally?  “It depends on how good [sic] I do my job,” he said.


Comments

  1. Conservative American says

    Hi, dleeper47! YES! You are giving attention to what we should MOST be giving attention to right now; the performance and history of B. Hussein Obama!

    We do not yet know who the Republican candidate will be but we DO know who the Democrat candidate will be! We should start NOW exposing B. Hussein Obama!

    • Are you sure it’s Ubama, maybe it will be Hillary.

      • Conservative American says

        Hi, JDP! 🙂

        No, I don’t think it will be Hillary, LOL, but I think that two other things are possible.

        If things get to looking too bad for B. Hussein Obama, he might bench Biden and try a fresh face, most likely a woman.

        Secondly, if he thinks he’s in trouble he might initiate some level of military action with Iran or, at minimum, not interfere with Israel if Israel initiates some form of military action.

        What do you think abot those possibilities?

  2. Do you really think we’ll find anything new here? Seems to me that any/all dirt to be dug up has been found already.

    • Conservative American says

      And the importance of it being “new” is what?

      CJ wrote: “Seems to me that any/all dirt to be dug up has been found already.”

      Therefore, with an election coming up, we should stop looking and give Obama a free ride. Well, I’m sure that B. Hussein Obama would greatly appreciate that.

      • Anyone who either loves or hates Obama ain’t changing their minds now.

        • Conservative American says

          Really? And from where did you garner this pearl of omniscient wisdom?

          Shall we then do nothing, make no effort, neither expose nor remind?

          Again, B. Hussein Obama would greatly appreciate that.

        • Anyone with a shred of conservatism in them is already anti-Obama. Anyone who wants big government, handouts, loss of freedom, etc… is already pro-Obama. Everyone who’s been paying attention for the last five years knows this.

          What shall we do? Campaign like hell for the candidate we want. If this article (which isn’t particularly damning) is the best anyone’s been able to come up with lately, they’ve wasted their time. We already know he’s not a conservative.

          Obama’s track record in office is more than sufficient evidence of his incompetence and why he shouldn’t be reelected.

        • Another nonsensical diatribe from ConAm. What a surprise.

          The premise of dleeper47’s article is just plain dumb. There, I’ve said it. I tried to put it nicely before. The idea that Obama hasn’t been adequately “vetted” by Sheriff Joe, Birthers, Andrew Breitbart, and the thousands (if not millions) of Obama haters is stupid on its face.

          ConAm said: “Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set.” Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. Apparently ConAm is set like cement. True, not true? Do explain.

          ConAm said: “So what you are giving us here is the scholarly “everyone knows” argument.” There’s nothing scholarly about common sense, ConAm. Do you have any?

          ConAm said “And you say that, of course, bearing in mind the plethora of superb articles which you have written and had posted at Sonoran Alliance.” I have written zero posts here. Is this to say that if one has not written “superb articles” for SA then they are not to criticize any articles? What a hypocrite ConAm is- he has criticized many SA articles. And just how many “superb articles” has ConAm written and had posted on Sonoran Alliance?

          ConAm said: “And how many successful poltical campaigns have you run…” So now one must be Karl Rove to have an opinion about political campaigns? Well, ConAm, how many successful political campaigns have you run?

          Queue ConAm trolling in 3… 2… 1…

          • Conservative American says

            ROFL! 🙂

            And all we had to do was to scratch the surface a little to reveal the liberal, LOL!

          • Notice how ConAm doesn’t answer any of the questions. Always a sure sign of defeat and cowardly surrender.

            +1 for CJ!!!!!

            • Conservative American says

              Hey, TC, if you want to post under another user name, you need to change your standard, stock phrases if you really don’t want people to know that it’s you. 😉

            • Another non-answer from ConAm.

              +2 for CJ!!!!!!!!

              And I’m not TC.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! 🙂

                You’re really not any good at deception, TC. You really should give it up. Now you are not only using the same standard, stock TC phrases but you are also following your habitual pattern of posting in a thread, LOL!

                Have a nice day, TC! 🙂

              • Another non-answer.Why won’t you answer the questions? Afraid to show that you have nothing to come back with? Pa-the-tic.

                +3 for CJ!!!!!!!!!!

                You really should give it up. Now you are not only using the same standard, stock ConAm phrases but you are also following your habitual pattern of posting in a thread, LOL!

                Have a nice day, ConAm! 🙂

              • Conservative American says

                You have a nice day too, TC! 😉

              • Conservative American says

                By the way, since you’re keeping “score”, what were your scores as a Rugby “player” when on your belly eating dirt and sucking up cleat dust, LOL! 😉

          • Conservative American says

            Now where were we. Oh yes, I wrote this…

            Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set. And you know this how? Undoubtedly it’s because of the extensive research you’ve done.

            CJ wrote: “Everyone who’s been paying attention for the last five years knows this.”

            So what you are giving us here is the scholarly “everyone knows” argument.

            CJ wrote: “What shall we do? Campaign like hell for the candidate we want.”

            You and the Marxist, “TrueConservative”, would get along famously. He wrote this about Obama:

            “TruConserv says:
            February 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm”

            “Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.”

            “If all you ever respond with is a negative, even when someone has done good, how can we ever know when you are just faking outrage and when you actually have a legitimate point to make?”

            “TrueConservative”, the Marxist, is also always critical of articles by dleeper47, having said this about her last one:

            “TruConserv says:
            March 7, 2012 at 7:05 pm”

            “What purpose did you think this article would serve?”

            CJ wrote: “If this article (which isn’t particularly damning) is the best anyone’s been able to come up with lately, they’ve wasted their time.”

            And you say that, of course, bearing in mind the plethora of superb articles which you have written and had posted at Sonoran Alliance. Please share with us precisely how you have been wasting your time while not writing and submitting articles to SA.

            CJ wrote: “We already know he’s not a conservative.”

            Very perceptive of you, CJ. Now tell us what B. Hussein Obama IS. A huge part of campaign politics is concerned with attempting to define your opponent for voters. In your infinite wisdom, however, you would do away with that. And how many successful poltical campaigns have you run, CJ, employing that approach?

            CJ wrote: “Obama’s track record in office is more than sufficient evidence of his incompetence and why he shouldn’t be reelected.”

            I see. So “negative” campaigning is entirely unnecessary. All we have to do is to praise the Republican presidential candidate while refraining from being critical of Obama or reminding voters how bad Obama is.

            I’m sure that B. Hussein Obama would greatly appreciate that!

          • Conservative American says

            And “TrueConservative”, aka “CJ”, wrote this:

            Another nonsensical diatribe from ConAm. What a surprise.

            The premise of dleeper47′s article is just plain dumb. There, I’ve said it. I tried to put it nicely before. The idea that Obama hasn’t been adequately “vetted” by Sheriff Joe, Birthers, Andrew Breitbart, and the thousands (if not millions) of Obama haters is stupid on its face.

            ConAm said: “Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set.” Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. Apparently ConAm is set like cement. True, not true? Do explain.

            ConAm said: “So what you are giving us here is the scholarly “everyone knows” argument.” There’s nothing scholarly about common sense, ConAm. Do you have any?

            ConAm said “And you say that, of course, bearing in mind the plethora of superb articles which you have written and had posted at Sonoran Alliance.” I have written zero posts here. Is this to say that if one has not written “superb articles” for SA then they are not to criticize any articles? What a hypocrite ConAm is- he has criticized many SA articles. And just how many “superb articles” has ConAm written and had posted on Sonoran Alliance?

            ConAm said: “And how many successful poltical campaigns have you run…” So now one must be Karl Rove to have an opinion about political campaigns? Well, ConAm, how many successful political campaigns have you run?

            Queue ConAm trolling in 3… 2… 1…

          • Conservative American says

            TC wrote: “The premise of dleeper47′s article is just plain dumb. There, I’ve said it. I tried to put it nicely before.”

            Dumb is in the eye of the beholder. Feel better now that you’ve “said it”? Don’t try to be “nice”. You’re not capable of “nice”.

            TC wrote: “ConAm said: “Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set.” Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying.”

            And, of course, like all liberals, you are flat wrong, LOL!

            “2012 Voter Preferences for Obama, “Republican” Remain Close”

            “Voters’ uncertainty about what they might do in the 2012 election is also apparent in the 18% who do not have a preference for Obama or the Republican at this point.”

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/148076/2012-Voter-Preferences-Obama-Republican-Remain-Close.aspx

            TC wrote: “Is this to say that if one has not written “superb articles” for SA then they are not to criticize any articles?”

            No, TC, this is not to say. This is the classic liberal tactic of speaking for your opponent to create a strawman to knock down. Let’s see this at work.

            CJ wrote: “If this article (which isn’t particularly damning) is the best anyone’s been able to come up with lately, they’ve wasted their time.”

            I wrote: “And you say that, of course, bearing in mind the plethora of superb articles which you have written and had posted at Sonoran Alliance. Please share with us precisely how you have been wasting your time while not writing and submitting articles to SA.”

            To which TC replied: “Is this to say that if one has not written “superb articles” for SA then they are not to criticize any articles?”

            No, it is to say that you criticize an article which was written and published at Sonoran Alliance as a “waste of time” while you, with your time, have produced no article. How have you been wasting your time while dleeper47 has actually produced something and contributed to SA?

            TC wrote: “So now one must be Karl Rove to have an opinion about political campaigns?”

            No, TC. You wrote this: “We already know he’s not a conservative.”

            I replied: “Very perceptive of you, CJ. Now tell us what B. Hussein Obama IS. A huge part of campaign politics is concerned with attempting to define your opponent for voters. In your infinite wisdom, however, you would do away with that. And how many successful poltical campaigns have you run, CJ, employing that approach?”

            The point being that you want to do away with a huge portion of standard campaign strategy without offering a shred of evidence that your approach would work or be better than current practice and you have no expertise to bring to bear on the subject.

            I’m sure that B. Hussein Obama would greatly appreciate that!

            Queue TC trolling in 3… 2… 1…

            • Another nonsensical, incoherent rant by ConAm.

              • Conservative American says

                What’s the matter, TC, can’t refute this?

                TC wrote: “ConAm said: “Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set.” Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying.”

                And, of course, like all liberals, you are flat wrong, LOL!

                “2012 Voter Preferences for Obama, “Republican” Remain Close”

                “Voters’ uncertainty about what they might do in the 2012 election is also apparent in the 18% who do not have a preference for Obama or the Republican at this point.”

                http://www.gallup.com/poll/148076/2012-Voter-Preferences-Obama-Republican-Remain-Close.aspx

                +3 for ConAm!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • So now you quote the liberal-controlled Gallup organization? I thought you were a real conservative. Your true colors are coming out.

              • Conservative American says

                Notice how TC doesn’t refute that there are still enough undecided voters to swing the election one way or the other! Always a sure sign of defeat and cowardly surrender.

                Here’s a Rasmussen poll which also shows that there are enough undecided voters to swing the election one way or the other:

                “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Obama with 48% of the vote to Santorum’s 38%. Nine percent (9%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) remain undecided.”

                http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

                +4 for ConAm!!!!!!!!!!!!

                Queue TC trolling in 3… 2… 1…

              • Conservative American says

                And now, announcing Checkmate in one move.

                It is time once again, TC, to administer the coup de grace and put you out of your misery.

                “Obama Campaign Launches ‘Truth Teams’ ”

                “By Devin Dwyer, ABC News”

                “The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a “grassroots communications team” they’re calling the Truth Team.”

                “The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the UNDECIDED VOTERS in their lives,” the campaign said in a statement.”

                “The teams will be first launched in 13 “swing states,” including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.”

                http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2012/02/13/obama-campaign-launches-truth-teams

                Now we know why the Marxist, TC, is attempting to convince Conservatives that undecided voters don’t exist. He doesn’t want us to counter the massive effort by B. Hussein Obama targeting undecided voters!

                Yet once again “True Conservative”, aka “CJ”, has made a feeble and pathetic attempt to pass himself off as a “Conservative” when he is, in fact, a Pinko.

                +100 for ConAm!!!!!!!!!!!!

                Game, set, match.

                Have a nice day, defeated cowardly Pinko! 🙂

    • dleeper47 says

      CJ, you may think you’ve heard it all and that Obama is fully vetted, but I surely don’t. I don’t think either of us have heard a tenth of it. And the DMC surely won’t help … that’s the point.

      I know many moderate Democrats who are sulking … their guy isn’t who they thought he’d be … they say so, shake their head, and kinda stare at the floor … they may not vote Republican, but they’ve lost their enthusiasm for Obama, and they’re thinking maybe they should just stay home on Nov 6. A full vetting of the President and his entourage will help remove all remaining doubt. And among Conservatives, a full vetting will rightly increase anger and fear, which means a bigger turnout. We need to have a huge margin on Nov 6 to send a message to the DMC, create a mandate, and overcome ACORN-style vote fraud.

      Want to help?

      In the 2008 campaign, Obama said “Judge me by the people I surround myself with”. Why not research and vet one or two of Obama’s comrades? And vet some of his comrades’ comrades like Holder’s hard-Left DOJ appointees? You pick ’em. Post your findings on SA, other sites, and in your comments. Join the fray.

      Don’t think you’re powerless, don’t think it’s all decided already, and don’t give up. Let’s help the Left understand who their man really is so that they stay home on election day, and let’s hyper-motivate the Right to turn out and vote.

  3. Conservative American says

    Oh, I see, according to you, people are like cement which has already set. And you know this how? Undoubtedly it’s because of the extensive research you’ve done.

    CJ wrote: “Everyone who’s been paying attention for the last five years knows this.”

    So what you are giving us here is the scholarly “everyone knows” argument.

    CJ wrote: “What shall we do? Campaign like hell for the candidate we want.”

    You and the Marxist, “TrueConservative”, would get along famously. He wrote this about Obama:

    “TruConserv says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm”

    “Seriously, if you don’t understand the good that comes from praising Obama when he gets it right, and instead think we should always attack him, then surely you must understand why you have absolutely no credibility when you offer criticism.”

    “If all you ever respond with is a negative, even when someone has done good, how can we ever know when you are just faking outrage and when you actually have a legitimate point to make?”

    “TrueConservative”, the Marxist, is also always critical of articles by dleeper47, having said this about her last one:

    “TruConserv says:
    March 7, 2012 at 7:05 pm”

    “What purpose did you think this article would serve?”

    CJ wrote: “If this article (which isn’t particularly damning) is the best anyone’s been able to come up with lately, they’ve wasted their time.”

    And you say that, of course, bearing in mind the plethora of superb articles which you have written and had posted at Sonoran Alliance. Please share with us precisely how you have been wasting your time while not writing and submitting articles to SA.

    CJ wrote: “We already know he’s not a conservative.”

    Very perceptive of you, CJ. Now tell us what B. Hussein Obama IS. A huge part of campaign politics is concerned with attempting to define your opponent for voters. In your infinite wisdom, however, you would do away with that. And how many successful poltical campaigns have you run, CJ, employing that approach?

    CJ wrote: “Obama’s track record in office is more than sufficient evidence of his incompetence and why he shouldn’t be reelected.”

    I see. So “negative” campaigning is entirely unnecessary. All we have to do is to praise the Republican presidential candidate while refraining from being critical of Obama or reminding voters how bad Obama is.

    I’m sure that B. Hussein Obama would greatly appreciate that!

  4. Who brought contraception into the debate? It wasn’t the democrats. The republicans are failing to define the debate — and will lose the election.

  5. This Conservative American is part of the despicable cult that has become the face of today’s Republicans, from the desire to control America through an Iranian style theocracy, to their disrespect and irrational hate for the president, to the attempts to disguise and deny the racism fueling their lies and distortions. It’s hilarious how the right wing twists their failings into becoming a characteristic of their manufactured enemies. Even the article is full of these lies and distortions – “it appears that the DMC will do the same in 2012, distracting voters from core issues like debt bondage for our children in favor of ginned-up crises built atop absurd lies like “Republicans want to outlaw contraception“. That obfuscation strategy worked last time, and the DMC is certain to double down on it now that they need to obscure Obama’s dismal 3-year performance record.” Talking about distracting voters from core issues, anyone notice that Rick Santorum has focused only on issues that are important to HIM personally? Like right wing religious social engineering and control over people’s private lives? And nothing substantial about issues that really affect sane Americans? Ginned-up crises? Look at any of the far right’s manufactured outrage about ANYTHING relating to Obama or Democrats and your ginned-up crises are well defined. Dismal performance record? What a joke. Bondage for our children? What a joke – the far right’s still in denial about GW Bush creating the economicl meltdown to be inherited by whoever got elected. And now it’s improving despite the obstructionist teabaggers in Congress blocking the administration’s efforts. Even the news article used as proof of Obama being a bad person only served to show he was intelligent and educated – characteristics despised by the far right for good reason. These so-called conservatives are going to be the cause of Obama’s reelection, not the useless DMC.

    • Conservative American says

      ROFL! 🙂

      Hey, you forgot part of the usual Pinko litany; “racist, hateful bigot”!

      Come on now, you’re slipping. Can’t leave that out or it isn’t up to Pinko standards, LOL!

  6. Conservative American says

    Dleeper47:

    Ain’t it amazing how your articles always flush the angry liberals out of the bushes!

    You must be doing something right, LOL! 😉

    • Hi, CA — Yep. So you think all that flak means I’m over the target?

      In a prior post, you recommended SA as the best place to post to get bona fide feedback from the Left. I tip my hat to you … it looks like you were right(!).

      I’m not looking for agreement with the Left, just clarity on our fundamentally different world views. That was the point of the earlier post “Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths”. Not a single Progressive reader on any site has yet offered a re-write for those short simple truths. They say I’m “wrong”, but there are no re-writes. Disappointing. Maybe I actually got them right on the first try(?).

      Posts like Remowjio’s do add some clarity … sort of … maybe if I don my Progressive hat and write a Progressive’s defense of those Progressive self-evident truths, I can go for a ‘thumbs up’ from Remowjio? It could be interesting …

      • Conservative American says

        Oooooh yeah, you’re over the target alright! 😉

        You are seeking clarity but it precisely clarity which the left most fears. Call for clarity and you are striking at the heart of the leftist propaganda machine. That’s why the searchlights and flak bursts. They are seeking to preserve the obfuscation which is the core of all of their strategies.

        In that the left is obfuscation-centered, I wouldn’t expect anything from them in response to your articles other than an array of standard disingenuous tactics. That is quite simply what they do. To be clear regarding what it is that you are dealing with, consider this:

        “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” – Saul Alinksy

  7. Veritas Vincit says

    This article may be bogus… for starters it states he attended public school through high school when in fact today we’re told he attended a private school in Hawaii.

    It also leads the reader to understand his father actually graduated from the schools mentioned – in economics, which he did not. His father returned to Kenya before completing his U.S. education.

    So it seems Barack Obama has been under construction for quite some time… so what is the truth about his background? And how come no one’s seen any pictures of his grandmother with Michelle and her children when they were small children? Every family has those kinds of pictures.

  8. Veritas Vincit says

    and where’s the dateline on this AP article from the Daily Herald?

    • Conservative American says

      Don’t get carried away with yourself, Veritas Vincit. You “authored” this article which still appears on the front page of SA:

      “Goldwater Institute has new Rival, Grand Canyon Institute”

      “March 15, 2012 By Veritas Vincit”

      Although you take credit as the “author”, you lifted most of the text verbatim from this website:

      http://grandcanyoninstitute.org/

      Furthermore, you did not give credit nor did you provide a link. That is plagiarism.

      So you can get off of your high horse now and stop worrying about the dateline on an article when you plagiarized almost the entire text of “your” article.

      • Veritas Vincit says

        @CA: Interesting how you shifted the subject of this thread to something totally unrelated. What I posted is clearly just what it is; I never claimed “credit” for it. Furthermore it has nothing to do with this thread.

        In case you failed English Comprehension 101, you’ll note there’s an intro by me then the article, delineated by the second headline. Maybe you are unfamiliar with that writing convention? In fact in the comments section I give full credit to the Grand Canyon Institute as the posting is a public service announcement.

        The GCI is a joke assembled by losers to advance bigger government solutions to problems that will only require enhanced investment by the taxpayers to address.

        As for the thread of this article: The facts are Obama never attended a public high school in Hawaii and his father never matriculated from any of the colleges or universities he attended. Those are facts which the presented AP article has wrong.

      • Veritas Vincit says

        In case you missed this CA…taken directly from the comments.

        “Veritas Vincit says:
        March 15, 2012 at 7:59 pm

        Folks, I simply did them a favor and took their announcement directly from their new website verbatim. The introduction is mine however…”

    • Conservative American says

      If you click on the link provided, you’ll see the article with the dateline.

Leave a Reply