The Sleeping Giant is No Longer Fooled by Legacy Media

Readability

The Sleeping Giant is No Longer Fooled by Legacy Media

By: Pat Austin

SHREVE­PORT — I have no delu­sions about the 2016 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. We, as a nation, are in seri­ous, seri­ous trou­ble. This trou­ble is the result of myr­iad rea­sons how­ever com­plicit in this down­ward spi­ral we now find our­selves in is with­out a doubt the main­stream, legacy media.

That, and the uni­formed voter.

Con­sider the review in the New York Times of Hillary Clinton’s book, Hard Choices.

I’m not the least bit inter­ested in read­ing this book, how­ever the review sucked me in with the com­ment that the book “pro­vides a por­trait of the for­mer sec­re­tary of state and for­mer first lady as a heavy-​duty pol­icy wonk.”

What, what?!

A heavy-​duty pol­icy wonk”?

That never crossed my mind. Ever.

The review goes on to laud Mrs. Clin­ton and to praise the book as a “states­man­like doc­u­ment intended to attest Mrs. Clinton’s wide-​ranging expe­ri­ence on national secu­rity and for­eign policy.”

Oh, please. It’s too much.

Can we talk about Benghazi?

Can we talk about Fast and Furious?

States­man­like?

I don’t think so. Not one bit.

Okay, so the review goes on in this vein and you can read it your­self if you must, but trust me, it’s all the same white­wash dri­v­el­ing sap that we got about Obama. And we all know that the legacy media is going to con­tinue to prop up these incom­pe­tent fools while our coun­try spins around the bowl, but surely, surely peo­ple are smarter than that now, right? Haven’t we learned some­thing over the past tenure of Obama?

I am reas­sured to see that most of the com­ments attached to this arti­cle ques­tion Mrs. Clinton’s abil­ity to lead the coun­try and ques­tion her lead­er­ship on issues like Beng­hazi and Fast and Furious.

There are, of course, a few Hillary sup­port­ers who commented:

One woman says she will cer­tainly vote for Clin­ton because “we are con­tem­po­raries (I am exactly the same age as Clin­ton)…”. Well, that’s a good rea­son to vote for a pres­i­dent, eh? To be fair, this woman goes on to say that she admires Mrs. Clinton’s “tenac­ity and abil­ity to accept chal­lenges” which is a good qual­ity how­ever I don’t think that it actu­ally applies to Mrs. Clin­ton. How did she accept the chal­lenge of Beng­hazi, again?

Have we caught those who mur­dered Chris Stevens yet?

What about Fast and Furi­ous? How did she accept that challenge?

Let’s just hit the reset but­ton on all that, shall we? No. She must answer for all of that.

Clearly there will be those vot­ers who will just vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, because she’s a con­tem­po­rary, or for what­ever non­sense, but by the tone of the com­ments maybe, just maybe, peo­ple are not going to be snowed by The New York Times this time. Maybe peo­ple are ready for a true leader who will put the coun­try back on the track to prosperity.

One can dream.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — I have no delusions about the 2016 presidential election.  We, as a nation, are in serious, serious trouble.  This trouble is the result of myriad reasons however complicit in this downward spiral we now find ourselves in is without a doubt the mainstream, legacy media.

That, and the uniformed voter.

Consider the review in the New York Times of Hillary Clinton’s book, Hard Choices.

I’m not the least bit interested in reading this book, however the review sucked me in with the comment that the book “provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk.”

What, what?!

“A heavy-duty policy wonk”?

That never crossed my mind.  Ever.

The review goes on to laud Mrs. Clinton and to praise the book as a “statesmanlike document intended to attest Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and foreign policy.”

Oh, please.  It’s too much.

Can we talk about Benghazi?

Can we talk about Fast and Furious?

Statesmanlike?

I don’t think so.  Not one bit.

Okay, so the review goes on in this vein and you can read it yourself if you must, but trust me, it’s all the same whitewash driveling sap that we got about Obama.  And we all know that the legacy media is going to continue to prop up these incompetent fools while our country spins around the bowl, but surely, surely people are smarter than that now, right?  Haven’t we learned something over the past tenure of Obama?

I am reassured to see that most of the comments attached to this article question Mrs. Clinton’s ability to lead the country and question her leadership on issues like Benghazi and Fast and Furious.

There are, of course, a few Hillary supporters who commented:

One woman says she will certainly vote for Clinton because “we are contemporaries (I am exactly the same age as Clinton)…”.  Well, that’s a good reason to vote for a president, eh?  To be fair, this woman goes on to say that she admires Mrs. Clinton’s “tenacity and ability to accept challenges”  which is a good quality however I don’t think that it actually applies to Mrs. Clinton.  How did she accept the challenge of Benghazi, again?

Have we caught those who murdered Chris Stevens yet?

What about Fast and Furious?  How did she accept that challenge?

Let’s just hit the reset button on all that, shall we?  No.  She must answer for all of that.

Clearly there will be those voters who will just vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, because she’s a contemporary, or for whatever nonsense, but by the tone of the comments maybe, just maybe, people are not going to be snowed by The New York Times this time.  Maybe people are ready for a true leader who will put the country back on the track to prosperity.

One can dream.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.