No one expects political memoirs to be objective. Even for these books, however, there is a minimum truth requirement, or, rather there used to be. With the recent revelations that Obama's books are filled with lies about his past shows that the test for accuracy in memoirs is this: Democrats can say anything and get away with it. Republicans better stick to the truth - or else.
But it's more than that, much more - it's part of a decades long
protection of Democratic candidates and politicians. Early in WWII John F. Kennedy had a dalliance
with a German spy - with the FBI in the next room recording all of it (See Dan Simmon's book "The Crook Factory"). In disgust Joe
Kennedy told the State Department to transfer JFK to combat duty, where he distinguished
himself as a PT boat commander by promptly getting run over by a
Japanese destroyer. In order to avoid the embarrassment Kennedy was given a medal
and later, a fawning Democratic media made a movie about the episode, that played right into the myth they were creating about their "war hero": "PT 109."
But JFK's many adulteries, even when President, were carefully hidden by a
media that could say nothing bad about a Democratic candidate. Would
they have done the same for a Republican? I think not. What's said is
that "in the old days" the media protected politicians who couldn't
control themselves - the truth is that the protection was there for
Democratic politicians, not Republicans.
So when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" the media
knew full well what had gone on between Monroe and JFK, but of course,
said nothing. This wasn't the last gasp of the old boy system, this was protecting a fellow Democrat. And it was something that continues to this day.
And so it goes. The National Enquirer had story after
story about John Edwards, but somehow none of it made the Democratic
media until there was simply no choice but to cover the story. Ditto Clinton
and Monica - the excuses and protection of the Democratic media (along
with a half million dollar payoff to NOW to buy its silence) allowed Clinton to remain in office. When a Democrat strays,
it's cute or ignored entirely, when a Republican does the same
thing, it's called disgusting and they are hounded from office.
Yes there are exceptions but very VERY few.
Could any Republican have survived, as did Barney Frank, whose lover
operated a brothel out of his Washington apartment? Or Marion Barry, who made a
political comeback even after being caught red handed in a motel room smoking crack with
a prostitute, at the same time that crack was devastating the young
people of the city in which he was mayor?
Or Bill Clinton, whose political career best exemplifies the
protection and double standard of the Democratic (say it like it is, that's who they are) media. Forget about the
past - the lies, including perjury committed by Clinton - it was only a
few short years ago that the same National Enquirer that had run
stories on Edwards' foibles were running stories about Clinton as well.
And what was the magazine saying about Clinton? Not just adulteries,
but front page photographs of Clinton's long time mistress - all this
plastered in magazines easily seen right in the supermarket checkout
aisle. These stories were confirmed in the recent book "Game Change"
about the McCain campaign which discussed Hillary Clinton's concern
about Bill Clinton's many adulteries and his long term relationship with
the woman whose photograph was plastered on the front page of the
Yet, somehow, the Democratic media (and, let's face it, the conservative
media, which simply gave up on being able to communicate to the public
on these issues) ignored the story, and continues to do so. In fact,
Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention, so his political
career has been completely unaffected by his playing around, more or
less at will, and with full knowledge of Democratic media.
Would this media have done the same for a Republican? Of
course not. In fact, when the Democratic media has nothing they simply
make it up, as they did with McCain and Bush I. Pure fabrications, but
that's the way the game is played in the Democratic media, silence for
one party, LIES for another.
So when it is found that Obama made up his auto-biography, that it is
filled with lies of the worst sort meant to fit his story line, has the
Democratic media said a word? It's is disgusting, how they can excuse
someone who is almost pathological when it comes to telling the truth -
truth simply doesn't matter.
In other words, forget about Clinton, JFK, Ted Kennedy (who, it was
recently revealed, tried to rent out a brothel in Chile in the early
1960's), even Frank - what kind of a person makes up these phony stories
for all the world to see - and check? And why did it take three years
into his Presidency for people to know that much of what he put out in
books about himself were lies?
In short, what kind of a man have we elected President? How could
Obama, heck anyone write a book that contains so many falsehoods, how
could he ever think it possible that he would get away with it?
The true irony, of course, is that he DID get away with the whole thing -
that he not only got away with writing a book that had facts completely
made up, but it is now known that he did it, and he has not suffered a
bit from it. I've not even heard a word about it from the
Administration, and you can bet the Democratic media won't be asking
What does that say about American media? What does it say about
Democrats? Should we ever expect the truth or anything close to it from
Democratic politicians and candidates after this - what incentive is
there to tell the truth, to have character, which seems to be utterly
lacking in every Democratic leader on the planet.
Today we hear Obama making speeches filled with assertions that are simply untrue. And he is never called on it since in Obama there is conditioning on two levels - the first based on race, the second based on party. If Obama says that two plus two is five, you won't hear anyone challenging it - in fact, we will have columnist after columnist making the case for him. This state of affairs can only be viewed as sick, very sick, as sick as our society has become. There sense of things falling apart, a feeling that hasn't been in America since the worst days of Jimmy Carter.