Media bias- just how bad is it?

All of my adult life, at least the years during which I have been politically aware, I have noticed a definite bias in the media.  I am amazed when I hear folks denying this reality, or worse, criticizing Fox News for providing a Conservative perspective to current events.  Not a day goes by that I don't acknowledge my appreciation for both Fox News and the Drudge Report.  The playing field is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, but at least someone of my political persuasion is willing to put up a fight.  Frequently, though, I am reminded of just how powerful the liberal media has become.  The first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump provided just such a reminder.  Not surprisingly, the moderator feigned complete neutrality, and then proceeded to ambush Trump with questions about a former Ms. Universe Pageant contestant.  I expected the moderator to discuss Trump's income taxes and also his comments regarding the Obama birth certificate comtroversy.  It would only make sense, considering the Clinton email server issue and the controversy regarding influence peddling and the Clinton Foundation would surely be mentioed.  I was mistaken.  I can only assume that the first debate was meant to focus on sensitive Trump developments, and that the second debate would introduce Hillary's trouble issues; time will tell.

Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush.  Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time.  His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced.  Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere.  Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all.  Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations.  First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election.  I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries.  Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use?  I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well.  After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee.  Its not as far-fetched as you might think.  I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.

What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept.  What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular.  For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky.  Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition.  And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties.  Where is the hypocrisy, you ask?  When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations).  The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon.  Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now?  Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip.  They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal.  I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion.  The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip.  I don't need to read the transcript.  It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business.  Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee.  I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation.  I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

There is absolutely no chance that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton.

For the past few days, ever since Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators, I've observed one political analyst after another discuss the implications of Clinton being indicted.  For the entirity of the 2016 presidential primary season, the controversy regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server has never been far from the headlines.  There can be no doubt that Clinton violated Department of State security policy, but some politicians always seem to swim in a different pond than the rest of us.  I have no hesitation in identifying both Bill and Hillary Clinton as two exceptional "fish", who in forty plus years of political service have yet to be held accountable for any mess that they have caused or law that they have broken.  As for the analysts who keep reminding us ad nauseam that Barack Obama is the most popular president since George Washington, I do understand the obligation to at least "pretend" that the email server investigative process is not a complete waste of time.  As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sets their sights on separate conventions, the drama and suspense created by the possibility of a major presidential candidate facing an indictment will only increase viewer interest in the 2016 election.  In all seriousness, though, I'm compelled to ask a rhetorical question: does anyone in the United States with the ability to reason at least as well as a housefly, actually believe that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton?

Since Bill Clinton burst onto the scene as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, he and his wife have had their share of controversies.  When she was an attorney at the Little Rock Rose Law Firm, Hillary attracted attention with her involvement in the Whitewater real estate deal, and her behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the White House travel office fired and replaced with personal friends just after Clinton took office in 1992 caused a bit of a stir.  As for Bill, we all remember the Lewinsky affair, but what about Paula Jones?  Kathleen Willey?  Does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?  During Bill Clinton's second term, his association with known money launderers for the Chinese Red Army caused a few raised eyebrows.  Over the years, both Bill and Hillary have associated with campaign donors who end up either in jail or deported.  Forgive me for not getting into the trenches of more recent controversies, including concerns over the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's vote in support of the Iraq War, and the apparently never-ending issues regarding campaign donations, but I have faith that most of these events will already be familiar.

I have listed but a handful of issues that come to mind.  No doubt the list could be expanded with little effort, but I think I have included a sufficient number of incidents to make my point.  At no time have the Clintons ever been held to account.  Hillary Clinton seriously damaged the lives and reputations of the White House travel office employees in 1993.....no accountability.  She claimed that as Secretary of State, she accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy.  Really?  How?  Bill and Hillary's involvement with persons who are known to be donors who purchase influence for the Chinese Red Army.......no accountability.  Bill Clinton maneuvers himself into a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when the Attorney General at that time happens to be in charge of investigations not only into Hillary's personal server and email, but also Bill and Hillary's "Clinton Foundation".  We have yet to discover if Bill's decision to "hop on over" to the AG's plane will have any lasting negative ramifications, but I doubt it.

At the end of the day, this is a reality we must accept.  Bill and Hillary Clinton live by a different set of rules.  If you have some faith left in our system, that Hillary Clinton will be held responsible for KNOWINGLY violating State Department security protocols, please think again.  Remember who sits in the White House, and just how accountable his Administration has been since 2008.  He will not allow Hillary Clinton to be indicted, regardless of the opinions of the lawyers and experts, and there can be no doubt that Lynch will ensure compliance from the Justice Department.  There is hope, though, that enough people will be enraged to keep the Clintons from another eight-year romp in the White House.  So you don't like Trump?  Take a good, long look at the alternative.