The media finally conceded the Obama administration to be inexperienced and inept, reminiscent of the Carter administration — but, they maintained, not possibly involved in any corruption. Then suddenly scandals erupted on nearly every conceivable front: the crony-capitalist half-billion-dollar loan guarantee to a now bankrupt Solyndra; the Fast and Furious gun deal, in which, in lunatic fashion, the U.S. government sold deadly automatic weapons to Mexican drug-cartel killers; the administration’s pressure on a four-star general to fudge his testimony as a favor to a big campaign donor whose suspect company, LightSquared, was doing business with the Pentagon; and the politically inspired dropping of investigations by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
Advertisement
The administration got itself into these messes because it customarily counts on a medieval notion of compartmentalized exemption. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama’s loud and welcomed hope-and-change promises to end insider influence, lobbying, and earmarks were essential to his well-crafted image of the outsider reformer. Once that liberal narrative was embraced by the media, few seemed to care whether the other, cynical Obama was the first candidate in the history of public financing of presidential campaigns to renounce the program — in order to maximize his campaign stash, much of it pouring in from firms like Goldman Sachs and BP.
The country shrugged at such contradictions: Surely such a saintly progressive had saintly reasons; or, if he didn’t, exemption must be given for a messianic figure to use questionable means to achieve his noble ends. Yet, according to PolitiFact, the fact-checking arm of the St. Petersburg Times, of the 17 grand promises candidate Obama made on ethics reform, he has so far kept only five.
That principle of liberal exemption from accountability explains much of both the fundamental and the trivial about the Obama administration. As a candidate, Obama railed against “Karl Rove politics.” Few seemed to notice that he had established a website (“Fight the Smears”) asking supporters to collect information on opponents, in a Nixonian effort at preemptive action to discourage opposition. The notorious and now-defunct JournoList followed. Currently we see that creepy tactic resurfacing a third time with the new AttackWatch.com website, which lists pictures and names, in the glaring red-and-black style of an intelligence dossier, of those who have criticized Obama — juxtaposed with supposed rebuttals and a puerile request for readers to snoop about and send in more names of those who dare to oppose the president.
“Civility” has followed the same tired script. Channeling the outrage over the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Obama in sonorous accents called for a new civility and a softer tone of public discourse — even though the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords was clearly sick and incited by neither left nor right political rhetoric. That the president, both in campaigns and in governance, had begged Latinos to “punish our enemies” and had called on supporters to “get in their faces” was irrelevant. The Congressional Black Caucus and the union bosses apparently understood that disconnect, as progressives called Tea Party types “son of bitches” who could go “straight to Hell” — the modern equivalents of the lynch mobs of the old segregated South. In the postmodernism of Obama, self-proclaimed underdogs and victims are not bound by protocols intended for their oppressors: Some illiberal targets clearly have to be demonized to thwart their demonic plans.
We all know that Obama supports the DREAM Act and ridiculed the calls to build a border fence as a conservative effort to install “moats and alligators.” Why, then, would such an enlightened administration that wished brotherly porous borders have its agents sell guns to Mexican killers? No doubt a rogue subordinate, or a well-intentioned effort to do some sort of good, would soon surface in righteous explanation that would preclude partisan gotcha audits.
Liberals believe they are doing what is right and just. Therefore, no rule, law or social convention can restrict their actions. In their minds, everything they do is for the betterment of humanity. That is why they are so dangerous; they sincerely believe their own press.
What you said plus, that they are convinced they are both intellectually and morally superior to us. And not only that, but also the condescending belief that we just don't know what's good for us.
All true Victor, but just as complaining about how Bush was treated wins no arguments, this won't either. The mainstream media is simply too invested in him.
No doubt. But the point is the hypocrisy of the supposedly "neutral" press. They obviously cheer for one side, so why should they be believed?
Additionally, if you're the AP you never need reveal your source. Just report what someone who was "granted anonymity because (fill in the blank).
You should believe it because we said it.
That said, kudos to ABC for their Solyndra reporting. As presidential candidate John Kerry once said, "They're doing the work of the Republican National Committee!"
Getting some people to acknowledge that fact is another matter.
The mainstream media have lost all credibility. Restoration is impossible.
For several decades, they have operated with at least the pretense of informing the public, but in their blind rush to worship at the feet of the false God, Obama, they have unwittingly demonstrated their opinion of that public.
We are nothing more than cattle herded in whatever direction most beneficial to the whims of their Lord. Even over a cliff if necessary.
It is now our turn to demonstrate our opinion of them. Let us hasten their slide into obscurity and ignominy. It is where they belong.
We need an examination on Obama's campaign financing, administration proposals and how the stimulus was spent.
Obama administration pushes for green energy (solar), has received chunks of cash from solar folks and has distributed enormous sums back to those same solar folks.
Obama calls for increased broadband access, despite the existance of Hughes Net satellite broadband (I am a subscriber). The administration has leaned on an Air Force General and a civlian member of the government to "modify" their Congressional testimony to advance the approval of a campaign contributor's business.
Obama removed security protocals on his credit card donations while a candidate. He also received a bunch of money from all the expatriots living in the Middle East, even Iran (who would have thought we had so many citizens living in Iran). Then he commences to use any excuse to choke off the flow of domestic oil, helping to raise the price of oil.
He received tons of campaign cash from the unions. The stimulus was largely a union bailout plan and he has been using the NLRB to tilt labor law dramatically toward unions (Boeing and Delta plus the FAA budget). They have also inserted union protections in the trade agreements that need to be "passed now" that still haven't been submitted to Congress (trade agreements that were finalized under GW).
They talk about "smart, commonsense" gun laws (and he denigrates gun owners). We get Fast and Furious, and Hilary talking about how "our guns" are getting through the border and causing violence in Mexico and we need to restrict guns. We end up with a dead agent and Mexico loses hundreds of citizens and experiences a spike in related crime. It is odd how few compaints we hear from the Mexican government. I guess they are afraid we will cut foreign aid or will actually start controlling the border. Oh yeah, they have also increased reporting for gun stores in the areas where THEY increased gun crimes!
If I can see the tip of this iceberg, why can't the pundits?
By the time the next administration replaces this one on January 21st, 2013, almost all the evidence will have been summarily expunged and lost. Only that which leaks to Republican politicians will survive, but there will not enough of that to convict anyone. There will be no salacious exposes in the NYT or Washington Post. This is the Chicago way in action.
It's the grades. For an "ivy leaguer" to NOT reveal their accomplishments at not just one but two Ivy League schools, it cannot be anything BUT the grades.
Obama received a scholarship to Harvard Law because he is Black - affirmative action put him there. That scholarship had nothing to do with any "scholarly" or merit-based accomplishment on his part.
I can say that with confidence because if this were not true, Obama would not have hesitated to throw in the face of his detractors the academic achievements he had to his credit. No achievements in evidence means just that - no achievements.
No, he got in because he was Red. Comrade Obama is a Red Diaper baby, as close to a Manchurian Candidate as you can get. Nothing else explains his family history but their Communist Party ties. It is lost now, but Seattle was a hotbed of Comintern activity. Harry Bridges owned SEA and HON and guess where Comrade Obama's family were. Oh, if you don't know, Harry wound up watching the May Day parades from the balcony of the Kremlin.
Who knows or cares what his grades were. If you get in college, somebody pays, and they can sorta attach a body, you get a degree. What he's hiding is who paid for his Ivy League "education."
The media have lost credibility by defending the indefensible, with arguments that are transparently false. They did, however, lead a naive and incompetent President to believe he could prevail under their protection. He cannot.
When Obamacare is repealed, and it will be, what will be the signature accomplishment of his 4 years - economic devastation.
Like Carter, Obama will be the millstone the Democrats will carry for decades.
ALL politicians are liars who have been bought and paid for by special interests groups who are successfully using the strategy of divide and conquer and are destroying the American middle class. Wake up and smell the coffee!
I have heard the same comment from many of my friends. This seems to to have become a routine over the past six months or so, as I buy them a cup of coffee, and begin to talk politics. In short, I end up telling them not to be discouraged, suck it up, and admit their mistake. And as it turns out, each and every one of theses people voted for Obama, expecting america to become a great nation again. And they are not just sick of Obama, they hate Pelosi and Reid, and what is best for me, is they finally agree with me that liberalism just doesn't work. Never has, never will. In reality,they are mad at themselves for being sucked into the campaign, some giving a thousand dollars. Some (5) have actually become republicans, while 9 others have sworn they will never vote for a liberal again. In essence, Obama has done for me, what I have worked decades to do, and even with Ronald Reagan's help, I couldn't convince these people to move away from liberalism. Thanks Obama!
"At some point, Barack Obama and those around him grasped that utopian rhetoric and progressive intentions made discordant facts irrelevant."
Long before Obama: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Che Guevara had grasped that "utopian rhetoric and progressive intentions" enabled them to literally get away with murder. Mass murder.
When Walter Duranty infamously said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs," he wasn't talking about Obama.
