Tiger Woods is not to golf as Lance Armstrong was to cycling. This is largely due to the fact golf is a sport of skill, judgment, of eye, and of mind. Meanwhile, cycling is a sport of endurance, power, drugs, equipment, and if it comes to it, tactics. While golf can be enhanced with PEDs, doping is cycling’s life blood.
But as Lance “I never failed a drug test” Armstrong has faded from view, the media remains fixated on Tiger Woods despite the fact he’s far from being the same golfer he was in his pre-bimbo eruption days. Back in the pre-scandal days, Woods somehow managed to stare guys down and… they’d blink. Today, at least in the majors, it’s always Woods who blinks. Sometimes, he even seems to close his eyes.
But the media still has a Tiger Woods fixation and the evidence that Woods is still favored by the media is heard in their words. It’s never “Woods,” instead, it’s always “Tiger,” even when he’s playing like a dog. (A PGA dog, but still a dog.)
Phil Mickelson and perhaps Bubba Watson sometimes approach the exclusive first name usage, but never get all the way there like Tiger does. The networks cut to Woods even when he’s out of contention for one basic reason: he’s Tiger Woods, the former great who people remember as being great and who someday, some hope, might return to greatness.
So why is the media so hung up on Woods? There are multiple explanations, many of them interrelated and reinforcing. There’s the money, that is, the media’s rooting might be based on Woods’ success because he draw a ratings crowd; he’s the multiracial guy in a predominantly white sport; there’s the hero turned villain who lost it all angle (note: he didn’t lose it all) who is now clawing his way back to the top, except in majors; you also have the chase for Jack Nicklaus’ majors record storyline. Finally, don’t forget the money, the gigantic gamble Nike has made on promoting and riding their fallen star. (Fallen stars if you include Armstrong.)
Even though Woods remains undedicated to the gentlemanly aspects of golf (smashing clubs, cursing and tantrums, rulebook non-compliance), these things will fade from mind as he enters the twilight of his golfing career, that is, right now. Soon, he’ll be as beloved as Arnie and Jack themselves. Why? Because he was once Tiger Woods, that’s why.
Background: Long ago, the JFK years were turned into a family created myth called Camelot for the purpose of rewriting history and, ultimately, legacy building. Today, the Obama era is an ongoing American tragedy called Scamalot.
Discussion: Earlier this week,
a news worker an opinion worker in the MSNBC class offered that saying “IRS” as it regards the presidency of Barack Obama is really the same as using the “n” word on him.
As such, today’s new “n” word is NSA.
Tomorrow’s new “n” word will be Obamacare.
Saturday’s new “n” word will be drone assassinations.
Sunday’s new “n” word will be Benghazi.
Monday’s new “n” word will be jobs.
Leftist way ahead: Wash, rinse, and repeat until ideologically assimilated.
Machiavellian kudos to Eric Holder for continuing to grasp the gullibility of the traditional media as it regards the serial malfeasance of the Obama Administration.
From the Washington Post’s ‘no-specifics’ reporting of the off-the-record meeting between the embattled AG and the handful of media who showed up for Holder’s propaganda delivery device:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. pledged Thursday to take concrete steps to address concerns that the Justice Department has overreached in its leak investigations and said officials would seek procedural and possibly legislative changes to protect journalists’ First Amendment rights.
Some (for example, those under investigation) might ask why Holder chose to overreach to begin with or why he won’t drop the current overreach.
Instead, Obama-like, Holder is telling the media to watch what he says and to ignore what he’s done. This would seem to make him the doppelganger of John Mitchell who famously said, ”Watch what we do, not what we say.”
So is the corollary that Richard Nixon’s doppelganger is Barack Obama?
The LA Times acknowledges the President has a crisis on his hands. The problem with their assessment is they think it’s a public relations crisis.
Caught up in a public relations crisis, White House officials have drawn open a few curtains, revealing once-secret documents and answering queries that they would ordinarily have dismissed with an eye roll.
But the sharing has been selective and done under duress. It has come in fits and starts to an administration that promised to be the most open in American history.
Many allies of the president think that with this burst of sunshine he has arrested the run of bad news and taken charge of the “narrative.” Even in some Obama-friendly quarters, though, the sharing is seen as too little and too late, and all the more disappointing for the high hopes Obama had set for transparency at the outset of his presidency.
This isn’t a public relations crisis, its an existential moral crisis, of which the Obama Administration is failing miserably. Death by drones, Fast and Furious, the IRS, the AP and Fox hunts (get it?) are not public relations problems; instead, they’re a series of moral failures.
As Dean Wormer might say, “Fat, drunk, stupid, inept, and immoral is no way to go through life, Barry.”
Here it is, fifty-plus years after John F. Kennedy was elected president and the revelations are still dribbling out. Even though the writers of the history books and the readers of the news, the protectors of Kennedy’s fatuous fictions, did their jobs exceedingly well, the truth is a hard thing to wholly suppress. Here are some examples of things we now know about JFK that we didn’t once know: Kennedy was a meth head. Kennedy was a major league perv. Finally, a favorite fallback, that Kennedy prevented World War II and ushered in Civil Rights, has been shown to be a mega myth.
And now, a new revelation: pre-World War II, Kennedy was into Hitler. From the Daily Mail:
‘Fascism?’ wrote the youthful president-to-be in one [letter]. ‘The right thing for Germany.’
In another; ‘What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?’
And on August 21, 1937 – two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out – he wrote: ‘The Germans really are too good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’
And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: ‘The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.’
[Anyone] ‘Who has visited these two places [the German autobahns and Hitler’s holiday home in Berchtesgaden] can easily imagine how Hitler will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that ever lived.’
So per Bill Clinton, as is depends on how you define it, so is the definition of Kennedy’s description of Hitler as an important personality.
And what will the story be on Barack Obama in fifty years, that is, besides his already-failed imperial presidency (for example, his completely dysfunctional big government agenda, his war on the First Amendment, the selective use of the IRS to persecute conservatives, his gun grab desires, the Benghazi debacle, his legislation via regulation, etc.)?
Beyond Obama’s failed record on governance, consider the impact of what might be be revealed in the President’s currently sealed records which include: college admissions forms, SAT/ACT/LSAT results, college transcripts, student writings, selective service forms, medical records, Illinois state senate records, and law client list.
Incredibly, as it regards Barack Obama, we still don’t know all that we don’t know.
It’s entirely possible that in 50 years, Obama will be the guy who makes the Kennedy presidency—despite the drugs, the sex revelations, the Hitler fondness, and the competence problems—look like Camelot by comparison.
Since Spamalot has already been taken, how about calling the era of Obama Scamalot?
Expect most of the traditional media, whether by inclination or inability (or both), to show itself to be incapable of adequately covering the myriad Obama Administration scandals.
Why? As a group, they’ve shown themselves to prefer to bow down to the President rather than to challenge him.
Additionally, one of media’s fundamental advantages, people willing to tell the truth, has been placed at risk by… the Obama Administration. This will be seen in the dwindling number of government whistleblower-type sources available to writers as a result of (for example) the campaign against Fox News correspondent James Rosen and the massive AP wiretaps. (Or restated, we’re in an era of the selective criminalization of almost everything, that is, if those things don’t support the President’s agenda.)
Is Mr. Obama the most paranoid-delusional President since Richard Nixon? No, that’s an insult to Nixon. Instead, Obama’s the most paranoid-delusional President ever. If Mr. Obama had a parenthetical “R” besides his name, the media would be coming after him with pitchforks and blowtorches.
And in related news, George Orwell was a prophet.
What’s causing the desperation? The desperados, of course: why don’t they come to their senses?
This desperation is seen in the response to the depth and breadth of the emerging Obama Administration scandals, which are merely the natural consequence of the President’s ideology and political methods. Like Col. Kurtz, some in the traditional media are starting to wonder if the President’s methods are… unsound.
Based on past practice, it seems unlikely the President’s sycophants and courtiers—that is, his closest advisors—will let him harbor any self-deprecating thoughts, let alone ponder the truth that he, like all of us, to include the rest of the political class, are highly flawed and far-fallen creatures. But just what sort of pap are the President’s more casual scribes, Pharisees, and fanboys pushing?
Emanuel “Leave it to” Cleaver (D-MO) offers the proposal that (contrary to all evidence) the President is doing God’s work and that anyone interested in the truth behind the Administration’s myriad scandals is into… wait for it… racism.
Robert Shrum says, “The animating principle of today’s GOP is relentless animus toward the president.” Crimes and misdemeanors? Scandals? Look, squirrel!
Alec MacGillis thinks none of this can be blamed on big government or bad government, only on… bad laws. (And laws, bad laws included—think Obamacare—come from where, Alec?) Also, as it regards Benghazi, MacGillis feels the government fail was because its power was insufficient (emphasis in original) when it mattered. Such thinking begs the question: just how much should we give to make the Leviathan bigger? They only answer: more.
The normal solution to government fails are calls for more government. In this case, the solution is more basic; an attempt to blame others. No matter how furiously the left may spin the Obama scandals, even America’s most highly (and willfully) ignorant citizens need to deal with the truth, including—especially—those in the White House.
From The New Yorker:
Washington’s scandal machinery, rusty from recent disuse, is cranking back up to speed due to the alleged targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service.
First, the IRS has already fessed up to the alleged targeting. (Unless a public mea culpa no longer counts for anything. Miranda rights or the likes?)
Next, why is the Washington scandal machinery rusty from disuse? It’s because the traditional media has managed to make the myriad scandals of the Obama Administration into non-events. But at the point when a scandal can no longer be ignored, root causes, analysis, and fault-finding are turned on their heads and are instead assigned to the character flaws projected by the media into the conservative mind.
What profound media-fail is next?
In light of this, it might be useful to ask: Did the I.R.S. actually do anything wrong?
No, it’s indeed common knowledge and self-evident that the IRS confessed it’s inappropriate behaviors and released its IG report because no sins were committed and all involved have been absolved. This is not the IRS scandal you’re looking for…
If we have no IRS scandal, why should everyone be so up in arms? Because of the real scandal!
So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way.
Great catch. Criminal acts? Meh. Instead, people should be barred from having free association via 501(c)(4) groups and additionally, surrender their right to freedom of speech. And yet, others might ask, “Why do we even have these arbitrary and restrictive 501(c)(4) rules to begin with?”
We have these rules because government especially likes rules. They can punish their adversaries via rules and reward their followers by ignoring the same.
Finally, even though the Obama Administration is now starting to reap the whirlwind of their actions, none of this can be blamed on the President: after all, the government’s simply too large and far-flung for him to manage such an enterprise.
Given this Administration wants to ever-expand government’s power, the too big to manage thought puts a colorful bow on the left’s Costco-sized package of cognitive dissonance.
Nancy A. Youssef from McClatchy asks ‘Why did the CIA (that is, the Administration) say a protest preceded the Benghazi attack?’
… interviews with U.S. officials and others indicate that they knew nearly immediately that there had been no protest outside the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi before attackers stormed it…
She’s right and goes on to provide multiple examples of the absence of any evidence of protests at Benghazi. So why would all 12 versions of the talking points say the protests were ‘spontaneously inspired’ by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo?
Although Youssef fails to answer her own question, there are some reasonable hypotheses, several of which overlap:
- The traditional media had already blamed the Cairo protest on the Mohammad YouTube video, ergo, the Benghazi attacks could also attributed to the same cause.
- The talking point drafters felt Americans have already been desensitized to “demonstrations” and “protests” in the Arab world, so its inclusion was necessary. You know: Arabs demonstrate all the time. Sometimes things get out of hand.
- The ‘protests” line was overlooked due to more substantive disagreement on purging the references to al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, jihad, terrorism, earlier attacks, and the CIA warnings.
- The ‘protests’ line was included as boilerplate; an attempt to address human curiosity and to vaguely assign causation.
- The talking point drafters couldn’t bring themselves to suggest the Benghazi attack was a naked and preplanned assault undertaken to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.
- The talking point drafters didn’t want to suggest in any way the Arab Spring had been a foreign policy failure which weakened American national security interests.
Linking the Benghazi tragedy to the YouTube video most neatly fit into the left’s existing narrative. Small wonder it was glommed onto by the Obama Administration as an excuse for what happened.
The IRS scandal? Indefensible and disgraceful. Expect a Benghazi-like “accountability review board” to find and try low-level Obamunists who will take the fall. We’ll see contrived media weeping and gnashing of teeth without any call to hold the higher ups accountable. Scapegoat, thy name is mid-level manager.
And on the Benghazi debacle and subsequent cover up? Also indefensible, also disgraceful. However, the true ideologues in the media will not merely avoid the call for the truth or political accountability, but will come to the active defense of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats next best thing. Likely excuses: partisan witch hunt; old news; more denials; lower-level scapegoats; those making accusations are disgruntled; etc.
If Republicans are truly on a partisan witch hunt, they’ve already found their partisan
man witch in Hillary Clinton.
More Clinton fist pounding and hysterics are unlikely to carry the day. Instead, expect a Clinton whisper campaign, surrogate attack dogs, her “unavailability” to testify, and going to ground in the hope voters will forget all this prior to the 2016 election cycle.
And while the presidency is said to be more than any one person can handle, some, like our current seat warmer in chief, have shown themselves to be far less capable than others. Barack Obama is perhaps the only man on earth who can make Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.
Liberals (a word that has lost all meaning and is instead more closely aligned with traditional fascism) are interested in things like homosexual marriage. purging religion from the public square, and silencing their opponents. The left’s doppelganger, the traditional media, is more interested in manufacturing a conservative “civil war” than it is to provide adequate coverage to the gruesome association of abortion with murder, the shameful Benghazi debacle and subsequent cover up, or the IRS targeting disfavored political groups.
“That’s all outrageous,” you say? No, outrageous would be Elton John’s concert outfits, circa 1974-1979. What’s happening on the left and in much of the traditional media is more like… disgraceful. There’s a big difference.
In the meantime, the face of government, President Obama, calls for ever more government: more spending, more taxes, more IRS, more power, more control. Even though Americans have developed a profound distrust in government, in a form of cognitive dissonance, many—including those beyond the mere left and the media—have somehow failed to connect the dots that our nation’s existent and emerging failures correlate to this failed presidency.
What’s happening isn’t a second term curse. Instead, it’s the logical culmination of the Obama ideology. If conservatives are opposed to moronic policies and the impending train-wreck implementations of those policies, is there any shame in that, or should they instead kneel at the altar of “bipartisanship”?
Recall the great thinker who said, “An idiot with initiative is a dangerous thing.”
Even the traditional media smells the fear regarding the cover up behind the Benghazi debacle that resulted in four American deaths. From The New Yorker:
This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single [editing] adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions [the CIA and the State Department] were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now.
Remarkably because there were actually 12 revisions and in the end, substantive concerns, like all reference to terror, had been tossed down the memory hole.
While the media understands that they need at least a fig leaf of credibility, the White House spokesman apparently doesn’t. Ergo Jay Carney’s practice that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth (if told to the right people).
The Administration is out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas on how to proceed on the massive lie foisted on the American public. That means they’ll likely fall back on their standard playbook: muzzle those who might otherwise provide insight, dismiss the story as old news, threaten and/or attack anyone who would pursue the truth as “disgruntled” or “partisan” (the IRS is standing by), and repeat as required.
Finally, it seems Jay Carney has lost his soul, thus joining the “elite” group of “leaders” he serves. The only real question is how long ago did Carney lose it?
Although it’s imprudent to disagree with Victor Davis Hanson, those who say the revelations (that is, the truth) behind the Obama Administration’s Benghazi security debacle may turn the incident into their own private Watergate are simply wrong.
Instead, it’s far more likely that Benghazi will instead become the Obama Administration’s version of Lewinskygate. That is, it will be ignored as long as possible and then, ignored some more. “It’s the YouTube video,” “What difference does it make?!,” “That was a long time ago…”
Why and how can such a thing be shrugged off? It’s the media. Never estimate the ability of the traditional media to disregard a blockbuster story if it portrays one of their idols in a negative light. (More recently, ponder the Kermit Gosnell abortion non-story.)
While it may be true that at some point, Benghazi will simply become too big to ignore, don’t just fall back on platitudes like ‘follow the money.’ Rather, follow the loyalty.
WARNING, IRONY ALERT: On the other hand, is it possible that Benghazi—sometime before the 2016 elections—could turn into Hillary Clinton’s Watergate?
Yes, it’s true. A lie, repeated a thousand times, can become the truth. How so? Just change the definition of “truth.” (See homosexual marriage, or austerity. Human being-wise, “is-master” Bill Clinton comes to mind.)
The lie being repeated today is this: The Economic Argument Is Over — And Paul Krugman Won. How did Krugman win? Because Krugman fanboy Henry Blodget says so. And who is Blodget? He’s a banned for life financial-insider and $4 million disgorgement/fine guy whose bona fides speak for themselves.
What is the Blodget hypothesis?
…”stimulus” spending, economists like Paul Krugman argued, would help reduce unemployment and prop up economic growth until the private sector healed itself and began to spend again.
Yes, we saw how well that worked with the Democrats’ “stimulus,” did we not? And we’re still seeing it in America’s brilliant ongoing economic performance.
Blodget also says a spreadsheet error in has disqualified “austerity” and that we can continue to accumulate debt ad infinitum:
An academic paper that found that a ratio of 90%-debt-to-GDP was a threshold above which countries experienced slow or no economic growth was found to contain an arithmetic calculation error.
Once the error was corrected, the “90% debt-to-GDP threshold” instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs.
Despite Blodget’s assertions—not the same as proofs—reality suggests there are points-of-no return unless the debt accumulator, that is, national governments all around the world, decide to 1) inflate the debt away by making more money or 2) default. And there is, of course, the dread U.S. economic performance where the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.
They say economics is the dismal science. A better description would be that we have economists who are dismal pseudo-scientists. And those pseudo-scientists who can’t keep up with reality choose to write (as do those who are banned for life from the investment industry).
Oh and that “Nobel Prize for Economics” thing? A bit misleading, to say the least.
The author is David Sirota and the title of the article is Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American. Yes, you read that correctly.
As you might expect, Sirota appears to be white and likely, an American. So what do we seem to have here? A garden-variety self-loathing liberal who writes for Salon and hopes that whites—other whites—can be blamed for the Boston Marathon bombing in order to advance his personal political agenda. (The best thing about Salon, back in the day, was that Camille Paglia wrote for it. And they still pleasantly surprise, from time to time.)
But really, whatever happened to being judged on the content of one’s character, whether for good or for evil, rather than the color of one’s skin? Down the memory hole, it would seem.
And even though Sirota goes on to spill a thousand or so words, he fails to present a coherent case as to why we should hope the bomber is a white American, except to assert, sans logic, his favored political/policy outcomes: “Because only in that case will [the bomber’s so-called white] privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.” His “other issues” are stopping war, reducing the defense budget, protecting civil liberties, and immigration legislation. (At minimum, I’m afraid war will be with us, regardless of the bomber’s skin color.)
So as it is, Sirota’s piece is bizarre. Bizarre beyond even what most of his fellow travelers think (or at least, what they’ll admit to).
It seems more likely Sirota hopes the bomber is a pro-gun, anti-abortion Tea Partying male from Texas. Why? That would fit his desired political narrative. Were that to be true, hoping for a merely white perp would then diminish in importance.
Stuart Stevens, writing at the Daily Beast, wins the brilliant article of the day award. Why? For pointing out a massive media fail as it concerns a massive presidential fail, Barack Obama.
Or in other words, the interminable Obama “recovery” has been far worse than the Bush “recession.” (‘Unexpectedly’ as the traditional media might say.)
Today, 21 and a half million Americans are unemployed or underemployed—about twice as many as six years ago…
Work-force participation, a fancy term for the number of Americans either working or looking for work, has dropped to “the lowest level since the [Carter-induced] malaise of the late 1970’s,” an era when far fewer women were working…
More than 16 million Americans have been added to the food stamps rolls since Barack Obama was first elected—a 46 percent increase and greater than the population of Ohio. More than 50 million Americans now live in poverty.
…seven out of the ten wealthiest counties in America are now in the Washington, D.C. area.
Even though Stevens was part of the Romney campaign, facts are pesky things.
Except for the traditional media; then facts can be ignored (provided it benefits the President’s agenda). After all, all writing is autobiographical and all that. Kudos to the Daily Beast for providing Stevens a forum.
(Brilliant image provided by The People’s Cube.)
However, the President’s speaking performances in the last week suggest his staff needs to get him back into his box (or onto a basketball practice court). As it is, rhetorically, Obama is pushing deep into—literally—Biden territory.
Since the traditional media has slept-walked through the last four-plus years and they have the President’s back all they way, they won’t call him on it, but at some point, Dear Media, don’t you get tired of carrying this guy’s bags? Of playing the fool? Of refusing to comment on the fact the emperor has no clothes?
And how does Barry bumble? Let us count the ways:
- He says the Sandy Hook psychopath used full automatic weapons
- He says the California AG is the hottest in the land
- He says “the truth is, our deficits are already shrinking.”
- As an added bonus, his Administration suggests it’s the U.S. Navy’s fault the Norks are in full psychopath mode
Remember ‘smartest president ever’? That’s now as laughable as ‘most transparent administration ever.’ (Or ‘smartest vice-president ever.’)
All this as Michelle Obama goes full-gaffe herself and claims to be a single mom. (Except not too many single moms get $10 million in taxpayer money for their vacations.) While it may be a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll, it apparently isn’t a long trip from FLOTUS to FSMOTUS (pronounced fizz-mote-us).
In the meantime, the President may want to pay more attention to his kill list.
It’s enough to make you long for the plainspoken wisdom of Joe Biden.
Whoops… forgot to set the sarcasm font on that last sentence.
Barack Obama: the President who made Jimmy Carter look like John Wayne on national security; who made Bernie Madoff look like Milton Friedman on the economy; who made Joe Stalin look like… ah, drat! (The similes bag just emptied. Had a hole in the bottom, apparently. Still, the problem is nothing a tasty grant from the National Endowment for the Arts—it’s stimulus!—won’t fix.)
Obama part deux will not end well. Just ask Ron Paul or David Stockman.
The Norko’s have Dear Leader, part deux; America has its one and only Dear Reader.
And Dear Reader has yet to deliver a President’s Budget, the required-by-law document which is intended to serve as a point of departure for the House and the Senate to develop their own budgets, which are then reconciled and signed into law.
Although the Administration hasn’t fulfilled the legal requirement to submit a President’s Budget, here’s Obama demanding an immigration bill (one that would create more Democrat voters) as well as additional gun control legislation (remember… it’s for the children) from the Senate by next month.
(Barry: ever heard of want it bad, get it bad? Or is that the underlying idea, as it was with Obamacare?)
In the meantime, Obama slow-rolls America (and Canada) on literally (not Biden-speak, that is, literally) shovel-ready no-brainers like the Keystone XL pipeline.
And so it seems, Dear Reader’s reactionary liberalism can be compared to a song, something which changes the Shut up and sing imperative into wholly dogmatic—and predictable—territory.
The first verse of reactionary liberalism is, “It’s for your own good.” (That is, you’re too stupid to make your own decisions—homosexuality and abortions excluded—spend your own money, etc.)
The second verse of reactionary liberalism is, “It’s for the children.” (Or it could be the elderly, the teachers, the environment, the cops, the farmers, the firefighters, the military, ad infinitum. That is, liberals arguments lack facts, so they try and build an emotional appeal.)
The third verse of reactionary liberalism is, “Can’t we all just get along?” (That is, liberals want bipartisanship… if it gets them what they want.)
The bridge in the song of reactionary liberalism is, “We just want things to be ‘fair.’” (That is, liberals will determine what’s fair.)
The chorus of reactionary liberalism is, “Do as I say and not as I do.”
With alterations in key, featured instruments and vocalists, timing and tempo, etc., the same basic song can be altered and recycled as often as required.
Leadership by example? From the President, for instance? Meh. That’s for small leaders.
Jonathan Turley, writing at USA Today, looks at some of the similarities between Richard Nixon and Barack Obama. That’s all well and good, but what are some of the differences between the two men?
Nixon aspired to the imperial presidency; Obama has achieved it.
Nixon thought of the press as Muppets who hated him; Obama thinks of the press as Muppets who bow down before him.
Nixon thought the idea of homosexual marriage was an absurd oxymoron; Obama was against it before he was for it.
Nixon practiced wireless surveillance; Obama perfected it.
Nixon had enemies lists; Obama has kill lists.
Nixon’s second term was a catastrophic failure of leadership and ethics; Obama’s first and second terms have been the same.
The idea that President Obama might compare unfavorably to President Nixon should give him and his Administration pause. But it won’t.
The headline from author Frida Ghitis (that’s the name; no typos were invoked in the construction of this sentence) at CNN says this: In Mideast, Obama knocks it out of the park. Her summary:
It was a masterly performance.
What happened? Did Middle East peace bust out suddenly? The lion laid down with the lamb? Iran renounced its nuclear arms program and opened its doors to inspectors? Egypt undid its repressive move towards totalitarianism Islam? Syrian “leaders” and “rebels” quit killing Syrian civilians?
No, Brother Barack gave another speech. Masterly.
Dear Reader had previously hit one out of the park at the 2004 Democrat Convention and we can see where that got us: great for him and poorly for those who want to work, want a free press, need to buy gas, pay taxes, want to keep their guns, are concerned about national security, dislike governmental cover-ups, are compelled to buy health care, don’t want Obama killing Americans by drones, have to repay America’s debt, etc.
Frida fails to grasp there’s saying and there’s doing, and that they aren’t quite the same.