Posts Tagged media
As I said to a like-minded friend today, clicking on the Huffington Post site is like entering a completely different universe. It is not just that the contributors have different opinions; they do not even speak the same language. And when they come across a fact they cannot contort, they just ignore it.
Shortly after my conversation with my friend, I went on “HuffPo” to do some research for another piece I am writing, and of course the page was full of stories about Judge Vinson’s decision on Obamacare. As usual, when the Left doesn’t get what it wants, it gets nastier than a toddler who’s been denied a lollipop—and makes about as much sense. Ethan Rome is no different. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/florida-health-care-decis_b_816567.html
Rome completely ignores the fact that millions of Americans have opposed this law from the beginning. They opposed it while it was being debated, and they opposed it on November 2, when they voted to end the steel grip the Dems had around the throats of the people. The Left, even with their dirty politics, strong-arming tactics and the adoration of the media, lost big that day, and they still cannot get over it. They continually underestimate the intelligence –and misunderstand the core values—of the American people. Rome talks about the Republican politicians bringing this suit, when it was in fact 26 states—over half of the country—that joined the lawsuit against Obamacare. How many people, how many states, have to speak out against something before they are heard? Now, I ask Rome and the rest of his ilk, who is really ignoring the needs of the people?
Rome is so busy bashing Vinson as a “GOP extremist” that he doesn’t even bother to address a crucial part in the judge’s ruling. The entirety of Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because it lacks a severability clause. Vinson was very clear about this in his decision, pointing out that it was a very difficult case to decide because he recognizes that healthcare reform is needed. He would have kept other parts of the law—good and bad—in place, if they could have been severed from the mandate that everyone purchase healthcare. Vinson’s decision was not judicial activism, it was the opposite. Instead of blaming this judge, Rome should blame the lawmakers who churned out 2,000 plus pages of crap but left out that crucial piece.
No one is arguing against healthcare reform; no one is saying that insurance companies should deny people because of pre-existing conditions. But millions are saying that it can be done another way, and the Left doesn’t want to hear that.
When I first saw the Time cover depicting then President-elect Obama as the second coming of FDR, my immediate reaction –nausea—was based on the unabashed and absolute adoration that the mainstream media had been heaping on him throughout the campaign. As I thought about it, however, my disgust deepened with the realization at how very clever the spin was–it went much deeper than the top hat, sharp suit and classic convertible. It was Time’s capitalization on the fact that so many Americans are misinformed about FDR and his role in the end of the Great Depression. His domestic policies in that dire situation helped ease some of the pain, but it was America’s participation in WWII that pulled us back from the precipice and heralded in a golden age. For the War, as horrifying as it was, put Americans back to work; the urgency created by a very real threat of world domination by the Nazis brought out the best in American innovation and transformed the U.S. into a global super power in just four years. But many Americans don’t know this; they associate FDR, not with his socialist leanings, but with his charisma and beautifully eloquent wartime speeches that accompanied America’s return to prosperity and victory. And Time capitalized on this ignorance to keep Obama on the pedestal.
I truly believe that Barack Obama would not have been elected had the American voter paid more attention to the implications of what he was saying (and not saying) on the campaign trail, and less attention to the sycophantic “journalists” who abandoned the last shred of impartiality to push their progressive agenda. That was the landscape that made us ripe for that 2008 issue of Time. Now, two years later, the bloom is off the rose and even the media was not able to save Obama from a well-deserved shellacking. But the spin doctors have already come up with an even more nauseating response. They are now comparing Obama to his ideological (and highly successful) antithesis: Ronald Reagan. And there is evidence that many people are swallowing this bunk. http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/time-traveling-lib-mag-transforms-obama-from-socialist-fdr-to-conservative-reagan/
And the bunk has gone global. The Council on Foreign Affairs newsletter has published an article entitled The Gorbachev Predicament, in which its author, University of Amsterdam professor Artemy Kalinovsky, compares the leadership style of Barack Obama with that of Mikhail Gorbachev. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/node/67183?cid=nlc-this_week_on_foreignaffairscom-012011-untitled-012011 The two men, he writes, are “conciliatory by nature”. Obama, conciliatory? Until a few months ago, he was focused only on ramming his progressive agenda down everyone’s throat. It was only after he saw his chances for a second term going up in smoke that he showed any willingness to compromise.
But that aside, one might ask how Kalinovsky compares Obama and Gorbachev without drawing parallels between this country and the U.S.S.R. Answer: he doesn’t. “Both Obama and Gorbachev came to power because there was a broad domestic consensus for change, and their initial appeal was based in part on their ability to attract support across the political spectrum.” A broad domestic consensus for change? He is comparing a socialist totalitarian society that had kept people in shackles (ideologically, physically, and financially) for generations, with Americans who were sick of President Bush (whose unpopularity, I might add, had much to do with eight years of negative press by the same media mentioned above). The people of the U.S.S.R. knew what change they wanted: freedom; Americans didn’t know what they wanted, and so they fell for the nebulous “Change You Can Believe In.”
At the end of the article, Kalinovsky grudgingly acknowledges that “Even with all its problems, the U.S. today is not the Soviet Union of 1987.” Really? Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps he should be telling that to his leftist friends, because if they had their way we would soon be waiting in line for toilet paper.
And if I get any more nauseous, I’m going to need a compazine.
“I’d rather be a really good one-term president,” Barack Obama once said in an interview with Diane Sawyer, “than a mediocre two-term president.” Well, those words are now coming back to haunt him in the form of a Washington Post Op-Ed.
Post contributors Douglas E. Shoen and Patrick H. Cadell (Democrats who worked for Presidents Carter and Clinton, respectively) have called on President Obama to announce “immediately” that he will not be running for re-election in 2010.
Citing Obama’s floundering on how he wants to govern and the “shellacking” the president and his cronies took in the midterm elections, Shoen and Cadell write that the only way Obama can make good on his campaign promises to end bipartisanship and bring real “change” to Washington is to put the country’s future above his own political and personal gain. It’s a novel idea for most politicians, let alone one who was once touted as a modern-day Messiah, and Schoen and Cadell make an excellent case for it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html?sid=ST2010111203190 Of course, others could make an even better case for him resigning now, but that another story.
In the meantime, commentators across the pond are weighing on the “symbiotic” relationship between Obama and George W. Bush. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8131268/The-Decider-returns-to-haunt-Mr-Nuance-as-George-W.-Bush-eclipses-Barack-Obama.html “There could have been no Obama without Bush,” Toby Harnden argues in the Telegraph” and only Obama’s stumbles could have made Bush look good again so quickly.” The implications of Harnden’s statement are huge, that in effect Obama was never all that great and that he was propelled to stardom, not due to his own merits, but to the shortcomings of someone else. Indeed, much of Obama’s shortcomings (his lack of experience, his socialist leanings, to name a few) were overlooked because so many people wanted someone other than Bush. Of course, a big part of both the global hatred of Bush and adoration of Obama was the result of media spin, so it’s sweet irony that now that same media is turning the tables.