Don't worry, this isn't another fawning report about how great the President has done during his first 100 days in office. Instead, its me figuratively "shaking my head" in disbelief at how many over-blown puff pieces have been written on the topic. Most incredible of all is the fact that Obama actually held a press conference and rally to commemorate and analyze his 100 day performance.
The Democrat & Chronicle issued yet another flattering editorial about Mr. Obama today. There is nothing about the President that Jim Lawrence doesn't like. He is even amazed at Obama's ability to handle "softball questions".
Even more amazing was the AP report which exclaimed that Obama remains popular despite the many problems he is facing. The report cites the fact that 48% of Americans think the country is on the right track. If George Bush was still President, that would be proof that a majority of Americans can't stand our government.
Obama can keep campaigning and the media can keep on spinning. Soon however, the bill for the left-wing policies Obama is foisting on the country will come due. When that happens, Jim Lawrence and the rest of Obama's media cheer-leaders, will have a really hard time explaining that bill away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Johnny Di, you know I was a HUGE Hillary supporter, but even I am impressed with this president. Yes, I do think the media writes puff pieces. To be frank, I have lost all respect for the profession formerly known as journalism. There are no more Walter Cronkites, just a bunch of pretty people concerned about filling up news time with narrative and little facts to back it up. But media puff pieces cut both ways, John. The media bought hook, line and sinker the swill coming from the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraq war and was a huge contributing factor in garnering public support (myself included) for a war that had no business being started.
Meanwhile, puff or no puff, promise me you will not spend the next 4 years minus 100 days whining and uttering Republican talking points in lock step with the Party of No. Surely, this new president has done something to deserve your praise. One thing? One teeny, weeny thing?
I can think of one thing…lets see, is it the leaking of CIA practices, no…perhaps it’s the thought that our President believes that there is no circumstance under which he could bring himself to authorize water boarding, no not that one…closing out the Washington school voucher plan, no that can’t be it…maybe it was the thought that he was going to be that guy who tried not to be a partisan, rather a man of issues not party line, no I’m sure that’s not it! Okay, he did increase the troop strength in Afghanistan, but I’m not sure he means it…I hope David Axelrod likes the plan maybe we’ll defeat our enemy’s yet. Oh that’s right, we don’t have any enemies anymore, and everyone loves us now…I can’t wait to see Mahmoud and Hugo visiting Camp David this summer.
Anonymous,
I'd say sarcasm doesn't become you, but I don't know you.
Like this President, I believe water boarding is torture and I am horrified by the notion that any world leader would ask lawyers to prepare legal memos justifying torture and then knowingly use the memos as a shield to authorize such methods against our enemies. Torture has been proven an unreliable method of gaining information and it endangers our own soldiers and CIA operatives.
That said, like the majority of Americans, I don't want an investigation or prosecutions. In large part because the past administration left such a mess that anything that distracts Congress from more important issues (such as job creation, health care, energy and yes Afghanistan) is not advisable at this time.
One last thought, why is it that the biggest proponents of war and macho might are usually folks who never served and would never voluntary agree to be water boarded to demonstrate that such tactics are not torture.
It is easy to sit behind a desk and pontificate. In fact its as easy as writing on a blog anonymously.
Signed,
Paula Rubin
Rubes:
I have to say that Obama has been able to get away with a lot because the media just does not allow negative stories to get out.
The strong-arming of the banks and Chrysler creditors would have been met with media howls if Bush did it. But Obama gets to say one thing and do another because the media is in bed with him.
Johnny Di,
You are so predictable. Now you are back to the "its the liberal media." Oh PULEEZE...this is the same media that followed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield lock, stock and faulty inteligence into Iraq. (I won't bring up the litanty of examples of media/journalistic neglect starting with FISA, Valerie Plame, Torture, Enron, Energy Commissions...you get the drift.)
My point is that the media has been asleep at the wheel for years. You weren't complaining when they let Bush get away with murder.
Oh and one more thing: SHAME ON YOU for suggesting Obama strong armed the banks and Chrysler....this whole mess and the bailouts started with, and was engineered, by George Bush and Hank (no accountability, no questions asked) Paulson.
I love how Republicans talk about run away spending when it was your party who, while it controled the White House AND Congress, was spending like there was no tomorrow.
Would you feel better if Obama just took things out of the budget (Like Bush did with the war) to make the budget "look" rosier than it is?
Having said all that, I still love you, you big, giant bear.
Rubes
Rubes:
I agree whole-heartedly that Bush and Paulson started the bail-out ball rolling. He caved in on these issues because he was worried about his legacy (what a legacy)!
But I think its funny that you like so many liberals excuse Obama's squandering of Trillions because Bush and the GOP squandered hundreds of Billions. The Dems have controlled Congress and set the budget since 2006. Obama and the unrestrained Democrat Congress have spent more this quarter than Bush did in his whole Presidency.
Moreover, you are not seriously contending that Obama is acting as a neutral in the bank bailouts or the Chrysler B/K, are you? It is quite clear that Obama and the Democrats are using their power to transfer wealth to their constituencies. Its traditional power politics. We have just never seen it so brazenly or openly played.
Finally, you can give me any amount of bull that the media layed down for Bush. The simple fact is that Obama is the media's main man. They will simply not say a bad word about him. No previous politician of any stripe has ever had such a supine media. The lack of an objective mainstream media is one of the biggest problems the country faces.
Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...
There's so much in your last blog, where do I begin?
How about this: instead of throwing so much at the wall to see what sticks, pick one thing and back it up with more than bald assertions. Bald assertions are what neocons use when the facts don't support their position.
Let's start with this. While YOU may think I am a liberal, liberals don't see me as one of their own.
Nevertheless, I no longer will recoil when you resort to ad hominem attacks (another tacit admission of defeat). Assuming, as I am, that you think Liberal is a bad name, call me names. It changes nothing.
Unlike you, I don't think we are squandering money under this president. Squandering money is what Bush did in Iraq...so much for oil paying for the war.
Polls show that the majority of Americans believe we need bigger government for the time being because we face bigger problems today than we did on January 20, 2001.
The fact is Republicans and Democrats don't disagree on spending money, they just disagree on what to spend it on. I happen to believe the stimulous bill proposed by Obama has a better chance of turning the economy around than anything the Republicans have put forth. Of course, I am a tad fuzzy on what programs or ideas the Republicans have put forth lately. Their proposed budget was 16 pages long and didn't have a single number (as in numerical value) in it. Such gall! The nerve! The "audacity of nope!"
Your statement that Obama and the Democrats are seeking to transfer wealth to their constituencies is puzzling. What constituencies would that be? The top 1 percent of the American people? Or the rest of us?
I think we'd both agree that the party in power is going to redistribute wealth to their constituencies. The difference is the constituencies. And, in this case I think that more people --more in number, in socio-economic, racial and cultural diversity -- will benefit under this president than benefited during the Bush years. In fact, the last 8 years saw the greatest redistribution of wealth to those already wealthy and the largest divide between the very rich and the very poor in this nation's history. Surely, you are not pining for a continuation of that.
Look, I don't know if this stimulus package is going to work, but I like where things seem to be going just now. My retirement is cautiously inching back up.
I guess I am saying enough with ideology. Give me specifics.
Hugs and kisses.
Rubes
Post a Comment