Saturday, June 13, 2009
Where's the liberal media outrage?
Obama continues the war in Iraq and is ramping up efforts in Afghanistan. He is continuing to allow some rendition policies. He decided that some of the Gitmo detainees could continue to be held without being charged, and could be tried in military tribunals - the very same tribunals he vehemently denounced previously. An overwhelmingly Democratic Congress votes overwhelmingly to keep Gitmo open. Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002.
Oil and gas prices are significantly on the rise again. N. Korea just tested its most powerful nuclear weapon ever and is gearing up for a 3rd test. They just threatened to weaponize plutonium. They, along with Iran, continue to test short- and long-range missiles. Ahmadinejad overwhelmingly gets re-elected.
And now, we learn that some privacy may have to be sacrificed to implement Obama's cybersecurity plan.
In many cases, I wholeheartedly support these policy decisions and for our safety am thankful that he is continuing policies first enacted by Bush.
But my question is, where's the liberal outrage? Where is the MSM, who were all too eager to jump all over Bush for these very same policies? Why was there such vicious name-calling and false outrage and accusations when Bush and Cheney did things, yet none of that when Obama does the exact same thing?
Oil and gas prices are significantly on the rise again. N. Korea just tested its most powerful nuclear weapon ever and is gearing up for a 3rd test. They just threatened to weaponize plutonium. They, along with Iran, continue to test short- and long-range missiles. Ahmadinejad overwhelmingly gets re-elected.
And now, we learn that some privacy may have to be sacrificed to implement Obama's cybersecurity plan.
In many cases, I wholeheartedly support these policy decisions and for our safety am thankful that he is continuing policies first enacted by Bush.
But my question is, where's the liberal outrage? Where is the MSM, who were all too eager to jump all over Bush for these very same policies? Why was there such vicious name-calling and false outrage and accusations when Bush and Cheney did things, yet none of that when Obama does the exact same thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(304)
-
▼
June
(25)
- Just for you Fredo
- F You Al Franken
- Fox News
- Karen Williams got it done
- Mitt on CSpan3
- Revised GOP power ranking for '12
- Iran
- Question of the Day
- Quote of the Day
- Sanford was having an affair--resigns as chair of ...
- A Different Look at the Gun Debate
- Gotta love Gov. Sanford
- That's about right
- I'm so proud to be from Long Island
- Guess it's gender day at Occ Obs
- A sensible guide for married women
- Bill Kristol with an interesting plea
- Elections
- A question to my contributing colleagues:
- "White House monitoring ‘reports of irregularities...
- Where's the liberal media outrage?
- A Break from the Seriousness
- I am tremendously confused
- Dan Janison, I find your reporting unsatisfying
- The Obama-Media Love Affair
-
▼
June
(25)
2 comments:
Good points, all. I think there are several different ways to look at what is, on its face, rank hypocrisy by the MSM.
Viewpoint #1: They're biding their time. I think some folks really believe that O needs more time to work his magic. The policy changes that have been implemented (like releasing Gitmo prisoners, potentially inside the USA), are seen as steps in the right direction, and more could be coming.
If there's one thing the press hates more than Bush, it's when they're exposed for being wrong. They're not going to jump whole-hog off the Obama bandwagon before everyone can see the wheels are coming off. The MSM is usually a lagging indicator.
Viewpoint 2: The MSM reflects the average American news consumer. As a result, policy is not really that important to them. Appearance and "tone" are.
We've all seen plenty of examples of this already. Bush: we are not at war with Islam. Obama: we are not at war with Islam. MSM: Thank goodness Obama brought change to our foreign policy!!
Obama sends tingles up and down Matthews' leg, and probably does the same for much of the left including the MSM. Is this because of his substance? Partially. But even when he flat renegs on campaign promises (e.g., out of Iraq in 18 months), the left doesn't get annoyed, because he says it so well.
Viewpoint 3: The MSM is knowingly participating in a propaganda mission, holding Obama to a completely different standard than Bush, other Republicans, and even other Democrats. The reason for them doing so is part ideology, part demographics, and part biographical.
At the end of the day, I think all 3 of these viewpoints are being acted upon simultaneously, but #3 is the least prevalent. The MSM's pride will ensure that if a global crisis ensues (e.g., Iran attacks Israel, regional conflict breaks out, America is revealed as a paper tiger, fundamentalists achieve a safe haven in which to plan further terrorist attacks), they will still call Obama out. But it won't happen until it is revealed for all to see that his foreign policy has failed. Unfortunately for us, it usually takes a lot longer than one election cycle for the seeds of defeat and malaise--currently being sown--to come to the surface and be seen for what they are.
BTW, I focus on foreign policy because the cause-effect cycle moves much more quickly.
I am absolutely concerned that Obama is signaling to enemies of our nation and our allies that we will stand down in the face of intimidation. But that said, I'm still less convinced that their will be dire results from his foreign policy than I am from his economic policy.
While I'm more convinced that his economic legacy will not be good (his only shot is he decides to triangulate, a la Clinton, and tries to coop the policies of his rivals in order to own the center: e.g., embracing free trade and deregulation, and being cautious with regards to tax increases. I've seen little evidence of O going in this direction), I am equally unsure that it will be clear to the American voter what the impact of his economic policies will be. It wasn't until the surge of growth in the '80's that the Great Society was revealed for what it was. And might take 20 years to expose Obamanomics as well. The only problem is, in the meantime, the left will have permanently grown the size of the federal bureaucracy and the tax burden it lays on every citizen.