Obama and His Enemies September 30, 2010
Rolling Stone has become quite the force in political journalism. First there were the magazine's revelations about Stanley <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236> McChrystal [1], which ended up costing the general his job. Now Obama has decided to use an interview with editor and founder Jann Wenner as a vehicle for administering <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395> a tongue-lashing [2] to his base. Here's the scolding: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. No doubt Obama sees himself akin to a coach at halftime when the team is down in the score, talking tough to the players to motivate them. But he is not a coach; he is actually the star player. And voters are not team members, they are observers who don't like what they see. But don't take my word for it; listen to some <http://pajamasmedia.com";> voices [3] on the left, including David <http://pajamasmedia.com"http:/news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/28/has-the-white -house-lost-their-minds/"> Dayen [4], who writes: .I've never seen a politician run an election with the message "Don't be stupid, quit your bitching and vote for me.". There's a reason that strategy has never been employed: because it's so insane to think that open berating would inspire a voter to action. What's more, Obama's comments were an unforced error. He was not responding to anything Wenner was asking. Obama's remarks were thrown in after the end of the interview, when he had already left the Oval Office and then felt inexplicably inspired to return to add them. It's a bit like the last ski run of the day, when a person is tired and likely to fall and really should go back to the lodge, but instead decides to take "just one more." It can lead to disaster. Most of Wenner's questions were set-ups, of the type Obama has grown accustomed to for most of his public life: "When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?" "How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there's this really destructive attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you?" If a succession of softball questions like that are the sort of grilling Obama has come to expect from a free press, it might explain the depth of his antipathy to Fox News, and his inability to resist the opportunity to bash it - an opportunity that Wenner afforded him when he asked Obama: "What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's a good institution for America and for democracy?" In a way, the question was an easy one. And had Obama stuck to the first sentence of his answer - "Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press" - he probably would have scored points on all sides. Instead, Obama accused Fox of being a regrettable, destructive case of opinion journalism, a departure from an unspecified and narrow time when journalism had its objective "golden age": The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition - it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful. Never mind that Obama can't say when this golden age was, and who its practitioners might have been. Never mind that he ignores the blatant liberal bias in an outlet such as MSNBC, which no doubt he thinks is constructive for America. And never mind that the <http://pajamasmedia.com";> prevailing opinion in public polls [3] is that the media is biased in the liberal direction (see also this <http://pajamasmedia.com";> [3]). The quote about Fox is notable for another characteristic Obama attitude: his disdain for the profit motive and capitalism. No doubt Murdoch is concerned with Fox's success. But is this some anomaly, some exception to the rule in broadcasting? Of course not. Has Obama never heard of ratings and the keen competition for them? Obama not only posits a golden age of journalistic objectivity, but an imaginary one of network self-sacrifice and lack of concern with its viewership or the profit motive. It's not at all unusual for presidents to have difficulties with the press. What is unusual is for a president to take on a single news outlet, accuse it of bias, and ignore the opposite bias in most of the other outlets, pretending that the news business itself has no generally capitalist aspect, and that the station that cares about its success is the mercenary exception rather than the rule. This is part of Obama's tendency to personalize the attack against those he sees as his media enemies, in the past criticizing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity by name rather than ignoring them. Richard Nixon had his enemies list <http://pajamasmedia.com";> [3], which included members of the liberal press. But he knew better than to publicize who was on it. Nixon left the media-bashing to his attack-dog vice president, Spiro Agnew. Even then, the public criticism was ordinarily kept both general and even somewhat humorous, such as calling the press <http://pajamasmedia.com";> [3] "nattering nabobs of negativism" in a speech to the California Republican state convention in 1970, for example. It is of special interest that Agnew's speechwriter for the occasion, and the originator of the phrase, was none other than an opinion journalist himself, and one who wrote for the New York Times, no less: conservative <http://pajamasmedia.com";> columnist [3] William Safire. At this point, Obama would do well to hire a speechwriter with as light and deft a touch - and to stick to the script. _____ Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-his-enemies/ URLs in this post: [1] about Stanley McChrystal: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 [2] administering a tongue-lashing: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395 [3] some voices: http://pajamasmedia.com"; [4] David Dayen: http://pajamasmedia.com <http://pajamasmedia.com"http:/news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/28/has-the-white -house-lost-their-minds/> "http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/28/has-the-white-house-lost-their-minds / COMMENTS: Obama is a typical socialist liberal who can tolerate anything except anyone disagreeing with them. What a thin-skinned coward Obama is. He has the entire main stream media licking his shoes and he moans and groans because only FOX News, conservative radio, and a handful of conservative bloggers are against him. What a child. And, since he can't defend his pathetic record, he has to find a scapegoat, someone to blame for his sinking poll numbers and terrible image. Forget about the fact that he rammed through Obamacare even though over 60% of the nation didn't want it. Forget about the fact that the country didn't want him to bailout GM and Chrysler. Forget about the fact that he passed an $800 billion "stimulus" that stimulated nothing. Forget about the fact that his annual budgets had enough Democratic pork in them to keep a pig farm going for years. Forget about his inept handling of the oil spill crisis. Forget about suing Arizona for a law his administration should be inforcing. Forget that he treats our allies, especially Israel, like enemies and our enemies like allies. Forget about the fact that he botched dealing with the Iranians and now they're about to have a nuclear bomb. Nope, all of this does NOT matter, you see. It's all FOX News' fault why he's the worst president since Carter. What a pathetic man/boy this guy is. Hopefully, November will be the beginning of the end to this national tragedy. The psychological damage inflicted on Obama in childhood - a promiscuous mother, an absent father who in any event was a Marxist and a drunk, the grandfather who surrendered him to the tutelage of another Marxist who happened to be a pedophile - are beginning to surface. The brittleness, the pouting, the contempt for those who oppose him. After that hard start, conditions were reversed for him. A society anxious to make amends for racial grievance provided private schooling, overlooked his indifferent grades to push him to ever higher levels in academe, culminating in Harvard Law. But he was never forced to work hard or accomplish anything apart from speechifying. He was the trophy of a liberal society, the smiling multicultural product risen in triumph to the top. But then the hard work began when he reached the White House and the free pass was revoked. By then he had become a malignant narcissist unable to brook criticism; only continuing adulation would do. He's rather like Hugo and Fidel in that regard. Is there any doubt Obama would like to make four or six hour speeches if the culture was more submissive? He wants to make America ashamed of itself, as ashamed of the country as the hard left is; the hard left that can never heap more insults and abuse on us for our wicked past and our unwillingness to shower our wealth on the Third World "because it's the right thing to do, guys." Doesn't anyone listen to this man ? If so how is it that they don't get the message he sends ? Obama has never made a secret that he believes,truly believes, himself to be the "Messiah",the "Saviour", perhaps not quite the correct cognomen given questions of religious adherence or origins,that IF ONLY the world will recognise him as such, all shall be well and the Millenium shall have arrived. Guess believing Obama a moderate whose promise of CHANGE was HOPE-ful was mistaken. That it was no more than the hymn of his co-religionists of "Obama Uber Alles". He had had his triumpant tour through the socialist stronghold of Europe with adulatory crowds and officials reverently photographed by the "court" media as had been the Nuremburg Rallles by the court photographer Leni Riefenstahl. (the first of the rock - star treatments of favourites?). With his brownshirts in establishment US media and universities beating his drum and blowing his trumpet as "saviour" (fuehrer ?) All very odd for a person who was merely the CANDIDATE for the US Presidency. EVEN BEFORE the Republican Party had chosen their candidate. After which choice, especially that for Vice-President,"panicked" the hierarchy of the "Democratic Party". Following which a horror-struck news of the "economic meltdown" and need to nationalise the banks, to "save the banking system". Assuring the "election" of this "favourite" by a panicked population . I thought "liberals" were intelligent, subtle, understood multi-cultural and historical reference in all languages. Could read signs and symbols, GET THE MESSAGE, AND understand that there are still many in this country who are NOT their co-religionists. Guess believing Obama moderate whose promise of CHANGE was wrong. And the "election" of 2008 was just another Munich Putsch. This excellent article affirmed what we already knew, which is that this president is very, very peculiar, and far more eccentric than any other previous occupant of the White House, so much so that one might suspect that he is nuttier than a fruit cake, and NOT in an acceptable way that can be tolerated or dismissed as merely unusual. I've come to believe that he is a madman, who is so insane that he is certifiable. But then, to be charitable, maybe he just isn't up to the task, and the pressures of the job are too much for that empty suit to handle. In any case, he is WAY out of his depthy; an academic who doesn't have ANY leadership or executive or managerial skills whatsoever. But that's old news, isn't it? An afterthought: In view of what appears to be President Obama's, um, shall we say friendliness with the staff of that liberal publication, Rolling Stone, has anyone considered the possibility that he used them to viciously and ruthlessly and treacherously set-up and to bring down General McChrystal for spiteful and vindictive reasons? We already know that Obama is a sneaky weasel. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
