Columnist.
Can you imagine the outrage that would have ensued had former President George W. Bush declared off-limits those media outlets he thought (correctly) treated him unfairly? Heck, the left declared him a dictator simply because he led a war on Iraq that Congress approved. He never tried to shut down his critics. He rarely even objected to their abuse. But liberal politicians have been spoiled with mainstream media favoritism for so long that they believe anything other than sycophancy is mistreatment. Their selective outrage is as hollow as it is risible.
Is there no problem Obama and his mesmerized Democrats think cannot be solved with money -- other people's money? Just when you think you've heard it all, more news stories about this bunch surface to shock you. The Sunday Times reports that the administration is considering a novel approach to the war in Afghanistan: outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms.
CNN "senior political analyst" Gloria Borger doesn't get it. Like so many cloistered mainstream media liberals, she just can't imagine why anyone would oppose Barack Obama's agenda. To her, it's all politics. Where was Borger when Democrats, purely for partisan purposes, pummeled President George W. Bush for eight years? But let's stay focused on the present, because Republican opposition isn't about paybacks or getting even. Borger argues that "Republicans don't really want to work with Obama" because they stand to regain congressional control simply by opposing his agenda without offering any ideas of their own.
I continue to be amazed at the naiveté of people who keep giving President Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt concerning his radical appointments, saying his administration isn't doing its job in vetting the appointees. When will they wake up to the reality that Obama is deliberately picking people, such as Kevin Jennings, who share his radical values? When prescient commentators were warning of Obama's radical friends and colleagues, such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, during the campaign, his apologists diverted proper scrutiny, saying it's absurd to judge Obama by association. Even flawed clichés can work wonders when you have the entire mainstream media flacking for you.
The signature of Obama's (uppercase "D") Democrats is their systematic betrayal of (small "d") democratic principles. Just look at today's news for a flavor of their pattern of flagrantly ignoring the popular will to cram down our throats policies we clearly reject. As much as Obama pretends to be a man of the people, he is a man for himself -- a man who will get his way, the will of the people be damned. The same is true of many of his congressional lieutenants, including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who recently said that Congress will pass Obamacare despite the public's objections, because it is so important. Important to whom? To Democrats -- that's who.
Polite conservatives grow nervous when their less inhibited brethren suggest that President Barack Obama does not feel warm and fuzzy when contemplating pre-Obama-inauguration America. But considering the mounting evidence, the burden of proof has certainly shifted to the polite group to demonstrate otherwise. Obama should not get off the hook in just one short news cycle for the shots he took at this nation in his shameful first speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In his opening salvo, he said, "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." Then he proceeded to tick off those "concrete actions," such as prohibiting torture -- as if to suggest that prior to his ascension, it had been official U.S. policy.
Sen. Jim DeMint predicted that Obamacare would be President Barack Obama's Waterloo. While that's certainly a strong possibility, Obama has other Waterloos in the wings competing for the prize, such as his monstrous deficits and his disastrous foreign policy. The Heritage Foundation reports that Obama's budget would produce $13 trillion in deficits over the next decade, even more than the outrageous $9 trillion previously projected. This is nation-shattering stuff, folks, and Obama and his minions remain unflappable, intent on staying the bankrupting course, sporting Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?" expressions. The fact that we know they can't be that oblivious is what makes us wonder whether something more sinister lurks in their motives. But Obama's foreign policy is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous. Because he has lived in a relatively cloistered political world -- surrounded and shielded by mostly fellow leftist radicals -- he apparently doesn't realize just how repugnant his appeasement policies and mantralike derision of this nation are to most Americans.
While I couldn't bring myself to watch President Barack Obama's 1,000th-1,004th health care propaganda spiels on the Sunday shows, I did read some transcripts and watch a few video highlights. What is it about this guy's personality that compels him to keep beating his head against the wall? Why does he keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? The more Obama stumps for socialized medicine the less popular it becomes. Yet Obama keeps going back to the well, apparently believing that if he just explains it one more time -- or maybe 10 more times -- to the ignorant masses, his wards will finally come around to his way of thinking. On the one hand, it seems that Obama truly believes that the majority of people are as sick as he is of America and reject many of its founding principles. After all, during his formative years and beyond, he was always surrounded by those -- family and mentors -- who had bones to pick with America and its "exploitive" capitalistic economy. To say that most of his role models were outright Marxists is hardly inflammatory hyperbole.
I'm sure New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former President Jimmy Carter derive a great deal of self-satisfaction slandering other people with false charges of racism, but the damage they're doing to race relations is worse than any bona fide racist could dream of doing. I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness? Could those always pointing the accusatory finger be projecting their own discomfort with race? Listen to how Maureen begins her snarky Sept. 12 column, in which she posited that Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst was driven by racism. She writes: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys -- a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
Memo to the Democratic leadership threatening to censure Rep. Joe Wilson if he doesn't publicly apologize on the House floor for calling President Barack Obama a liar on that floor: You don't have the moral authority to be demanding apologies. Not only has their own decorum in that very chamber been abysmal at times, such as when they booed President George W. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address; they do much worse damage every week to this nation and its institutions than Joe Wilson conceivably could have done with his temporary breach of decorum. While Democratic leaders are wagging their fingers at the Republican Party's alleged descent into incivility over Joe Wilson's unplanned, indignant outburst, they have a very short memory about their own partywide monopoly on incivility, as they savaged President Bush throughout his presidency. I researched and wrote a 400-plus-page book documenting the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of these hypocritical scolds in 2006, in case you need a refresher course.
Can someone explain to me how President Barack Obama's grandiose scheme destined to reduce the quality of the best health care system in the history of the world, force millions of people who choose not to purchase health insurance to purchase it, greatly increase medical costs, our deficits and national debt, ultimately reduce patient choice, and place health care decisions in the hands of heartless bureaucrats is somehow a demonstration of compassion? Why, in the course of his countless speeches on health care, has Obama rarely, if ever, praised American health care, which is the envy of the entire world? Perhaps for the same reason he doesn't praise America about much of anything, I suppose. If he's not trashing us, he's not talking about us.
With the resignation of green czar Van Jones despite their efforts to protect him, the mainstream media have finally been reduced to sputtering incoherence, as they've observed the un-deification of their anointed messiah and experienced firsthand their own diminishing relevance. The MSM are engaging in a colossal temper tantrum over their lost news monopoly -- a monopoly they forfeited through their bias, arrogance and self-imposed insulation. (Consider Rathergate and their shameless effort to "Swift boat" the Swift boaters, to name a few.) This is an especially hard pill for them to swallow considering that during the past year, they've been stewing in the intoxicating delusion that they were again supreme, as they appeared to be getting away with their conspiratorial enthroning of King Barack Obama. And they're not handling rejection well.
The key to stopping Obama's far-left agenda is to understand where his heart is. If politicians let their guard down and compromise, the Obama steamroller will regain its momentum and forge ahead to gobble up our individual liberties. Obama's heart is and always has been on the farthest reaches of the left wing of politics. His driving ambition is to force fundamental change on America. That should go without saying, but it must be repeated -- and repeated -- lest people's forgiving spirits and short memories generate just enough complacency to allow Obama to get back on track. It is remarkable that Obama has lost public favor so quickly. But the other side of that coin is that he is receiving a wake-up call early enough in his first term to allow him to recover well in time for the crucial 2010 elections.
