Media Praise Obama For His Wonderfulne

Start Thinking Right ^ | January 27, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

I came across an Associated Press headline that left me racing to the toilet to hurl: Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands

Let me play the first few bars of this article for you, so I can explain what is so profoundly wrong with it:

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

"What an opportunity we have to change this country," the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. "The American people are really counting on us now. Let's make sure we take advantage of it."

I have two reactions. In no particular order: 1) Wow. That Obama. So wonderfully bi-partisan and non-divisive. I hope they come out with an Obama teddy bear so I can hug him all night long. 2) It is truly frightening that a newspaper as large and as important as the Associated Press would print something so blatantly untrue and so nakedly partisan in its presentation.

Let's see a couple of titles that should serve to contradict the paper's thesis that Obama is avoiding partisan political stands:

Barack Obama to end US army's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy towards gays

Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy

Our Socialist Energy Czar

Obama to GOP: 'I Won'

Support for the LGBT Community (Obama's own website detailing his radical plans to advance the political goals of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders, accessed January 25, 2009).

And, of course:

Bush's "War On Terror" Comes To Sudden End (detailing Obama's closure of Gitmo and his dismantling of Bush's successful intelligence/security measures).

Way to avoid those "divisive stands," Barry. With such a reporter as this telling the story, Obama might well be able to chop off the heads of every evangelical Christian in the country and still be "avoiding divisive partisan and ideological stands."

I wonder. Before the author praised Obama for his "avoiding divisive partisan and ideological stands," while simultaneously comparing him favorably to that "unpopular Bush," did she bother to check President Bush's first week to compare/contrast how "divisive", "partisan", or "ideological" Bush actually was in relation to Obama? I mean, doesn't the comparison completely fall apart if it turns out that Bush wasn't any of those things his first week, either?

You've got to love liberals for their constant blatant hypocrisy. At least they're consistent. Here's the game: if you don't submit to their extremely radical liberal ideology, you are "divisive." In fact, if yuo don't think just like us and our golden boy, we'll brand you as "divisive" and then start throwing in other terms such as "partisan" and "ideological" as pile-ons.

[Cyber Liberty]

It’s a sad day when “partisan” has become a pejorative.

[an amused spectator]

Liz Sidoti, who wrote this press release for her Obama White House handlers, also noted that Obama isn't like that Bill Clinton, "who set the tone for an ideological presidency when he tried to overturn the ban on gays in the military. It pleased liberals, enraged conservatives and angered both the military and Congress, neither of which was consulted."

Well, Liz - except for the part where Obama is doing exactly the same thing.

And how come Liz Sidoti didn't notice the partisanship of Obama's man in the Senate, Patrick Leahy, who said about President George W. Bush's Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft:

"I wish the President had sent us a nomination for Attorney General that would unite us instead of divide us. That did not happen. This is a nomination that had controversy written all over it from the moment it was announced, and it should surprise no one that today we find ourselves in the middle of this battle. It was a crucial miscalculation for the President and his advisers to believe this nomination would have brought all of us together. Or perhaps this is one instance where consensus was not the objective."

Now that Obama needs a controversial, divisive Attorney General candidate named Eric Holder sped through the confirmation process, Patrick Leahy's tone is entirely different:

He can "barely disguise his contempt for Republicans who requested the delay [of Holder's nomination]", and contended that a quick confirmation of Holder would represent "a small but important step in answering the nation's call for bipartisanship." - from The Curious Case of Patrick Leahy, by William Tate @ The American Thinker.

[Michael Eden]

It’s a sad day when “partisan” has become a pejorative.

---

Oh, I agree, CL. I most certainly would identify myself as a “partisan.”

The bottom line is this: liberals - who are in fact the MOST partisan - are either deceitfully positioning themselves as “bi-partisan” or more often as presenting THEIR partisan agenda as the only one that is “open-minded.” Which of course is incredibly NARROW-minded of them to do!

I have principles that I won’t budge an inch over. That makes me “partisan” by any reasonable definition. But I get blamed for mine, while liberals get praised for theirs.

[Michael Eden]

Amused,
This is an example of the selective outrage of the left. There is no point in working with them or cooperating with them; they will take what they can get from Republicans, and then stab them in the back the moment they get their hands on something to use as a shiv. And they will do that every single time.