Gay Patriot Header Image

MSM Efforts to Deify Obama,
Or, How Our Media Culture Contributes to Republican Difficulties

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:00 pm - June 17, 2009.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

Of all John McCain’s mistakes in the 2008 general election campaign, perhaps the greatest was his initial assumption that his decades-long efforts to curry favor with the mainstream media would mean less biased coverage that they had traditionally afforded to Republican presidential nominees. If our party is ever to win back the White House and rebuild our majorities, while reaching out to the under-30 crowd who voted so overwhelmingly Democratic in the most recent election cycles, we have to confront the reality of media bias.

With ABC set to broadcast from inside the White House next week to promote the President’s health care plan, that bias has become increasingly clear.

And yet when asked about the absence of media criticism of his policies, the President harped on one, just one network that criticizes him:

I’ve got one television station [FoxNews] that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration . . . . Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone and you’d be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.

If he had bothered to watch FoxNews, he’d know that the network regularly includes Democrats (and their allies) defending his policies.  Funny that W never complained about MSNBC — its entire agenda was attacking his Administration.

Mary Katharine Ham took the President to task for dismissing the notion that the press has given him a free pass:

He called the idea that he’s gotten an easy ride from the press “very hard to swallow.” Delusional and totally graceless for a man who’s gotten the journalistic tongue bath he’s received from so many outlets (with the notable exceptions of a few in the White House press pool, who are great to watch).

Read the whole thing!  As she puts it, citing Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas, they’ve moved from seeing their job when Bush was in the White House as bashing the President to, now that their chosen Democrat is in charge, deifying the Chief Executive .

With the rise of the blogs, one would hope they would consider the opinions of a greater variety of bloggers of all political stripes, but instead, they are taking their cues increasingly from left-wing web-sites:

How many MSM reporters (Associated Press, NY Times, CBS News, etc.) ever read Hot Air or Instapundit? And how many of them sympathize?  The typical MSM reporter sympathizes with Media Matters, DKos and Crooks & Liars. The typical MSM reporter watches Olbermann every night. The typical MSM reporter thinks Letterman’s jokes about Palin are ROTFLMAO funny.

This from the increasingly indispensable R.S.McCain who would surely agree that we conservatives, we Republicans, have a problem with the media culture.  Had another McCain recognized that problem sooner, we might well be calling himself something other than Senator today.

Does Obama Share Jimmy Carter’s Naiveté about the World?

Given the parallels between the various world and economic crises in the late 1970s and today as well as the world views of the Democratic Presidents then and now, some are wondering if it’s 1979 all over again.  Back then, we saw unrest in Iran, with mass demonstrations in the streets.  Government spending was skyrocketing with inflation looming.  Gas prices were on the uptick, with the President urging us to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  Chrysler, tin cup in hand, came to Washington begging for a federal bailout.

And the President of the United States, then as now, was blaming American policies for creating unrest among the Iranian people:

The fantasy that “moderates” within the mullah regime can be coaxed into a “grand bargain” has taken in better men than Barack Obama, but Obama doesn’t even have the excuse of not being aware of that prior history. The level of self-loathing an American has to possess to believe that the Khomeinists are a brutal, terror-supporting regime entirely because the US hasn’t been nice enough to them is pretty staggering.

Khoemeini and his heirs were and are brutal fanatics. Period, dot. They have subjugated and terrorized their own people and done their level best to kill ours for thirty years because that’s what they are and that’s what they do. The devil didn’t make them do it. There’s nothing you or I or Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush or Barack Obama ever could have said that would have changed them

Read the whole thing where Will Collier, its author, puts forward Ronald Reagan (rather than his predecessor) as an example of how an American President should react to power-hungry regimes which oppress their people.  And he’s not the only one.

So, I’m wondering, given the similarities between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter if the one Democrat shares the other’s naiveté about the ways of the world?

I think there’s something more than naiveté at play here. I think we’re seeing instead the influence of leftist academic theories, particularly those of Edward Said, and the President’s left-wing associations before he leapt onto the national stage.

Here (via Gateway) is Obama with Said:

obamasaid

Jimmy Carter was just plain naive and blind to the realities of the world.  I fear that Barack Obama really believes the hooey peddled on so many university campuses that repression abroad is just a natural reaction to American “aggression/imperialism.”

By that logic, increasing gay activism since Stonewall has fueled anti-gay bigotry and is thus responsible for hate crimes against homosexuals.

It’s time that President Obama woke up and recognize the brutal reality of some of our nation’s adversaries.

Newsom’s Strategy for Gay Cash to Fuel Gubernatorial Bid

Reading yesterday that some prominent gay donors to the Democrats were pulling out of a party fundraising dinner later this month because the President has been backtracking on promises he made to the gay community helps illuminate San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political strategy.  It becomes increasingly clear that his decision to direct city authorities to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 was a ploy to curry favor with the gay community in anticipation of a future gubernatorial bid.

And now with his rainbow “Newsom 2010,” signs, we see how it’s tapping into our community’s enthusiasm for his actions as he begins that campaign.

With these prominent gay figures pulling out of the national Democratic fundraiser, we are reminded just how generous gay people have been to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates.  While we may not be as demographically strong as some activists might claim, we are a relatively affluent community, thus a ready source of campaign cash for political candidates.

So, Newsom sought to become a folk hero among gays in order to raise money from affluent homosexuals and to seek volunteers among impassioned activists for his 2010 campaign.  And Newsom supporters were out in force at the Gay Pride festival this past weekend in Los Angeles.  His rainbow signs and stickers were ubiquitous.  Those very signs indicated his recognition of the role gay people play in California Democratic politics.

He marched with his supporters in Sunday’s parade:

img_0823

Newsom’s pandering to the gay community is a smart political strategy.  It could put him in a good position to win a potentially crowded Democratic primary.  Enthusiastic gay people are more likely to vote than other groups.

It’s not clear, however, how much this will help him in the general election.Indeed, should a proposition appear on the fall 2010 ballot to repeal Prop 8, they would energize evangelical voters–and Republicans would already be energized to vote against big-spending Democrats.  That could diminish Newsom’s chances.

Right now, the San Francisco Mayor is focused on winning his party’s gubernatorial nomination.  And he seems to be doing all the right things to tap into the financial resources of an affluent community and the energy of that community’s overly politicized activists.

Obama to Offer Benefits to Federal Employees’ Same-Sex Partners

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 9:03 am - June 17, 2009.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,Obama and Gay Issues

President Obama may be backing down on his promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), the ban on gays serving openly in the military, and he may be silent about the plight of gays in Iran, but his Administration has is about to do one thing which will benefit gay and lesbian Americans.  He will sign today a “presidential memorandum . . . extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

It’s about time.  Kudos, Mr. President.

This is part of a package of

small, quiet moves to extend benefits to gays and lesbians. The State Department has promised to give partners of gay and lesbian diplomats many benefits, such as diplomatic passports and language training.

It’s not yet entirely clearly the extent of the benefits offered and whether this will include health benefits, but it does appear to be a step–and a big one–in the right direction.  I’m wondering if there is statutory authority for the Administration to extend such benefits so am eager to see the details to be released later today.

This may not turn out to be much, but it is, at they very least, an important gesture and a commitment by the federal government to recognize same-sex relationships.

UPDATE (06/17, 5:30 EST):  I was optimistic when I first read about this before going to bed Tuesday evening, but found that there’s far less than meets the eye.  It seems that, like much which comes from this President there’s a lot of highfaluting rhetoric, but little actual substance.

Shows you when happens when you try to give certain Democrats credit.

Obama, Left All But Indifferent to Aspirations of Iranian People

If you want to know why I call blogress Jennifer Rubin aJewish Athena, just take a gander at her Pajamas piece on the American Left, the President and the protests in Iran, Don’t Iranians Deserve ‘Hope and Change’ Too? The very title tells you much of what you need to know.

Barack Obama, who promised hope and change in his successful campaign to win the White House, seems oblivious that the Iranian people could have aspirations for those very ideals.  And they are in far more dire streets than we were when he announced  his bid for the Oval Office.  And yet he has been most mealy-mouthed as they rise up against a fraudulent election, hoping for regime change.

The man eager to push the longest standing democracy in the Middle East to alter its policies on settlements doesn’t want to be the United States to be seen by the world as “meddling” in Iranian affairs.  When he got that 3 AM phone call, he voted “present.”  Hearing the President’s initial statement on the protests in Iran, Jim Lindgen struggled “against a feeling of utter disgust

I recognize that there are times in diplomacy when one has to hide one’s real feelings and to mince one’s words about evil. And I realize that it is remotely possible that this is one of those times.

Yet this is a president who mormally loves the bully pulpit. And Obama’s statements so far are about as restrained as it is possible for a president to utter without a gun actually being held to his head. One might perhaps understand a statement this mushy if Iran were America’s closest political or military ally in the world. But it’s not.

Note that even now Obama is not willing to denounce Ahmadinejad. All he is willing to say is “as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements.” Obama chooses his words carefully. He doesn’t call Ahminejad odious, nor does he call Ahmadinejad’s core beliefs odious (after all, sometimes people say loose things that don’t express their core beliefs). Nor does he say that Ahmadinejad’s statements ARE odious, just that Obama personally “considers” them odious.

Amazing that the President of the United States can’t denounce a man who wishes to wipe a sovereign nation off the map and who serves as chief executive of a regime which executes gay people on a regular basis, some so young that if they were American citizens, they wouldn’t be old enough to vote.  And with such a ruthless hegemon, Rubin sees “the Obama administration [apparently] choosing, a ruthless determination to pursue some deal, any deal (there has to be a deal, right?) with the mullahs.” (more…)